Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Chairman Bennett and Senator Kohl for their effective work on the Agriculture appropriations bill. I particularly commend Senator Kohl for his help in obtaining $422,000 for Seafood Safety in Massachusetts. I'm hopeful that two worthwhile research programs--the Safe Seafood Project at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, and the Center for Marine Phytoremediation Technologies at Northeastern University will be funded in the Fiscal Year 2004 Agriculture appropriations conference report. In recent years, the Department of Agriculture, through the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Services, has awarded grants to the University of Massachusetts, Amherst for their work on the Safe Seafood Project. The goal of this project is to provide useful, science-based recommendations to enhance the seafood industry's potential for producing safe, economically viable products. It is essential for the project to receive funding again this year in order to continue its essential work on seafood quality and health. Northeastern University is also an impressive research university on marine issues. Funding will be used by the Center for Marine Phytoremediation Technologies to develop techniques employing marine plants to eliminate pollutants that result from fish aquaculture, as well as toxic materials found in our waters, such as mercury and TNT. The Center will also establish methods for restoring seagrass habitats where they have been destroyed. We know that waste from the increasing number of fish aquaculture facilities leads to the production of harmful algae and the destruction of other marine life. If these problems continue, the fish aquaculture industry cannot be sustained, since it will cause greater risks in eating fish, and also endanger seagrass habitats, which are critical to the coastal economy of many states.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I oppose the Senate-House conference agreement on the $87 Supplemental Appropriations bill for Iraq. When the Senate voted on this legislation on October 17, I opposed it because it provided no effective conditions for genuine international participation in the reconstruction of Iraq or other important steps needed to win the peace. Our troops in Iraq are doing a remarkable job under enormously difficult circumstances, and I wholeheartedly support them. But it is an abdication of our responsibility in Congress to provide an $87 billion blank check for a failed policy. The administration needs to go back to the drawing board and adopt a new Iraq policy that is worthy of the sacrifices our soldiers are making--a policy that restores America as a respected member of the family of nations and make it easier, not far more difficult, to win the war against terrorism. The Bush administration still does not have a realistic plan for achieving security and democracy in Iraq and our soldiers are paying for it with their lives. Since the Senate originally passed this legislation 2 weeks ago, the situation in Iraq has further deteriorated. Forty-four more American soldiers have been killed, and more than 300 American soldiers have been wounded. The United Nations did approve a new resolution on Iraq that could have become the basis for genuine international support for our effort, but America still stands largely alone in Iraq. We have not modified our unilateral position, and other nations are unwilling to assist us. The United Nations has pulled all of its staff out of Baghdad, and international NGOs are leaving as well. America comprises 85 percent of the international forces on the ground, and we are providing the lion's share--nearly $20 billion--for Iraq's reconstruction. On October 23, at the international donors conference in Madrid, the administration came up short on international contributions. Of the $55 billion needed for Iraq over the next 4 years, the international community pledged only $13 billion, two-thirds of it in loans, not grants, over 5 years. Over the same period of time, the security situation has gone from bad to worse. On October 25, a rocket propelled grenade in Tikrit struck a Black Hawk helicopter, shortly after Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz left the area. On October 26, rockets seriously damaged the Al Rashid Hotel in Baghdad, where Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz was staying, killing one soldier and missing Mr. Wolfowitz by only one floor. That same day, the Deputy Mayor of Baghdad was assassinated. On October 27, coordinated attacks rocked Baghdad, targeting the headquarters of the International Committee for the Red Cross and killing 15 people. Three police stations were also attacked. On this one bloody day, 34 people were killed, including one American soldier, and another 200 were wounded. Just yesterday, a Chinook helicopter was shot down over Faluja, killing 16 American soldiers, and wounding 20 more. Meanwhile, the administration continues to claim that things are going well. Last week, President Bush claimed the attacks were a result of our successes on the ground in Iraq. In an October 29 interview, Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz said, ``Our side is winning.'' After the downing of the helicopter, Ambassador Bremer said, ``the overall security situation'' in Iraq ``is a lot better'' than when he arrived in May. Mr. President, it is clear that things are not going well in Iraq. The administration must face reality. It cannot continue to cover up its failures and try to sell its rosy version of events by repeating it with maximum frequency and volume, and minimum regard for realities on the ground. I support our men and women and uniform, but I oppose the administration's policy, and I urge the administration to devise a realistic plan for Iraq.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the nomination of Mr. Stuart Ishimaru to be a member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the Department of Labor was approved today by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and I look forward to prompt confirmation of this qualified nominee by the full Senate. Mr. Ishimaru brings a distinguished legal background and a demonstrated commitment to public service to the position. For 10 years he served as counsel to the House Judiciary and Armed Services Committees and was a counsel and deputy assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division under Attorney General Janet Reno. Through these positions he has helped enforce the great civil rights laws we have enacted over the last 50 years, from protections for the elderly, to protections for people with disabilities, to protection from discrimination in the workplace. And he has done so with a sense of fairness, compassion, and integrity that has earned him wide respect. I know he will continue his excellent work by enforcing our Nation's employment laws at the EEOC. I urge my colleagues to support this well qualified nominee to the EEOC.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I oppose the nomination of Judge Charles Pickering on his record. I want to be absolutely clear about that. Charles Pickering has a disturbing record as a U.S. district court judge that simply does not qualify him for appointment to the Fifth Circuit. He has often been hostile to plaintiffs bringing civil rights claims, he has questioned the value of important constitutional protections such as ``one-person, one-vote,'' and he has tried to restrict habeas corpus. His cases are filled with dicta and with expressions of his own personal opinion. This all calls into question his ability to enforce statutory and constitutional protections and his judicial temperament. The States of the Fifth Circuit are among the poorest in the Nation. They have a population that is 42 percent minority--the highest of any circuit. For many years, the Fifth Circuit had a critical role in the Nation's history in applying and interpreting the civil rights laws. Not long ago, the circuit was hailed for its courage in protecting the civil rights of African Americans. When Congress passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, many State and local governments in the South resisted these measures. Federal judges such as Elbert Tuttle, Frank Johnson, and John Minor Wisdom helped to make the promise of equality a reality by enforcing these landmark laws of our time. It is particularly important that a judge appointed to this court have a commitment to civil rights, to the constitutional safeguards that protect all Americans, and to the rule of law. I am disturbed by the rhetoric I have heard today that those of us who oppose this nomination are a ``lynch mob.'' This rhetoric is a profoundly cynical misuse of race and disregards the lessons that we should all have learned from history. Those who cannot tell the difference between a mob bent on murder and torture of an innocent individual solely because of the color of his skin, on the one hand, and those of us in the Senate who seek to focus on genuine issues in Judge Pickering's record, on the other hand, needs a serious history lesson. Frankly, such a comparison is not only unfair, but it does an injustice to those African Americans who suffered and died at the hands of real lynch mobs in the South, including in the State of Mississippi. This is not a lynch mob, this is reasoned debate, and it is part of our constitutional role of advice and consent to engage in such debate. Judge Pickering's troubling record on civil rights and his injection of his personal opinion can be seen in his extraordinary intervention on behalf of a cross-burning defendant. Pickering repeatedly pressured the Federal Government to drop a charge against a convicted cross- burner to avoid having the defendant serve a congressionally mandated 5-year minimum sentence. Pickering went so far as to threaten to order a new trial, and to initiate an ex parte communication with a high- ranking official of the Justice Department while the case was pending before him. Three ethics experts have written Senator Edwards stating that this conduct violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. I have spent a great deal of time thinking about this case, and I have come to the conclusion that Judge Pickering's efforts to reduce the defendant's sentence of a convicted cross-burner in United States v. Swan cannot be justified by the fact that other participants in the cross-burning received lesser sentences. The other two participants in the cross-burning pled guilty and therefore were not subject to mandatory minimum sentences. Mr. Swan was tried and found guilty of a crime that has a mandatory minimum sentence. This eliminated any sentencing discretion Judge Pickering might have had under the law. Thus, this case raises the question of whether Judge Pickering will follow the law even if he does not agree with it. Mr. Swan was an adult of average intelligence at the time of the crime. By contrast, one of the other participants was severely limited in intelligence, with an IQ of 80, and the other was a juvenile. Thus, Mr. Swan arguably bore greater responsibility for the hate crime. Finally, the materials used to build the cross, the gasoline used to douse it, the truck used to transport it, and the lighter used to ignite it all belonged to Mr. Swan.

Mr. KENNEDY. Judge Pickering has a duty to follow the law and the canons of judicial ethics whether or not he agrees with them. His failure to do so in this recent case cast doubt on whether he would do so if confirmed to the Fifth Circuit. In a letter to Senator Hatch, Judge Pickering admitted that he has departed downward from other mandatory minimum sentences only when the Sentencing Guidelines allowed an exception. I have heard some say that the fact that some black Mississippians may support Judge Pickering should be enough to have him confirmed. Many black Mississippians, including those from organizations representing thousands of African Americans in Mississippi have come out against Judge Pickering. The State's major African American Bar Association--the Magnolia Bar Association--has written a letter to the Committee opposing Judge Pickering. He is also opposed by Eugene Bryant, President of the Mississippi State Conference of the NAACP, which represents one hundred chapters of the NAACP. Democrats have not smeared Judge Pickering's reputation by examining his record. Judge Pickering has a complex legacy. On the one hand, he testified against the KKK and has spoken in favor of racial reconciliation. On the other, he has opposed civil rights laws, and the concept of ``one-person, one-vote'' under the Voting Rights Act. Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have never said that he is a racist. But the committee has to determine what sort of judge he will be, not what kind of neighbor he is or the nature of his historical legacy. His 12 years as a district court judge provide us with a clear record that he is unwilling to apply or respect the law when he disagrees with it, and I will vote against his nomination.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the nomination of Naomi Churchill-Earp to be a member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the Department of Labor was approved today by the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, despite concerns about her ability to fairly apply employment laws. Many of us in the committee have strong reservations about her record. A Commissioner of the EEOC must have a record of conduct that supports and promotes equality in the workplace. Ms. Churchill-Earp has served as an equal employment manager at a number of Federal agencies and while serving in these positions, a number of discrimination complaints have been filed against her. African Americans, in particular, say that she has created a hostile working environment by making disparaging remarks about African-American employees. The NAACP and Blacks in Government oppose her nomination, and many of us share their concerns. The committee did not hold a hearing on this important nomination, and we did not have the opportunity to question her about her qualifications and positions. Unless we have an opportunity to resolve these concerns, I intend to oppose this nomination when it reaches the full Senate.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the nomination of Robert Lerner to be Commissioner of Education Statistics in the Department of Education was approved today by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee despite concerns about this nominee's qualifications. The Commissioner of Statistics must conduct the activities of that office in a manner that is ``objective, secular, neutral and non- ideological'' and ``free of partisan political influence and racial, cultural, general or regional bias.'' The Commissioner must also have ``substantial knowledge'' of the programs assisted by the National Center for Education Statistics. Many of us feel that Dr. Lerner does not meet these requirements. He has clearly been an advocate for partisan ideological causes, and his advocacy does not seem to be compatible with a non-partisan role as Commissioner. His published writings raise questions about his ability to set aside his ideological views in dealing with statistical analysis. Previous nominees for this important position have come from academic backgrounds and with experience in dealing with statistical analysis. Dr. Lerner has no such experience or academic background. The Committee did not have a hearing on this important nomination and we did not have the opportunity to question Dr. Lerner regarding his qualifications and past advocacy. Unless we have an opportunity to resolve these concerns, I intend to oppose this nomination when it reaches the full Senate.