Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, this gets to the point. I don't know whether he will agree with me. We don't try to impose this voucher program on the State of Nevada. We don't try to impose it on the State of New Hampshire or the State of Ohio or the State of Massachusetts. Does the Senator not find--I think he will--it extraordinary that we are prepared to try to impose it on the almost 600,000 people who live in the District of Columbia, who do not have any representation here to speak for them? Why aren't our friends on the other side of the aisle-- mostly on the other side of the aisle--who oppose vouchers trying to impose them on the State of California or Massachusetts or Nevada? They don't ask for that. They take the District of Columbia, that doesn't have a spokesperson out here to speak for them on this issue--though it has been considered by the people of the District. It has been thoroughly and completely rejected by the majority of the school board, the school council, and the majority of parents. What is it about our friends asking my good friends tonight, Why are we holding this up? Are they willing to accept the voucher program for the State of Ohio or for some other State, rather than imposing it on the District? I find this extraordinary. I don't want to delay the Senator. I know he has other business. I know he will have some difficulty reading this chart. But it shows that the majority of elected officials, community leaders, and organizations in DC oppose vouchers. This is the list of the elected officials. Obviously, Eleanor Holmes Norton. And it goes down to the council members, the board of