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it should be our common purpose to guarantee the promise of a good education to all from birth through college. The strength, security, and future of our Nation lie in the education and character of our people. In recent years, on a bipartisan basis, we have been working to improve pre-school, elementary, and secondary education. We should move forward in the same bipartisan way on higher education. Last year, on a bipartisan basis, we passed the No Child Left Behind Act to raise standards for students in elementary and secondary schools to hold schools and states accountable for results. These worthwhile school reforms deserve to be well-funded, so that all public school students will have a fair chance to succeed. Last year, Senator Gregg and I also introduced a bipartisan bill to improve the quality of early childhood education in the states, and help ensure that young children begin school ready to learn. This year, in the Education Committee, again on a bipartisan basis, we have worked to strengthen the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and ensure that special needs children receive a quality education. I hope we can pass that legislation soon, to assure that the federal government meets its full obligation to children with disabilities. The next great challenge we should confront on a bipartisan basis is to ensure that every student with the talent, desire, and drive to go to college is able to afford to go to college. Education is the golden door of opportunity, but for too long, the door of higher education has been closed to many students, because of their inability to pay. Surely, we have reached a stage in America where we can say it and mean it--cost will never be a barrier to a college education. Just as Social Security is a promise of retirement security to senior citizens, just as Medicare is a promise of health security to senior citizens, so we should make ``Education Security'' a promise to every young American. If you work hard, if you finish high school, if you are admitted to a college, we should guarantee that you can afford the cost of the four years it takes to earn a degree. As we move forward on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, let us come together again on a bipartisan basis to make college affordable to all qualified students. No students should have to mortgage their future to obtain a college degree. At other times in our nation's history, we have acted boldly to extend college opportunity. In 1862, a year after the Civil War began, President Abraham Lincoln signed into law the Morrill Land Grant Colleges Act which set aside at least 90,000 acres in each Union State--30,000 acres for each of the state seats in Congress. The Act was named for Congressman Justin Morrill from Vermont, and the funds from sales of the land were to be used for public colleges and universities in the fields of engineering, agriculture, and military science. In the following years, over 70 colleges were established, and in 1890, the Morrill Act was extended to Southern and Western States. Today, over 3.5 million students are educated in public colleges and universities first created under the Morrill Act. The next great benchmark in higher education came in 1944 when President Franklin Roosevelt signed the GI Bill to help the vast number of veterans who would be returning to civilization when World War II ended. The nation embraced the transforming principles that became a cornerstone of our democracy, that the benefits of college education should be available to all in our society, not just the elite, the wealthy or the white. In less than a decade, 8 million veterans benefitted from the GI Bill, and the immense success of that bill is in no small measure the reason why the World War II generation is now called the Greatest Generation. In the half century since the GI Bill was enacted, we have made ongoing efforts to make college a reality for as many young men and women as possible. In 1972, we created what we now know as Pell Grants to make college affordable for low and middle income families. Since then, over 79 million students have attended college with the assistance of a Pell Grant, which are named for our distinguished colleague Claiborne Pell, who served as Chairman of the Senate Committee. In 1993, we created the Direct Loans to make inexpensive student loans available to college students. In the same year, we created AmeriCorps to encourage young people to serve their communities and pursue their education. Now, in this new century, in this new century, it is essential for Congress to take new steps to make the dream of a college education a reality for all. Men and women with a college degree now earn 75 percent more than those without it--a million dollars more in earnings over their lifetime. Those who use computers on the job earn 43 percent more than those who do not. Jobs requiring at least some post-secondary education are estimated to account for over 40 percent of total employment growth over the next decade. The need for a college education is greater that ever, but so is cost, and the soaring cost today is often pressing college education out of reach for qualified students. Last year, tuition and fees at four-year public colleges rose an average of 14 percent, and the year before, 10 percent. For families in the lowest quartile of income average public university costs now consume over 62 percent of their income--compared to 42 percent in the early 1970's. It is shameful that federal aid has not kept pace with rising tuition. Twenty years ago, a Pell Grant covered over 80 percent of four-year college costs. Today, it covers less than 40 percent. Twenty years ago, the typical package of student financial aid had 60 percent in grants and 40 percent in loans. Today, the ratio is reduced the typical package now has 40 percent in grants and 60 percent loans--and the grant-loan imbalance is getting worse. Each year, over a half a million high school graduates who are qualified for college do not go to college full-time, because they cannot pay the bill. The average low-income, college student has an average of $3,800 a year in college costs not covered by grants, loans, work, or family savings. Students who begin college have trouble staying in college and graduating from college. Only 48 percent of students from upper-income families graduate from college by age 24, and that figure is seven times the graduation rate of students from low-income families. Only 7 percent--7 percent--of low-income students graduate from college by age 24. Students from minority backgrounds and those who would be the first in their family to achieve a four-year college degree are 33 percent more likely to drop out of college. Only forty percent of all whites in ages of 18 to 24 attend college. Only 30 percent of African-American and only 16 percent of all Latinos are enrolled in college. Four in ten Latino college students drop out within three years of their enrollment. We cannot allow these unacceptable percentages to continue. We must do more to help students attend and finish college, and do more to help colleges train more teachers and better teachers for our public schools so that more young men and women will be able to go to college and earn their degree, and fulfill their role in the nation's future. It is a privilege today to join our Democratic colleagues on the Education Committee, in introducing the College Quality, Affordability, and Diversity Improvement Act of 2003 to improve college opportunity for qualified students. We know that too many families and students across the country are struggling to afford the cost of college and we should do all we can to help them. The bill will improve access to college in six key ways. It helps students pay for college by providing more financial aid. It slows the excessive increases in college tuition. It makes the repayment of students loan less costly. It encourages and rewards students working their way through school. It help minority and low- income students go to college and finish college. It improves the recruitment and training of public school teachers who will prepare the next generation of college students. In compliance with the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the cost of our bill is offset by eliminating windfall profits to banks that participate in the student loan program. Fulfilling a pledge of ``Education Security'' requires renewed resolve by everyone--students, families, colleges, states, and the federal government. Students should work to save money for college. Families should pay what they can afford. Colleges should commit to reducing increases in tuition. States should continue as much support as they can for students. Federal support should fill the gap that remains. Under our bill, $1,500 more in student aid will be available to hard- pressed, middle-class families and $3,800 to lower income families. We increase the maximum Pell grant by nearly $500, from $4,050 to $4,500, in order to keep pace with rising costs of tuition in public colleges; 4.8 million lower income and working class students will get larger Pell grants and 200,000 middle-class students will get Pell grants for the first time. The Act makes $3,000 in HOPE tax credit aid available to low-income families who currently do not receive this aid, in part because the tax credit is not refundable, and doubles the $1,500 HOPE scholarship tax credit that middle-class families currently receive. Over 4 million Pell grant students in families with a median income of $15,200 a year will receive the HOPE tax credit for the first time. For 3.2 million middle-income families, their tax credit will double in size. The bill increases campus-based financial aid programs such as College Work-Study and the Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants, which means $200 more in aid to needy students on average. The bill eliminates $100 in annual student taxes (also called ``origination fees'') on federal need-based loans. Over 5 million students will no longer have to pay these up-front fees for the privilege of borrowing tens of thousands of dollars. For needy families struggling to send their children to college, these changes will provide $3,800 in additional college aid each year-- $500 in increased Pell aid, $3,000 in HOPE tax benefits, $200 more in campus-based aid, and $100 in waivers of student loan fees. The rising cost of college is an increasingly serious problem for the nation. Students need more financial aid each year. Families need protection from tuition increases that year after year are in the hundreds, or even thousands of dollars. We have ignored the tuition increase problem in higher education for too long. In fact, few students actually pay ``sticker price'' tuition at private colleges, since many get a discount. At private universities, 8 out of every 10 students receives a discount from the published tuition cost, and those discounts average 40 percent of the sticker price. The sticker price of college tuition is rising for many reasons. Public colleges are dependent on state funding that has been declining with the struggling national economy. As states cut back their support for higher education, tuition rises. Colleges can reduce some costs in order to limit tuition increases, and we can help them do so. Tuition is rising in general because colleges believe that in the constant competition for students and faculty, it is necessary for each college to have the best facilities and programs. In effect, and because of this, a ``higher education arms race,'' colleges are constantly striving to be ahead of the competition. This bill rejects the price controls on college tuition that some have suggested. Instead, it creates incentives for colleges to reduce costs. It reduces regulatory costs for colleges and supports voluntary limits on cost growth. It requires states to do their part in supporting higher education. It ensures that families obtain better information about the true cost of college. And importantly, it rejects the idea of withholding federal student aid for students who attend colleges with excessive tuition costs, because doing so would hurt the neediest students. Our bill supports the creation of college consortiums that will jointly buy in bulk and share the costs of health care, libraries, faculties, and other needs, so that they achieve economies of scale. It reduces regulatory burdens on colleges. When we lower the operating costs of colleges, we make it easier for them to restrain tuition increases. The bill requires the Secretary of Education to convene a ``higher education arms control'' summit. Groups of competing colleges will be convened by the Secretary to negotiate limits on future growth in tuition. The Secretary will be given the authority to waive anti-trust protections, when the waiver is needed to achieve reduced tuition growth. States and colleges must do their part to make college affordable. The bill insists that states must not treat college students like piggy banks to balance state budgets. The bill offers a new partnership to States, under which additional federal resources will be available to states that invest in higher education. States that dramatically cut higher education will be limited to current levels of aid. Finally, our bill requires schools to publish their true tuition: the extent and average amount of discounts offered to students. Families should know how much school really will cost and how possible it is to bargain for the best deal. No matter what we do on grants and college costs, loans will continue to be a large part of college aid, but that debt should not be excessive. Today, the average debt on student loans is $17,000, but it can exceed $100,000 for graduate students and professional students. This bill makes it easier to repay student loan debt or work it off. It creates a new refinancing option for borrowers now saddled with consolidated loans at high interest rates. It saves taxpayers money by rewarding student and school participation in the Direct Loan program. The Act converts the current tax deduction for interest tax on student loans into a tax credit. This bipartisan proposal of Senator Snowe and Senator Schumer will provide low-income graduates with up to $1,500 in reimbursement for interest in student loans. To encourage public service, the Act forgives the debt on Direct Loans for remaining after ten years for students in certain public sector jobs. Currently, student loan debt is often so large that it prevents students from accepting public interest jobs and forces them to look for higher paying jobs in the private sector. The bill rewards those who choose lower paying public interest jobs in sectors where the need is great, such as public safety, law enforcement, teaching, and public interest legal services. In addition, the Act enables all college graduates to refinance their student loans, just as their families would refinance a home mortgage. Under current law, graduates who make payments on multiple variable interest rate student loans can consolidate their loans today into a single fixed rate loan at the relatively low interest rate of 3.42 percent. But over 5 million borrowers consolidated their student loans years ago at higher interest rates. The bill enables them to refinance that consolidated loan at today's prevailing interest rate. The availability of new Refinanced Direct Loans will dramatically reduce student loan repayment for millions of college graduates. A middle-class borrower, for example, with $60,000 in student loan debt at 7 percent interest will save $1,200 a year, or more than $10,000 over the life of the loan, if they refinance under this proposal. Further, the bill rewards schools and students that save taxpayers money by participating in the federal Direct Loan program. For every dollar borrowed through the Direct Loan program instead of the traditional private FFEL program, taxpayers save approximately fourteen cents. Our bill offers schools that participate in the Direct Loan program a percentage of the federal savings earmarked for student aid. Taxpayers will save money and students will receive more financial aid, as a result of this ``Direct Loan Reward Program.'' It's a win-win proposal. In light of the growing need today, current law imposes too heavy a penalty on students who work their way through college. Their financial aid is reduced by 50 cents for every after-tax dollar they earn. This bill exempts from penalty the first $9,000 earned by traditional college students and the first $18,000 earned by adults attending college. Those students who work to support their college education deserve this additional assistance. This bill includes a series of proposals to enable larger numbers of minority first-generation college students to go to college and graduate from college. Our national commitment to diversity in college education has been re-affirmed earlier this year by the Supreme Court. A major part of that commitment is preparing all young persons to approach the doors of higher education, making sure the gates are fully and fairly open to them, helping students to pay the costs, and enabling them to stay in college and graduate from college. The Act increases funding for the successful TRIO and GEAR UP programs that provide information and counseling about college preparation, financial aid, and admissions. It increases the access of low-income students to college preparation and tutoring programs for the Scholastic Achievement Test and American College Test that have been proven to be effective. In addition, it assists students in making well-informed decisions on college applications and enrollments, encourages colleges to act on their own to modify policies that make it more difficult for already disadvantaged students to apply or enroll. The Act supports partnerships between community colleges and four- year colleges, and it encourages them to provide targeted assistance in the form of tutoring, financial aid, child care, counseling, mentoring, and innovative course schedules, all with the goal of improving the admission, retention and graduation rates of low-income students, and non-traditional students. Increased funding will be available for Hispanic-Serving Institutions and Historically Black Colleges and Universities. These colleges are the source of an extraordinary proportion of minority graduates from college and they deserve greater support. The federal government must do its part in strengthening further diversity in higher education and colleges and individual students must do their part as well. Diversity is our nation's strength, and all of us have an obligation to support it. The Act includes a series of initiatives to help recruit and retain high-quality teachers for the nation's public schools. A fundamental aspect of preparing students for college means making sure they have a good teacher in every classroom. The shortage of such teachers is increasingly severe. America will need more than 2 million new teachers in the next decade. Today, approximately one in every three teachers leaves teaching within the first three years, and almost half leave within the first five years. The No Child Left Behind Act has set a goal of a highly-qualified teacher in every classroom by 2006. Clearly, it is time for the nation to make teacher training a priority. The Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998 included a new title II program to respond to the teacher shortage. The Act scales up the current title II ``pilot program'' and strengthens and expands it, so that every State will receive funds every year, in order to assure that as many children as possible are taught by highly qualified teachers. The Act authorizes additional for State Grants and Partnership Grants, with the goal of establishing formula grants for every State. We need to train teachers more effectively, attract more men and women to the field of teaching, and encourage them to continue in the field. These grants will improve preparation, recruitment, and retention of teachers, and help States and schools put a highly qualified teacher in every classroom. By increasing the accountability of teacher preparation programs, the Act strengthens teacher preparation courses, so that teachers will have the skills and support they need to succeed in the classroom. The bill creates a new national database to provide accurate information on the quality of these preparation programs. In addition, the Act establishes innovative programs to attract and retain teachers. A mentoring program will help train new teachers and provide professional assistance from more experienced teachers. A new home-ownership program will provide teachers in high-need districts with funds to afford the purchase of a home. A separate initiative will develop links between community colleges and four-year colleges in teacher preparation programs, and help train teacher aides in high-need communities to become teachers. The Act also helps attract teachers to high-need areas in high-demand subjects, by increasing the amount of student loan forgiveness from $5,000 to $15,000, for teachers who teach math, science, special education, bilingual education, or early education in these areas. Good teachers in our schools are essential for preparing students to enter college. We must do all we can to support them and give them the training necessary to enable all students to achieve. In total dollars, the size of this legislation is approximately $15 billion a year. For a sense of context, I would note that we have just approved an $87 billion package for Iraq, have a $786 billion annual discretionary budget, and a $2.3 trillion annual mandatory and discretionary budget. This legislation is comparatively small. There are three types of cost included. First, there are the tax provisions that total approximately $9.2 billion a year--the same size as the President's tax breaks on dividend and capital gain income. We should replace those dividend and capital gains cuts for the very wealthy instead with the education tax benefits included in this legislation for families trying to pay for college. Second, there are about $1.3 billion in annual changes to the student loan program for which this legislation fully pays. The bill eliminates windfall profits to lenders in the loan program in order to pay fully for the elimination student loan origination fees and to enable borrowers out of school to refinance their consolidated loans. In particular, this bill closes a loophole in the student loan program whereby taxpayers subsidize a small minority of lenders to the tune of over $400 million a year in order to assure them a 9.5 percent rate of return. 9.5 percent is too much in today's interest rate environment. All lenders should receive the same guaranteed market rate of return for participating in the student loan program and no more. Finally, the legislation includes approximately $4.5 billion in annual increases in discretionary education spending. That amount equals one half of one percent of the discretionary budget and is the same amount that education funding increased last year. It is a modest proposal, frankly. In the past, higher education policy helped the poor and the middle class together. In recent years, though, we have developed separate approaches for these two groups--grants for the poor, and tax benefits for the middle class. The median family income of recipients of Pell grants is $15,000 a year. The HOPE Scholarship tax credit is available only to families with more than $40,000 in income. Because of the high cost of higher education for everyone, and because each student's own interest in a college education is also in our common interest, this bill will help both hard-pressed low-income and hard-pressed middle income families to send their children to college and prepare them for the future. Our bill has the support of a variety of national groups: the United States Students' Association, the United States Public Interest Research Group, the Direct Loan Coalition, the National Council for Community and Education Partnerships, the Council for Opportunity in Education, the College Migrant Association, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, and Kaplan, Inc. Quality, affordability, and diversity--these are the focus of this act because these are the three great challenges we face today in higher education policy and each closely related to the others. Together, we can meet these new challenges in this new century and make the promise of Education Security a reality not just a reality for some of our citizens but a reality for all of our citizens. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it should be our common purpose to guarantee the promise of a good education to all from birth through college. The strength, security, and future of our Nation lie in the education and character of our people. In recent years, on a bipartisan basis, we have been working to improve pre-school, elementary, and secondary education. We should move forward in the same bipartisan way on higher education. Last year, on a bipartisan basis, we passed the No Child Left Behind Act to raise standards for students in elementary and secondary schools to hold schools and states accountable for results. These worthwhile school reforms deserve to be well-funded, so that all public school students will have a fair chance to succeed. Last year, Senator Gregg and I also introduced a bipartisan bill to improve the quality of early childhood education in the states, and help ensure that young children begin school ready to learn. This year, in the Education Committee, again on a bipartisan basis, we have worked to strengthen the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and ensure that special needs children receive a quality education. I hope we can pass that legislation soon, to assure that the federal government meets its full obligation to children with disabilities. The next great challenge we should confront on a bipartisan basis is to ensure that every student with the talent, desire, and drive to go to college is able to afford to go to college. Education is the golden door of opportunity, but for too long, the door of higher education has been closed to many students, because of their inability to pay. Surely, we have reached a stage in America where we can say it and mean it--cost will never be a barrier to a college education. Just as Social Security is a promise of retirement security to senior citizens, just as Medicare is a promise of health security to senior citizens, so we should make ``Education Security'' a promise to every young American. If you work hard, if you finish high school, if you are admitted to a college, we should guarantee that you can afford the cost of the four years it takes to earn a degree. As we move forward on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, let us come together again on a bipartisan basis to make college affordable to all qualified students. No students should have to mortgage their future to obtain a college degree. At other times in our nation's history, we have acted boldly to extend college opportunity. In 1862, a year after the Civil War began, President Abraham Lincoln signed into law the Morrill Land Grant Colleges Act which set aside at least 90,000 acres in each Union State--30,000 acres for each of the state seats in Congress. The Act was named for Congressman Justin Morrill from Vermont, and the funds from sales of the land were to be used for public colleges and universities in the fields of engineering, agriculture, and military science. In the following years, over 70 colleges were established, and in 1890, the Morrill Act was extended to Southern and Western States. Today, over 3.5 million students are educated in public colleges and universities first created under the Morrill Act. The next great benchmark in higher education came in 1944 when President Franklin Roosevelt signed the GI Bill to help the vast number of veterans who would be returning to civilization when World War II ended. The nation embraced the transforming principles that became a cornerstone of our democracy, that the benefits of college education should be available to all in our society, not just the elite, the wealthy or the white. In less than a decade, 8 million veterans benefitted from the GI Bill, and the immense success of that bill is in no small measure the reason why the World War II generation is now called the Greatest Generation. In the half century since the GI Bill was enacted, we have made ongoing efforts to make college a reality for as many young men and women as possible. In 1972, we created what we now know as Pell Grants to make college affordable for low and middle income families. Since then, over 79 million students have attended college with the assistance of a Pell Grant, which are named for our distinguished colleague Claiborne Pell, who served as Chairman of the Senate Committee. In 1993, we created the Direct Loans to make inexpensive student loans available to college students. In the same year, we created AmeriCorps to encourage young people to serve their communities and pursue their education. Now, in this new century, in this new century, it is essential for Congress to take new steps to make the dream of a college education a reality for all. Men and women with a college degree now earn 75 percent more than those without it--a million dollars more in earnings over their lifetime. Those who use computers on the job earn 43 percent more than those who do not. Jobs requiring at least some post-secondary education are estimated to account for over 40 percent of total employment growth over the next decade. The need for a college education is greater that ever, but so is cost, and the soaring cost today is often pressing college education out of reach for qualified students. Last year, tuition and fees at four-year public colleges rose an average of 14 percent, and the year before, 10 percent. For families in the lowest quartile of income average public university costs now consume over 62 percent of their income--compared to 42 percent in the early 1970's. It is shameful that federal aid has not kept pace with rising tuition. Twenty years ago, a Pell Grant covered over 80 percent of four-year college costs. Today, it covers less than 40 percent. Twenty years ago, the typical package of student financial aid had 60 percent in grants and 40 percent in loans. Today, the ratio is reduced the typical package now has 40 percent in grants and 60 percent loans--and the grant-loan imbalance is getting worse. Each year, over a half a million high school graduates who are qualified for college do not go to college full-time, because they cannot pay the bill. The average low-income, college student has an average of $3,800 a year in college costs not covered by grants, loans, work, or family savings. Students who begin college have trouble staying in college and graduating from college. Only 48 percent of students from upper-income families graduate from college by age 24, and that figure is seven times the graduation rate of students from low-income families. Only 7 percent--7 percent--of low-income students graduate from college by age 24. Students from minority backgrounds and those who would be the first in their family to achieve a four-year college degree are 33 percent more likely to drop out of college. Only forty percent of all whites in ages of 18 to 24 attend college. Only 30 percent of African-American and only 16 percent of all Latinos are enrolled in college. Four in ten Latino college students drop out within three years of their enrollment. We cannot allow these unacceptable percentages to continue. We must do more to help students attend and finish college, and do more to help colleges train more teachers and better teachers for our public schools so that more young men and women will be able to go to college and earn their degree, and fulfill their role in the nation's future. It is a privilege today to join our Democratic colleagues on the Education Committee, in introducing the College Quality, Affordability, and Diversity Improvement Act of 2003 to improve college opportunity for qualified students. We know that too many families and students across the country are struggling to afford the cost of college and we should do all we can to help them. The bill will improve access to college in six key ways. It helps students pay for college by providing more financial aid. It slows the excessive increases in college tuition. It makes the repayment of students loan less costly. It encourages and rewards students working their way through school. It help minority and low- income students go to college and finish college. It improves the recruitment and training of public school teachers who will prepare the next generation of college students. In compliance with the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the cost of our bill is offset by eliminating windfall profits to banks that participate in the student loan program. Fulfilling a pledge of ``Education Security'' requires renewed resolve by everyone--students, families, colleges, states, and the federal government. Students should work to save money for college. Families should pay what they can afford. Colleges should commit to reducing increases in tuition. States should continue as much support as they can for students. Federal support should fill the gap that remains. Under our bill, $1,500 more in student aid will be available to hard- pressed, middle-class families and $3,800 to lower income families. We increase the maximum Pell grant by nearly $500, from $4,050 to $4,500, in order to keep pace with rising costs of tuition in public colleges; 4.8 million lower income and working class students will get larger Pell grants and 200,000 middle-class students will get Pell grants for the first time. The Act makes $3,000 in HOPE tax credit aid available to low-income families who currently do not receive this aid, in part because the tax credit is not refundable, and doubles the $1,500 HOPE scholarship tax credit that middle-class families currently receive. Over 4 million Pell grant students in families with a median income of $15,200 a year will receive the HOPE tax credit for the first time. For 3.2 million middle-income families, their tax credit will double in size. The bill increases campus-based financial aid programs such as College Work-Study and the Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants, which means $200 more in aid to needy students on average. The bill eliminates $100 in annual student taxes (also called ``origination fees'') on federal need-based loans. Over 5 million students will no longer have to pay these up-front fees for the privilege of borrowing tens of thousands of dollars. For needy families struggling to send their children to college, these changes will provide $3,800 in additional college aid each year-- $500 in increased Pell aid, $3,000 in HOPE tax benefits, $200 more in campus-based aid, and $100 in waivers of student loan fees. The rising cost of college is an increasingly serious problem for the nation. Students need more financial aid each year. Families need protection from tuition increases that year after year are in the hundreds, or even thousands of dollars. We have ignored the tuition increase problem in higher education for too long. In fact, few students actually pay ``sticker price'' tuition at private colleges, since many get a discount. At private universities, 8 out of every 10 students receives a discount from the published tuition cost, and those discounts average 40 percent of the sticker price. The sticker price of college tuition is rising for many reasons. Public colleges are dependent on state funding that has been declining with the struggling national economy. As states cut back their support for higher education, tuition rises. Colleges can reduce some costs in order to limit tuition increases, and we can help them do so. Tuition is rising in general because colleges believe that in the constant competition for students and faculty, it is necessary for each college to have the best facilities and programs. In effect, and because of this, a ``higher education arms race,'' colleges are constantly striving to be ahead of the competition. This bill rejects the price controls on college tuition that some have suggested. Instead, it creates incentives for colleges to reduce costs. It reduces regulatory costs for colleges and supports voluntary limits on cost growth. It requires states to do their part in supporting higher education. It ensures that families obtain better information about the true cost of college. And importantly, it rejects the idea of withholding federal student aid for students who attend colleges with excessive tuition costs, because doing so would hurt the neediest students. Our bill supports the creation of college consortiums that will jointly buy in bulk and share the costs of health care, libraries, faculties, and other needs, so that they achieve economies of scale. It reduces regulatory burdens on colleges. When we lower the operating costs of colleges, we make it easier for them to restrain tuition increases. The bill requires the Secretary of Education to convene a ``higher education arms control'' summit. Groups of competing colleges will be convened by the Secretary to negotiate limits on future growth in tuition. The Secretary will be given the authority to waive anti-trust protections, when the waiver is needed to achieve reduced tuition growth. States and colleges must do their part to make college affordable. The bill insists that states must not treat college students like piggy banks to balance state budgets. The bill offers a new partnership to States, under which additional federal resources will be available to states that invest in higher education. States that dramatically cut higher education will be limited to current levels of aid. Finally, our bill requires schools to publish their true tuition: the extent and average amount of discounts offered to students. Families should know how much school really will cost and how possible it is to bargain for the best deal. No matter what we do on grants and college costs, loans will continue to be a large part of college aid, but that debt should not be excessive. Today, the average debt on student loans is $17,000, but it can exceed $100,000 for graduate students and professional students. This bill makes it easier to repay student loan debt or work it off. It creates a new refinancing option for borrowers now saddled with consolidated loans at high interest rates. It saves taxpayers money by rewarding student and school participation in the Direct Loan program. The Act converts the current tax deduction for interest tax on student loans into a tax credit. This bipartisan proposal of Senator Snowe and Senator Schumer will provide low-income graduates with up to $1,500 in reimbursement for interest in student loans. To encourage public service, the Act forgives the debt on Direct Loans for remaining after ten years for students in certain public sector jobs. Currently, student loan debt is often so large that it prevents students from accepting public interest jobs and forces them to look for higher paying jobs in the private sector. The bill rewards those who choose lower paying public interest jobs in sectors where the need is great, such as public safety, law enforcement, teaching, and public interest legal services. In addition, the Act enables all college graduates to refinance their student loans, just as their families would refinance a home mortgage. Under current law, graduates who make payments on multiple variable interest rate student loans can consolidate their loans today into a single fixed rate loan at the relatively low interest rate of 3.42 percent. But over 5 million borrowers consolidated their student loans years ago at higher interest rates. The bill enables them to refinance that consolidated loan at today's prevailing interest rate. The availability of new Refinanced Direct Loans will dramatically reduce student loan repayment for millions of college graduates. A middle-class borrower, for example, with $60,000 in student loan debt at 7 percent interest will save $1,200 a year, or more than $10,000 over the life of the loan, if they refinance under this proposal. Further, the bill rewards schools and students that save taxpayers money by participating in the federal Direct Loan program. For every dollar borrowed through the Direct Loan program instead of the traditional private FFEL program, taxpayers save approximately fourteen cents. Our bill offers schools that participate in the Direct Loan program a percentage of the federal savings earmarked for student aid. Taxpayers will save money and students will receive more financial aid, as a result of this ``Direct Loan Reward Program.'' It's a win-win proposal. In light of the growing need today, current law imposes too heavy a penalty on students who work their way through college. Their financial aid is reduced by 50 cents for every after-tax dollar they earn. This bill exempts from penalty the first $9,000 earned by traditional college students and the first $18,000 earned by adults attending college. Those students who work to support their college education deserve this additional assistance. This bill includes a series of proposals to enable larger numbers of minority first-generation college students to go to college and graduate from college. Our national commitment to diversity in college education has been re-affirmed earlier this year by the Supreme Court. A major part of that commitment is preparing all young persons to approach the doors of higher education, making sure the gates are fully and fairly open to them, helping students to pay the costs, and enabling them to stay in college and graduate from college. The Act increases funding for the successful TRIO and GEAR UP programs that provide information and counseling about college preparation, financial aid, and admissions. It increases the access of low-income students to college preparation and tutoring programs for the Scholastic Achievement Test and American College Test that have been proven to be effective. In addition, it assists students in making well-informed decisions on college applications and enrollments, encourages colleges to act on their own to modify policies that make it more difficult for already disadvantaged students to apply or enroll. The Act supports partnerships between community colleges and four- year colleges, and it encourages them to provide targeted assistance in the form of tutoring, financial aid, child care, counseling, mentoring, and innovative course schedules, all with the goal of improving the admission, retention and graduation rates of low-income students, and non-traditional students. Increased funding will be available for Hispanic-Serving Institutions and Historically Black Colleges and Universities. These colleges are the source of an extraordinary proportion of minority graduates from college and they deserve greater support. The federal government must do its part in strengthening further diversity in higher education and colleges and individual students must do their part as well. Diversity is our nation's strength, and all of us have an obligation to support it. The Act includes a series of initiatives to help recruit and retain high-quality teachers for the nation's public schools. A fundamental aspect of preparing students for college means making sure they have a good teacher in every classroom. The shortage of such teachers is increasingly severe. America will need more than 2 million new teachers in the next decade. Today, approximately one in every three teachers leaves teaching within the first three years, and almost half leave within the first five years. The No Child Left Behind Act has set a goal of a highly-qualified teacher in every classroom by 2006. Clearly, it is time for the nation to make teacher training a priority. The Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998 included a new title II program to respond to the teacher shortage. The Act scales up the current title II ``pilot program'' and strengthens and expands it, so that every State will receive funds every year, in order to assure that as many children as possible are taught by highly qualified teachers. The Act authorizes additional for State Grants and Partnership Grants, with the goal of establishing formula grants for every State. We need to train teachers more effectively, attract more men and women to the field of teaching, and encourage them to continue in the field. These grants will improve preparation, recruitment, and retention of teachers, and help States and schools put a highly qualified teacher in every classroom. By increasing the accountability of teacher preparation programs, the Act strengthens teacher preparation courses, so that teachers will have the skills and support they need to succeed in the classroom. The bill creates a new national database to provide accurate information on the quality of these preparation programs. In addition, the Act establishes innovative programs to attract and retain teachers. A mentoring program will help train new teachers and provide professional assistance from more experienced teachers. A new home-ownership program will provide teachers in high-need districts with funds to afford the purchase of a home. A separate initiative will develop links between community colleges and four-year colleges in teacher preparation programs, and help train teacher aides in high-need communities to become teachers. The Act also helps attract teachers to high-need areas in high-demand subjects, by increasing the amount of student loan forgiveness from $5,000 to $15,000, for teachers who teach math, science, special education, bilingual education, or early education in these areas. Good teachers in our schools are essential for preparing students to enter college. We must do all we can to support them and give them the training necessary to enable all students to achieve. In total dollars, the size of this legislation is approximately $15 billion a year. For a sense of context, I would note that we have just approved an $87 billion package for Iraq, have a $786 billion annual discretionary budget, and a $2.3 trillion annual mandatory and discretionary budget. This legislation is comparatively small. There are three types of cost included. First, there are the tax provisions that total approximately $9.2 billion a year--the same size as the President's tax breaks on dividend and capital gain income. We should replace those dividend and capital gains cuts for the very wealthy instead with the education tax benefits included in this legislation for families trying to pay for college. Second, there are about $1.3 billion in annual changes to the student loan program for which this legislation fully pays. The bill eliminates windfall profits to lenders in the loan program in order to pay fully for the elimination student loan origination fees and to enable borrowers out of school to refinance their consolidated loans. In particular, this bill closes a loophole in the student loan program whereby taxpayers subsidize a small minority of lenders to the tune of over $400 million a year in order to assure them a 9.5 percent rate of return. 9.5 percent is too much in today's interest rate environment. All lenders should receive the same guaranteed market rate of return for participating in the student loan program and no more. Finally, the legislation includes approximately $4.5 billion in annual increases in discretionary education spending. That amount equals one half of one percent of the discretionary budget and is the same amount that education funding increased last year. It is a modest proposal, frankly. In the past, higher education policy helped the poor and the middle class together. In recent years, though, we have developed separate approaches for these two groups--grants for the poor, and tax benefits for the middle class. The median family income of recipients of Pell grants is $15,000 a year. The HOPE Scholarship tax credit is available only to families with more than $40,000 in income. Because of the high cost of higher education for everyone, and because each student's own interest in a college education is also in our common interest, this bill will help both hard-pressed low-income and hard-pressed middle income families to send their children to college and prepare them for the future. Our bill has the support of a variety of national groups: the United States Students' Association, the United States Public Interest Research Group, the Direct Loan Coalition, the National Council for Community and Education Partnerships, the Council for Opportunity in Education, the College Migrant Association, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, and Kaplan, Inc. Quality, affordability, and diversity--these are the focus of this act because these are the three great challenges we face today in higher education policy and each closely related to the others. Together, we can meet these new challenges in this new century and make the promise of Education Security a reality not just a reality for some of our citizens but a reality for all of our citizens. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate it. I will be prepared to address the Senate in a minute. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand, the amendment before the Senate is the State Department reauthorization legislation. I commend the Senator from Indiana and the Senator from Delaware for fashioning the reauthorization. It has not been done for a number of years, and I am very strong in support of that proposal. If the amendment of the Senator from Indiana is effective, we will lose the opportunity to have at least considered one of the very important amendments to the State Department reauthorization which dealt with hate crimes. I think it is entirely appropriate we have an opportunity to address the hate crimes issue on the State Department reauthorization because the State Department reauthorization obviously is dealing with foreign policy issues, and the origin of hate crimes is domestic terrorism. We have seen in recent times the growth of hate crimes in the United States. It is of significant importance. Hate crimes are not just crimes against an individual; they are crimes against a group in our society. They do not just do damage to an individual; they do something to our whole sense of community. That is why they are so treacherous. That is why they are so heinous. That is why they are so wrong. We have seen the hate crimes that have taken place on the basis of race, and on the basis gender, and the basis of sexual orientation. Particularly the time of the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of Matthew Shephard, whose death in Wyoming was tragic. He had studied overseas and was fluent in Arabic and German before joining the Federal service. Mr. President, crimes motivated by hate because of the victim's race, religion, sex, ethnic background, and disability are not confined to geographical boundaries of our great Nation. The current conflicts in the Middle East, the ethnic cleansing campaigns in Bosnia, Rwanda or the Holocaust itself demonstrate that violence motivated by hate is a worldwide danger. We have a special responsibility to combat it here at home. Since the September 11th attacks, we have seen a shameful increase in the number of hate crimes committed against Muslim Americans, Sikh Americans, and Americans of Middle Eastern descent. Congress has done much to respond to the vicious attacks on September 11. We authorized the use of force against terrorists and those who harbor them in other lands. We have enacted legislation to provide aid to victims and their families, to strengthen airport security, to improve security of our borders, to strengthen our defenses against bioterrorism, and to give law enforcement and intelligence officers enhanced powers to investigate and prevent terrorism. But the one thing we have not done is to try to deal with the hate crimes issue. We are prepared to vote on that. We are interested in half an hour time limitation, but we are told people have holds on that legislation. Members will refuse to let the Senate consider this legislation. I have indicated to the Senator from Indiana that I am prepared to permit and support the State Department reauthorization, but at least give us some opportunity to vote on hate crimes as a clean bill with a short time limit. We will take next week or the week after. We will even take a date in January or February of next year, but give us an opportunity to vote on hate crimes. The other side says no--not the Senator from Indiana--but the other side says no. So we are in a situation that says, well, let's circumvent or at least use the rules in such a way that will say we have two-thirds of the Senate that will permit him to use this reauthorization and effectively deny the Senate the opportunity to address the hate crimes issue. I don't fault the Senator from Indiana, but if this goes on, I am going to be there on the next amendment offering the hate crimes bill. Make no mistake about it. Make no mistake about it. We will have the opportunity and the time to take this up. I might mention there are some other issues as well, including the issue of the minimum wage. Here we just increased our own salaries by $3,400 and we have not been given an opportunity to increase the minimum wage by 75 cents an hour for 2 years. We are denied that opportunity. We are excluded from that. We had that as an amendment to the State Department authorization and we were told we cannot have an hour to debate that. Meanwhile, we see what is happening to the people at the lowest end of the economic ladder, primarily women. Regarding the minimum wage, it is a women's issue because a majority of those receiving the minimum wage are women. It is a children's issue because one-third of the women who receive the minimum wage have children. It is a civil rights issue because a disproportionate number of the men and women who receive the minimum wage are men and women of color. And it is a fairness issue. In this country of ours, people who work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks, ought to have a living wage. But we are denied that opportunity. What is it about our Republican friends that they refuse to permit the Senate to go on record on these issues? Now we are asked, let's have an exception. If we have an exception to this, we should face up to minimum wage, to hate crimes, and other issues. Fair is fair. I am for this legislation. It is up to the majority to set the agenda and give us an opportunity to vote on these issues and not deny a vote in the Senate in terms of hate crimes and minimum wage. They say no, no way, you are not going to get your opportunity. I hope this amendment will not be accepted. I hope we can work this out with the majority leader. We have tried, we have tried, we have tried, and we have tried, but to no avail. Since it is of no avail and we do not have cooperation, there will be no alternative for me other than to offer the amendment. I withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the hate crimes bill be considered as original text before March 15 on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. KENNEDY. I make a similar request in terms of the minimum wage before March 15 of next year.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, Paul Wellstone was an extraordinary leader with a common touch. His dedication to the well-being of average Americans was unparalleled in Congress. He believed that all of our citizens, no matter how humble their beginnings or difficult their plight, had an equal right to happy, healthy, and full lives. There was no issue more dear to his heart than ensuring access to health care for people with mental illness. He spent so much of his time here in the Senate working to improve the care and treatment they receive. For them, Paul Wellstone was their champion, their Senator. And in the Senate, Paul was our conscience, our guiding light. Paul worked with Senator Pete Domenici on legislation to end the shameful discrimination in our society against mental illness. After Senator Wellstone's tragic death one year ago, Senator Domenici has continued with great diligence to urge the Senate to act. But the bill, the Senator Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act, is still being held hostage by the insurance industry and their allies. We know that large numbers of Americans across the country with mental illness constantly face stigma and misunderstanding because of their illness. Even worse, they are often denied the treatment that can cure or relieve their debilitating conditions because they are victims of discrimination too. It is unacceptable that we continue to tolerate actions by insurance companies that deny medical care for mental illness, even though the same insurers readily cover treatment for physical illnesses that are more costly, less debilitating, and less curable. Mental illnesses are often treatable and curable, and it's time to end the widespread discrimination against them. Equal treatment of the mentally ill is not just an insurance issue. It is a civil rights issue, too. Mental health parity is an issue of simple justice. The need for action is clear. One in five Americans will suffer some form of mental illness this year--but only a third will receive treatment. According to a report of the Surgeon General, at least 4 million children suffer from a mental illness that results in significant impairments at home, at school, and with other children. Families must often make impossible choices about how to pay for the care their child needs to live a normal life. It is tragic when a child is diagnosed with any illness. It is heart wrenching for parents to watch their children suffer. The tragedy is even greater when insurance companies deny treatment for a child solely because the illness is a mental illness. It's wrong for insurance companies to apply modern medicine to physical diseases, but leave mental health in the dark ages. Earlier this year, we received petitions signed by 30,000 young people asking Congress to provide affordable coverage for mental health treatment. The petitions were signed at concerts held across the country to raise awareness for suicide prevention. It is long past time to end insurance discrimination, and guarantee all those with mental illness the coverage they deserve. The American people should not have to wait any longer. Paul's committed family members should not have to wait any longer. The Senate should not continue to delay action on this bill. It is time to pass it, and bring first class medicine to millions of Americans who have been second class patients for too long.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator from Alabama. In the time agreement that they have, I will be glad to yield and cooperate. I rise to bring to the attention of my colleagues the result of the existing OMB outsourcing proposals which have really had a very adverse impact on one of the great institutions of our Government, which is the National Institutes of Health. I will relate to that in just a moment. I commend Senator Mikulski, Senator Landrieu, Senator Sarbanes, and others who have raised this issue. I am mindful at this time that one out of every four of those who serve in the Federal Government are veterans. More than 11,000 of our activated reservists are now on active duty over in Iraq. I am very mindful, having watched the agencies over a period of time, that there is some opportunity to get greater efficiency and better productivity. Excellence is demanded by many of the agencies, as well as expertise which so many of our Federal employees bring to these agencies. We are a very gifted and fortunate Nation. The case that comes to mind and pops right out is just a recent example of these current regulations and what it is doing at the National Institutes of Health. NIH is the premier, the gold watch, in terms of basic research all over the world. They are the envy of the world at the NIH. We constantly are facing different challenges of getting the youngest, most talented, most creative, most innovative, most committed, and most hard-working researchers in the world to go to the NIH. We have had Dr. Zerhouni, who has appeared before our HELP Committee, with Dr. Varmus and others talking about the new paths and opportunities that are out there in terms of the NIH, which are enormously exciting and challenging. Then, what happened later this last spring? Well, there was a challenge that involved some 677 employees who were grant managers. Grant managers are the ones who review the various research possibilities that are being collected. In many instances, they have the most sensitive kinds of jobs at the NIH because we know that only about 30 to 35 percent of all of the qualified applications actually get funded. We are actually going to see a reduction this year, at a time when we have the greatest opportunities in any time in the history of the world for breakthroughs in all kinds of drugs that affect families, whether talking about cancer, about heart, or Alzheimer's. We would empty the nursing homes in this country if we had a breakthrough as a result of trying to find a prescription drug for Alzheimer's. The grant managers are the ones who help make the judgments and the decisions in terms of prioritizing these various grants which are really the heart of the NIH programs, and they were challenged. We had some 677 employees working for a period of weeks because the estimate that was given by OMB was that this would result in significant savings. The employees got together, they made an application, and they won the contract. They won it hands down. And it cost them $7 million. Overall, competitions at NIH will exceed $15 million. Not only that, but the signal that it sent on through this blue ribbon agency--sure, there may be important changes that ought to be made out at the NIH; sure there may be different changes in terms of direction and what they ought to be doing on clinical trials; sure there could be better utilization of different kinds of reviews, but the fact that we are going to fine the agency which has this degree of expertise and can make the difference in terms of people's lives, being subjected to this, what I think is effectively, harassment. As I understand the amendment of the Senator from Maryland, it is to assure that we are going to find a common playing field, and the basic rules for competition will be the standards which have been reviewed and recommended and are not the ones which have been embraced by this administration. I know others have pointed this out. But when we see that, we are going to have competition between some contractors who are not providing the kind of protections or benefits, health benefits, when we know the benefits that exist under the Federal contractors, so that they will be able to continue the slide, in terms of meaning that more and more people are going to lose their benefits, when we find out effectively there is no opportunity for appealing the decision, not for the Federal employees, although there are appeal decisions available to contractors, when we look at the no review and following the cost and the quality of the work performed by the contractors, we have seen time in and time out--and all of us have these examples in our own States-- where people bid in and they bid in cheap, they try to add onto the costs of various proposals, which then results in the work not being done, and too often the Federal Government gets stuck holding the bag. The kinds of unfair competitions which have been reviewed to date, in terms of current conditions, I find so compelling and so unfair. What the Mikulski amendment will ensure is that we are really going to have a system that will be respected, that will be supported by those in all agencies as well as the private sector, and as a result of which we will be able to ensure greater productivity and the savings of taxpayers' money. That is the way to go, not the skewed way which is currently, I think, working to the great disadvantage of hard-working, skilled, dedicated, and committed Americans who are doing a job. Whether they are trying to work out in the immigration process with all the implications that has in homeland security, whether they are border guards trying to guard our borders, whether they are in the Customs Service and dealing with all the challenges they are facing out there, day in and day out--people who join those services need to be highly skilled and highly competent. Maybe there are better ways of doing it, but the current proposal is not the way to go. The Mikulski amendment will change and alter that. I hope it will be accepted.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Harkin on this amendment to protect workers' retirement. We know that for millions of American workers, their pension benefits are in danger. The continuing weak economy and rising health costs are pressuring thousands of employers to reduce or terminate their traditional defined benefit pension plans. One way that companies are slashing costs is by converting traditional pension plans to cash balance plans. Older employees are the hardest hit by these conversions. According to the General Accounting Office, annual pension benefits of older employees can drop as much as 50 percent after a company converts to a cash balance plan. Companies are doing it to save hundreds of millions of dollars in pension costs. But those savings are being taken out of the retirement security of American workers. These proposed Treasury regulations would give companies legal protection against claims of age discrimination by older employees. Thousands of companies would have a strong incentive to convert to cash balance plans. Millions of workers could lose huge chunks of the pensions they have been promised. Cash balance pension plans do have some advantages for some workers. Increased portability of pensions is important. So is providing pension benefits for parents, particularly women, who move in and out of the workforce. We support greater benefits for younger workers, who are more likely than ever to have several employers throughout their careers. But Treasury can and must do more to protect the workers who are hurt by these conversions. The Harkin amendment would halt Treasury's proposed regulations. Workers should have choice about benefits under their pension plans, and they deserve protections when their company converts to a cash balance plan. It is wrong to let companies freeze the benefits for older workers, or reduce future benefits, when these workers have already contributed so many years of service to their companies. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and do the right thing to protect the retirement of our Nation's workers.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Republican leader and Senator Murkowski and Senator Bennett as well for their courtesy this morning.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, what we are being asked to do on this class action bill is a travesty. We are not only being asked to throw the baby out with the bathwater; we are being asked to throw out the bathtub and buy a new one that no sensible parents would even want to put the baby in. We all know what is going on here. Corporate giants and giant insurance companies do not want to be held accountable in class action cases, and they want to make it as hard as possible for injured citizens to obtain relief. They are powerful special interests. They know that the heavier the burden they impose on the courts, on consumers, and on those with legitimate civil rights and environmental claims, the less likely they are to be held accountable. All of us agree that class action procedures are far from satisfactory, especially in large nationwide cases, and reasonable reforms are long overdue. If we vote for cloture today we are giving a blank check to those who would like class actions to disappear entirely, so that injured citizens do not have to be paid at all. If we vote against cloture, we will give new leverage and needed time to those who are serious about reforming class actions and just as serious about protecting citizens' rights. Today we are presented, virtually on a take it or leave it basis, with what can only be called a radical shift in Federal law, a bill that calls itself the Class Action Reform Act. If we want truth in labeling, we should call it the Class Action Destruction and Federal Court Disruption Act. In its present form, this bill is a shoddy patchwork of different ideas and different approaches grafted together with no concern for its overall impact, as long as it shields defendants. Key provisions have never been the subject of any hearings or any careful analysis by impartial experts in the field. Yet the bill makes massive changes in the basic rules of the road on jurisdiction of the courts. It suddenly abandons 200 years of evolutionary change in Federal jurisdiction and substitutes a totally new road that no one has traveled and no one can map. It does so in the interest of purported problems that, if they exist at all, are not emergencies and certainly are not so urgent that we need to move ahead so blindly. If we enact this bill, we will have confusion and conflict in the Nation's courts for years, as they wrestle to untangle the mess which this law produces. Its most visible initial impact will be to add an entire new layer of legal jousting, litigation burden and higher costs to already complex cases. If the hopes of its sponsors are realized at all, the law will force a very large number of complex and important cases off the dockets of tens of thousands of State judges and onto the dockets of less than 2,000 Federal judges, who already face massive backlogs. We can also expect that the law as now proposed will do serious harm to the ability of citizens in civil rights cases to obtain the relief they are entitled to under State law. There are no legitimate complaints about class actions on civil rights. Yet this bill would severely and adversely affect such cases. The bill will make the most pressing and legitimate class action cases more burdensome and more expensive. It will reduce the ability of courts to improve the efficiency of justice by dealing with large numbers of small but similar cases in groups, instead of one at a time. To the extent that plaintiffs need additional safeguards for the class plaintiffs in class actions, this legislation promises a ``Bill of Rights,'' but it does not produce what it promises. It does not seriously address the problem of worthless and collusive settlements, which produce substantial benefits for attorneys and defendants, but little or nothing for injured plaintiffs. The basic purpose of court actions in general, and class actions in particular, is to enable injured people to get relief--sometimes monetary relief and sometimes other relief such as injunctions against discrimination or restoration of employment. If citizens know that reliable relief is possible at reasonable expense and within a reasonable time, they will initiate the court actions that our judicial system allows them to bring. That kind of relief tells those who might discriminate: don't discriminate. It tells those who might bring hazardous products to markets: don't hurt consumers. It tells those who might harm the environment: even if no individual person is harmed enough to be able to sue, you will be brought to justice, so stop polluting. The Chief Justice of the United States has told us not to pass this bill. The National Association of State Chief Justices has told us not to pass this bill. Dozens of organizations with no interest to protect except the right of people to obtain a remedy when they are wronged, have pleaded with us not to pass this bill. A vote for cloture is a vote to deprive our constituents of an important and realistic remedy for the vindication of their rights. When we deprive the people of remedies, we deprive them of their rights. That is not what they sent us here to do. That is not what the founders created the Senate to do. We offend our people and we offend our history if we fail them today.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join my colleagues in introducing the Terrorist Firearms Detection Act of 2003. Since the atrocities of September 11, Congress has acted with strong bipartisan support to win the war on terrorism and protect the country from future attacks. We've improved the security of our airports and our borders, strengthened our defenses against bioterrorism, and given law enforcement new powers to investigate terrorist threats and prevent terrorism. But Congress has not yet acted to renew one of the Nation's most essential protections against terrorism. The Undetectable Firearms Act--also known as the ``plastic gun'' law--makes it illegal to manufacture, import, possess, or transfer a firearm that is not detectable by walk-through metal detectors or airport x-ray machines. Only firearms necessary for certain military and intelligence uses are exempt. This law was first enacted in 1988, long before the attacks on 9/11, and it is more important than ever now. It has been extended once since it was first enacted, but it is now scheduled to expire on December 10. The administration has made no public statements on the need to renew it, and neither has the Republican leadership of the House or Senate. Unless Congress and the President act soon, Americans will find themselves needlessly vulnerable to terrorist attacks and other gun violence in airlines, airports, schools, and office buildings. The gun industry clearly has the technology to manufacture firearms that cannot be detected by metal detectors and x-ray machines. As early as 1986, Congress's Office of Technology Assessment found that ``technology does exist to manufacture certain firearms which would be completely or almost completely non-metallic,'' and that ``plastic handguns may be available on the commercial market quite soon.'' A 1985 report by the American Firearms Industry emphasized the profitability of plastic guns for the industry: ``The American plastic gun will shortly make its appearance. Plastic is the `common' word, but it's really liquid crystal polymer. . . . [I]n the long run, if a 100% plastic gun works, this would be great for sales. What this does is make everything that has been produced in this century obsolete. That is exactly what our industry desperately needs. This will give us a whole new, and real reason to resell every hunter and shooter in America.'' In 1986, Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi tried to purchase more than 100 handguns produced in Austria and made almost entirely of hardened plastic. The technology of gun manufacturers has clearly improved since the 1980's--and the desire of terrorists to attack Americans has soared. We know that terrorists are exploiting the weaknesses and loopholes in U.S. gun laws. In 2000, a member of the Middle East terrorist group Hezbollah was convicted in Detroit on gun charges and conspiracy to ship guns and ammunition to Lebanon. He had bought many of those guns at gun shows in Michigan. In 2001, American soldiers found a terrorist training manual entitled ``How Can I Train Myself for Jihad'' in a house in Afghanistan. It stated: ``In other countries, e.g., some states of USA. . . . it is perfectly legal for members of the public to own certain types of firearms. If you live in such a country, obtain an assault rifle legally . . . learn how to use it properly and go and practice in the areas allowed for such training.'' What could be clearer? We know what's coming. Terrorists are eager to exploit weaknesses in our gun laws, and there is no doubt that Americans will be at much greater risk if Congress fails to renew the Undetectable Firearms Act. Just last week, Admiral James M. Loy of the Transportation Security Administration testified that, according to U.S. intelligence, terrorists are more likely to try to hijack a commercial airliner than attempt to shoot down an aircraft with shoulder-fired missiles. The December 2001 arrest of attempted ``shoe bomber'' Richard Reid showed just how committed terrorists are to smuggling undetectable plastic explosives onto airplanes. Reid was stopped at the last minute by alert passengers and crew, not by any detection machinery. The legalization of undetectable guns will clearly increase the danger to flight crews, passengers and other citizens exponentially. The need for action is urgent. The Terrorist Firearms Detection Act will renew the Act and make it permanent. The danger to security from plastic firearms will not sunset, and the law that bans them shouldn't sunset either. The Terrorist Firearms Detection Act is supported by Americans for Gun Safety, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence United with the Million Mom March, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and the Violence Policy Center. The only organization to have opposed the ban on plastic guns in the past is the National Rifle Association, and it's fair to ask, ``Whose side are they on?'' If they insist on another sunset, perhaps we can sunset the NRA instead. The bill we are introducing today is only one of several steps that Congress should take to protect our people from gun violence. Senator Lautenberg's Homeland Security Gun Safety Act will close the loopholes in our gun laws that allow rogue gun dealers to evade the law and sell guns illegally to criminals and terrorists. That's how the D.C. snipers acquired their Bushmaster rifle. Congress should also act to strengthen criminal background checks for gun purchases under the Brady Law, renew the assault weapons ban, and close the ``gun show loophole'' once and for all. Each of these gun- safety measures is needed to protect our people in communities across the country, and I urge my colleagues to support them.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join in thanking our good friend and cosponsor, the Senator from Vermont, for his excellent presentation and compelling argument. And I, once again, thank our leader on this issue, and someone who has been such an eloquent voice for sane and responsible foreign policy for so many years, and particularly in the whole debate on Iraq, our friend from West Virginia, Senator Byrd. I think it is important at this time to understand exactly what this amendment is and what it is not. The Byrd amendment is not cutting the $20 billion. There have been other amendments that have suggested that and have done so. This amendment is not doing that. The purpose of this amendment is plain and simple: This is the only amendment that has been offered--and I believe will be offered--that is going to require a change of course in our policy in Iraq and give us the opportunity in 6 months to have a chance to review the administration. As pointed out by the Senator from California, otherwise, with this $87 billion, we are effectively giving a blank check and a statement that we support the current policy, which I believe is a bankrupt policy, one that is being made up every day. I spoke earlier on it. One of the reasons the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia is so responsible and compelling is, first, the World Bank has estimated that Iraq could only use $6 billion over the next year. He is letting $10 billion go, $5 billion for security, but the other $5 billion. Over a 6-month period the World Bank says the most Iraq could use is $6 billion. This is going to let $10 billion go for 6 months. All we are saying is, perhaps after that 6 months, the rest of the money would be freed up as well. But at least we here, as the people's representatives, will have a chance to review the bidding at that particular time. I listened to our friend--and he is our friend--from Alaska say we ought to stay the course. I believe we ought to stay the right course. That is what we are talking about--staying the right course which is in the interest of the security of our troops and of the United States. Others are saying: Why not just give us a blank check? The Senator from West Virginia remembers clearly, as ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, it was not long ago when administration officials said: We don't need any money at all in terms of reconstruction. Iraq is a wealthy country. The oil revenues will be able to handle it. Three months ago they said: We think maybe $1.7 billion will be able to handle it over the next year. Now they ask for $20 billion and say: Stay the course; why are you trying to interfere with us? They have been moving these numbers all around and failing to give a full plan. Yes, they gave us some working documents from last year and, yes, they gave us a budget but not the plan. The wisdom of the Senator from West Virginia is the fact that it is going to require that the administration come back in 6 months and give us an opportunity to review. Finally, as the Senator from Vermont has pointed out, the $20 billion for reconstruction is what the United States provides for economic aid for the rest of the countries all over the world. This is not an insignificant amount. The American people understand that. It is 20 times what the Federal Government spends annually on afterschool programs, 20 times. This $20 billion is 20 times what we spend on afterschool programs that reach hundreds of thousands of children, helping them get the supplementary services which are so important in terms of their education, giving them outlets in terms of participation in sports. This $20 billion is 20 times that amount. It is also double the amount that this President proposed on education to assist the schools. This $20 billion is effectively twice as much as we are providing in K-12 federal spending on the title I education program for disadvantaged children. We know how important that is. It is over two times the amount we spend in helping those who have special needs. It is four times what the Government spends on cancer research. This is not an insignificant amount of resources. The only thing the Senator from West Virginia is saying is: Let's get another look at it in 6 months. Why should the administration be so opposed to that? Doesn't it make sense, in terms of our national interests, to galvanize the country in support of foreign policy? Are the people who are allegedly supporting whatever this policy is so uncertain about what is going to happen in 6 months from now, they say, don't do that; you are going to interfere and obstruct our whole effort by coming back to the Congress and permitting them to make a judgment in 6 months? That is apparently what they are prepared to do. I commend the Senator from West Virginia. I know from personal experience the amount of time and effort and energy and thought that has gone into this amendment. This is the one amendment that says: We are giving you 6 months to move ahead. That is sufficient to meet the vital needs at the present time. And we are prepared to give you 6 months after that, in March-April of next year, when the Congress will be back and prepared to vote. But at that time at least we will know, at that time the American people will know that there are going to be other nations that will be a part of the team, that are going to be supplying resources, that are going to be supplying additional troops. We will be able to indicate to the American service men and women an end strategy, an exit strategy. I was asked a couple of hours ago about mentioning the exit strategy; doesn't this just suggest we are talking about cutting and running? That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about being sensible and responsible. Actually the words ``exit strategy'' were included in the foreign affairs article that was written by Brent Scowcroft and former President Bush, Bush 1, to which I referred earlier. He was talking about what the alternatives were at the end of the first gulf war. He was pointing out that this was a world transformed, President George H.W. Bush and his National Security Adviser, Brent Scowcroft, in their joint memoir on the experiences of the gulf war in 1991. There was no viable exit strategy that we could see. That was former President Bush 1, ``no viable exit strategy that we could see.'' He believed at the time of the first gulf war we ought to have an exit strategy that we could see. We haven't got that. It is not in the $87 billion. What the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia is saying is, OK, it is not in there. OK, it is not in the $20 billion. But let's come back in 6 months and we will have a chance to see where we are. I commend the Senator for offering his amendment. I hope our colleagues will give it strong support. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask that the Chair notify me when I have 3 minutes remaining.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, nearly 6 months have elapsed since President Bush flew out to the aircraft carrier and declared ``mission accomplished'' in Iraq. Today, we all know all too well that the war is not over: The war goes on; the mission is not accomplished. An unnecessary war, based on unreliable and inaccurate intelligence, has not brought an end to danger. Instead, it has brought new dangers, imposed new costs, and taken more and more American lives each week. We all agree that Saddam Hussein was a murderous tyrant, and his brutal regime was an affront to basic human decency. But Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorism. Our invasion has made it one. The trumped-up reasons for going to war have collapsed. All the administration's rationalizations as we prepared to go to war now stand revealed as ``double-talk.'' The American people were told Saddam Hussein was building nuclear weapons. He was not. We were told he had stockpiles of other weapons of mass destruction. He did not. We were told he was involved in 9/11. He was not. We were told Iraq was attracting terrorists from al-Qaida. It was not. We were told our soldiers would be viewed as liberators. They are not. We were told Iraq could pay for its own reconstruction. It cannot. We were told the war would make America safer. It has not. Before the war, week after week after week after week, we were told lie after lie after lie after lie. And now, despite the increasingly restless Iraqi population, despite the continuing talk of sabotage, despite the foreign terrorists crossing thousands of miles of border to attack U.S. service men and women in Iraq, the administration still refuses to face the truth or tell the truth. Instead the White House responds by covering up its failures and trying to sell its rosy version of events by repeating it with maximum frequency and volume, and minimum regard for realities on the ground. No PR campaign by the increasingly desperate White House can redress the painful loss of a young American soldier almost every day. Instead of greater stability and order, the forces arrayed against us are steadily increasing the intensity and sophistication of their assaults on our troops. Bombs that were once set off by trip wires are now being set off by remote control. The threat of shoulder fired missiles makes it unsafe for civilian planes to land at Baghdad Airport. No foreign policy in our free society can succeed for long unless it is supported by our people. Our men and women in uniform fought bravely and brilliantly, but the President's war has been revealed as mindless, needless, senseless, and reckless. The American people know all this. Our allies know it. Our soldiers know it. We should never have gone to war in Iraq when we did, in the way we did, for the false reasons we were given. But now that we are there, two imperatives are absolutely clear: America cannot withdraw now, leaving Iraq to chaos or civil war, becoming a danger to us far greater than it did before. The misguided policy of the past is no excuse for a misguided policy for the future. We need a realistic and specific plan to bring stability to Iraq, to bring genuine self-government to Iraq, to bring our soldiers home with dignity and honor. Until the administration genuinely changes course, I cannot in good conscience vote to fund a failed policy that endangers our troops in the field and our strategic objectives in the world instead of protecting them. The greatest mistake we can make in Congress as the people's elected representatives is to support and finance a ``go-it- alone, do-it-because-I-say-so'' policy that leaves young Americans increasingly at risk in Iraq. So when the roll is called on this $87 billion legislation, which provides no effective conditions for genuine international participation and a clear change in policy in Iraq, I intend to vote no. A no vote is not a vote against supporting our troops. It is a vote to send the administration back to the drawing board. It is a vote for a new policy--policy worthy of the sacrifice our soldiers are making, a policy that restores America as a respected member of the family of nations, a policy that will make it easier, not far more difficult, to win the war against terrorism. The amount of money is huge. It is 87 times what the Federal Government spends annually on afterschool programs. It is 7 times what President Bush proposed to spend on education for low-income schools in 2004. It is 9 times what the Federal Government spends on special education each year. It is 8 times what the Government spends to help middle and low- income students go to college. It is 15 times what the Government spends on cancer research. It is 27 times what the Government spends on substance abuse and mental health treatment. It is 58 times what the Government spends on community health centers. If our Iraq policy is to be successful, it must take into account what history teaches us about the use of military power to solve politically inspired violence. A new policy must provide the security that is essential for any nation-building effort. A new policy must genuinely internationalize the reconstruction of Iraq and end our occupation. And a successful new policy must give ownership to Iraqis for their political future. Surely, in this day and age, at the beginning of the 21st century, we do not have to re-learn the lesson that every colonial power in history has learned. We do not want to be--we cannot afford to be--either in terms of character or in terms of cost, an occupier of other lands. We must not become the next failed empire in the world. The administration seeks to write a new history that defies the lessons of history. The most basic of those lessons is that we cannot rely primarily on military means as a solution to politically-inspired violence. In those circumstances, the tide of history rises squarely against military occupation. The British learned that lesson in Northern Ireland. The French learned it in Algeria. The Russians learned it in Afghanistan and are re-learning it every day in Chechnya. America learned it in Vietnam, and we must not re-learn it in Iraq. Our men and women in uniform are the finest in world, and all Americans admire and honor their ability and their courage. In Iraq, they are now being forced to do an extraordinary job they were never trained for, and they are doing it under extreme and unpredictable circumstances. Even with the best forces in the history of the world, our military cannot succeed if the mission is not achievable, if they are viewed as occupiers, and if we do not have a clearly defined and realistic strategy. In recent weeks, in Massachusetts, at Fort Stewart in Georgia, and at Walter Reed Hospital, I have met with American troops who fought in Iraq. I am profoundly moved by the price they pay to serve our country, and profoundly impressed by their professionalism and commitment. They are willing to endure great hardship and great danger in Iraq to complete their mission. But they want to know when their mission will be complete, and when they will be able to come home. They are resourceful and strong. But more and more they are frustrated--especially by the faceless nature of the threat. Individuals intent on killing Americans are firing from behind the cover of crowds, to provoke our soldiers into firing back on civilians. Many of our troops say they were never trained to be police officers or to fight a guerrilla war. They want to help the Iraqi people. But the increasing casualties make them feel unsafe. They want to respond militarily to attacks. But they often don't know who the attacker is. They tell me that at first, their convoys were welcomed. But after time, children began to throw rocks at them, and then came the bullets. They tell me that far too many in Iraq believe we are there to take their oil, and that we will stay forever. They have no clear sense about their post-war mission. Some see it as winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Some believe it is security. Some feel it is to obtain intelligence about opposition forces and weapons caches. Others think it is to prevent sabotage of the oil pipelines and other vital infrastructure. Still others say it is to build sidewalks and soccer fields and schools and hospitals, and other local facilities. Not one of the soldiers told me their mission was to achieve Iraq's transition to democracy. We read today in the Washington Post about a survey of our troops. Their morale is low. They believe their mission lacks clear definition. They are getting worn down. The ongoing occupation of Iraq has imposed a heavy burden on our forces and created a crisis for the military. It is now stretched precariously thin. We do not have enough active duty soldiers to sustain their presence in Iraq and also meet security needs in Afghanistan and other parts of the world. The crisis is coming to a head now. Two of our divisions are scheduled to return from Iraq in the spring. If the administration is unsuccessful in recruiting forces from other nations, it will have to send in at least another division of American troops--and we don't have enough active duty forces to do the job. That means even more call-ups from the National Guard and Reserves. In fact, if international troops aren't coming, the administration must notify reservists by the end of this very month to guarantee that they will be available by spring. Already, close to half our troops in Iraq are members of the Guard or Reserves; 13,000 have been on active duty for at least a year. Others have recently returned home from deployments, only to turn around and head overseas for another tour. One reservist I recently spoke to had only 17 days off between tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. The average reservist now spends 13 times longer on active duty today than during the 1990s. Many cannot go home when their scheduled time is finished, and are repeatedly sent instead on new deployments overseas. In Iraq, our reservists are being pressed into duty as the first line of defense. They need 120 to 150 days to train before being sent to Iraq. The Army needs to let them know now to begin this crucial training. It typically takes 8 years under the current peacetime system for a Reserve combat unit to reach the level of readiness of an active unit. But we don't have 8 years. They are needed in Iraq this spring. Even worse, reservists are being sent into combat with inferior equipment. They have told me they had to rely on Vietnam-era night vision goggles that obscure more than they reveal, even though the latest technology is used by the regular military. They told me they had to use outdated and less-effective flak jackets, not the latest models with bulletproof ceramic inserts. They told me they had to wait three months for other current gear. Many units did not have armored Humvees. Instead, they had to hang flak jackets in the windows to protect themselves from attack. I visited some of our wounded soldiers last week at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. More than 1,800 American service men and women have been wounded in this war, and an average of 7 new patients arrive at Walter Reed from Iraq each day. Many were ambushed driving along a road. Many lost limbs because their Humvees did not have the armor to protect them from the blast of a rocket-propelled grenade or a booby trap in the road. Their families feel the strain of their deployment both emotionally and financially. Many members of the Guard or Reserves give up higher civilian salaries when they go on active duty. Even though the law prohibits discrimination against reservists, increasingly, they are unwilling to tell possible employers about their military obligation, for fear they will not be hired or kept on the job. It is a sad day for patriotism when service to our Nation is a negative factor in civilian employment. Far more American soldiers and marines have been killed since the end of major combat operations in May than during the 3-week war itself. These are not just statistics. Each name on the list has many who mourn, whether parents, spouses, children, brothers or sisters. We cannot go on this way. We should have known that military victory would be quick, and that winning the peace would be the challenge. I support our troops. It is the administration's policy that has failed them. Their perceptions demonstrate the wider failure of our policy and the need for the administration to move in a decisively different direction. The administration ignores the lesson of history that nation building cannot succeed in a cauldron of insecurity. Iraq is America's sixth major nation-building challenge in the past 10 years--Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and now Iraq. Security was indispensable to nation building in each case. But in Iraq, we seem incapable of meeting the basic security needs of our own Armed Forces, let alone the Iraqi people. When America intervened in Haiti in 1994, large numbers of international armed police were brought in to support our military and achieve a greater measure of safety for the Haitian people. The first task was to establish security in a country that did not even have a civilian police force. We responded by recruiting a large multinational police force from 20 different countries. When America intervened in Bosnia in 1995 and Kosovo in 1998 we understood that security for local citizens was essential for resuming economic growth and reaching our nation-building goals. In Kosovo, our allies offered highly trained police, including some heavily armed, which were critical to minimizing violence after the conflict ended and enabling reconstruction and political progress to be made. In Kosovo, our soldiers were given training in controlling crowds, establishing security cordons, and searching vehicles. But when I visited the soldiers of the Third Infantry Division last week, they told me they did not receive such training, even though it would have served them well in the cities of Iraq. The Pentagon assumed we would be able to draw on thousands of Saddam's police officers to provide security, but in the critical early weeks that followed the war, they were nowhere to be found, and too many of them were thugs and torturers. Six months later, there is still confusion. At the end of August, the former New York City Police Commissioner in charge of police training program in Iraq announced that he had reached an agreement to train 28,000 Iraqi police in a camp in Hungary. Within a week, the Prime Minister of Hungary announced that he knew of no such agreement. He said that Hungary had no appropriate training facility, and that someone should inform his government of what was going on. Now, we hear that the administration has organized a training camp in Jordan. The Pentagon also assumed that the bulk of the Iraqi armed forces could be used to supplement our forces. But soon after the war began, the Iraqi army melted away. Its members went home, and the army was formally disbanded by our Government before they were screened and before they were disarmed. We lost the decent ones who could have helped provide security, and we let Hussein's true believers get away with their weapons. Countries such as France, Germany, Sweden, Argentina, the European Union, or Spain could provide well-trained police to prevent saboteurs from undermining the extensive reconstruction effort and to advance our broader nation-building objectives. But so far, we have been unable to persuade additional nations to share the burden and the cost. The Bush administration's continuing arrogance in Iraq has forced the best-trained military in the world to act as police officers in a shooting gallery, to carry out police functions for which they are ill- prepared and ill-equipped. For Iraq now and for future crises elsewhere, we need to build support in the international community for a reserve police identified and trained for post-conflict deployments. It is shocking that the White House is only now beginning to coordinate which agency should be responsible for various tasks. This should not have waited 6 months. It should have been standard operating procedure from the outset to outline an integrated strategy that meets our military needs, the needs for local policing and reconstruction, and the need for progress in achieving a free and legitimate Iraqi government. They go hand-in-hand. But none can succeed unless basic security is guaranteed. The administration's policy of rushing to put large multibillion- dollar contracts in the hands of American firms ignores not only the lesson of history but also the lesson of human nature--the Iraqi people need to be the real partners in the reconstruction effort. The administration is wrongly working from the top down, rather than the bottom up, to rebuild Iraq. A new Iraq will emerge neighborhood by neighborhood, town by town, province by province. How can any Republican President of the United States disagree that government must be of the people, by the people, and for the people? We need closer alignment between military units working on reconstruction and the civilians working at the Coalition Provisional Authority. Our soldiers in the field are surveying the damage and identifying priorities for repair. They need local counterparts. We cannot solve every problem from Saddam's palace in Baghdad. Why not scale back the lavish resources being provided to U.S. contractors and consultants and provide larger sums directly to the Iraqi people? We could do so in many cases by developing ties between local councils and the Iraqi Governing Council. We could work more with local non-governmental organizations and local businesses. In all cases, we need to insist on transparency in the process, so we know where the funding is going. It is the Iraqi people's country. They have the greatest stake in the success of the reconstruction, and involving them now will enhance the prospects for success. In some areas of Iraq, we already have been able to achieve impressive results with small amounts of money. In one case, we funded the building of a cement factory for less than $100,000, when the bid by an American contractor for the same project was in the millions. Why not do more of this with schools, medical clinics, roads and countless other projects? Iraq has many of the best-trained petroleum engineers in the world. Why not give them--rather than American companies--a larger role in rebuilding the industry? Why not create jobs for Iraqis and give them ownership of their reconstruction? If we insist on saying Halliburton rules, because to the victor belong the spoils, we won't be the victor for very long. The administration's policy in Iraq ignores the indisputable lesson of history that building democracy is complex and difficult. When the British accepted responsibility for the new nation of Iraq after the fall of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, they encountered enormous difficulties in creating a stable government across Sunni, Shia, Kurd and other ethnic and religious groups. Many Kurds wanted their own state--and still do. Tensions have existed between Sunni and Shia for 13 centuries. Iraq had no history of unity. In the words of one tribal chieftain, ``History did not die; the tribes and notables who emerged in 1920 and created our modern state in 1921 are here to stay with all the others who came into being thereafter.'' Instead of learning from this painful history, we condemned ourselves to repeat it. Instead of anticipating the obviously similar and predictable divisions and demands when Saddam's regime fell, the Bush administration believed that a few favored Iraqi exile leaders, many of them in exile for years, could return to Iraq, rally the population and lead the new government. That was another failure. The Iraqi people rejected them from the start and resisted their domination. The administration believed that once a few hundred top advisers to Saddam were removed from power, large numbers of local officials would remain to run the government. Instead the collapse of government in Baghdad rippled across the country. If history is any guide, America will not be able to impose our vision of democracy on the Iraqi people on our current terms and our timetable. Our overarching interest is the development of a government that has legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens, so that the longer process of building durable democratic institutions can proceed effectively in the years to come. This process will not be finished swiftly, or easily, and it will not take place according to our will. Iraq is a society where, for the full 30 years of Saddam's rule, politics ruled from the top. It will take time for the Iraqi people to adjust to the new decentralization of power and to understand how the multiple levels of a working democratic government can function effectively. The administration clings to the hope that the Iraqi Governing Council--25 people, many of whom have never worked together before--can adopt a constitution in time to hold successful elections next year. On July 23, Ambassador Bremer said that it ``should be possible'' to have elections next year. On September 26, Secretary of State Powell gave the Iraqis 6 months to write a constitution. In Bosnia, the United States pressed for national elections the first year, before viable local democratic political institutions were developed, and it made the development of democracy more difficult. Based on the historical precedents, a recent RAND publication suggests holding national elections roughly 2 years after reconstruction begins. The International Crisis Group also reached the conclusion that it could take 2 years before national elections should be held. The lesson is clear. We cannot rush. It is not surprising that our insistence on such speed is alienating the many Iraqis who know the process needs more time. The date of their national election should not be determined by the date of ours. Imposing our will and our timetable on the Iraqi people will undermine our all-important long-term goal of achieving a legitimate Iraqi government committed to remaining on the path to democracy. Already, the Interim Governing Council lacks credibility in the eyes of many Iraqis. On paper, it has broad power, but that fools no one. It is controlled by the United States, and it lacks sufficient power to meet the Iraqi people's needs. The administration needs to give greater priority to restoring sovereignty and help lay the groundwork for approving a constitution and holding national elections. In Afghanistan, we obtained the support of the international community for an interim government that was not under American occupation. That process can still work in Iraq, although it would have clearly worked better from the start. As we did in Afghanistan, we need a process to transfer sovereignty to the Iraqis, who in turn, can ask the U.S. and U.N. for assistance. If the United States is seen as controlling the new government in Baghdad, it will fail--if not now, then later; if not while our forces are still there, then as soon as they are gone. Those who work with such a government are easily dismissed by the Iraqi people as American puppets. We must take the time necessary to give Iraqis the ownership of their government, if we expect it to have any credibility and staying power. Whether the Bush administration likes it or not, they need a central role for the United Nations to help accomplish this goal. Before becoming National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice seemed to understand this. In a January 2000 article in Foreign Affairs, she wrote: ``U.S. interests are served by having strong alliances and can be promoted within the U.N. and other multilateral organizations . . . ''. She wrote: ``The president must remember that the military is a special instrument. It is lethal, and it is meant to be. It is not a civilian police force. It is not a political referee, and it is most certainly not designed to build a civilian society.'' Condi Rice's words indict the administration's own policy now. It is essential to involve the international community as an active and equal partner in the political transition of Iraq. We need to give the U.N. a central role. The administration's decision to go back to the United Nations is a first step, but it is meaningful only if the administration is genuinely changing its policy. The real test will be whether the administration is now willing to make the compromises necessary to persuade other countries to contribute troops to relieve our soldiers and to bring stability to Iraq. The jury is still out on whether the U.N. resolution will mark a real shift by the administration. We know from experience of the past decade in this post-cold war world, in Bosnia, in Kosovo, and in other devastated lands, that we can enlist the international community in a major way. We can share responsibility and authority, draw on the strengths and the diversity of the United Nations, achieve security and reconstruction, and an end to the occupation. For many months, the administration has been wrong to try to bypass the United Nations by enticing a few receptive nations to join us if the price is right. No one doubts that the United States should remain in charge of the military operation. But internationalizing the reconstruction is not a luxury; it is an imperative. Sharing authority with the United Nations to manage the transition to democracy will give the process legitimacy and gradually dispel the current stigma of occupation--especially if it is accompanied by the creation of a more fully representative interim governing council to deal with day-to-day administrative responsibilities. As soon as possible, we need to redouble the effort to bring in forces with regional faces--especially Muslim faces. Nations such as Jordan, Pakistan, and Egypt could immediately transform this mission with both their diversity and their expertise. The United Arab Emirates contributed effectively to the effort in Kosovo. Morocco and Albania have worked with us in Bosnia. That strategy can work for us in Iraq now as well. In their joint memoir, ``A World Transformed,'' President George H.W. Bush and his National Security Adviser, Brent Scowcroft, reflected on their own experiences with Iraq and the Gulf War in 1991. They had been criticized in some quarters for halting that war after their dramatic victory in Kuwait, instead of going on to Baghdad to depose Saddam Hussein. Here is what they wrote: Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in `mission creep,' and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible . . . We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable `exit strategy' we could see . . . Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome. They were right. It is time for this administration to admit that it was wrong, and turn in a new direction. We need a genuine plan that acknowledges the realities on the ground. We need a plan that gives real authority to the United Nations, so that other nations truly will share the burden. We need to actively engage the Iraqi people in governing and rebuilding their country. Our soldiers now risking their lives in Iraq deserve no less. Here at home, all Americans are being asked to bear the burden, too-- and they deserve more than a phony summons to support our troops by pursuing policies that will only condemn them to greater and greater danger. Yes, we must stay the course--but not the wrong course. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today two news articles came to my attention regarding the recent survey conducted by the Stars and Stripes newspaper on the level of troop morale in Iraq. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.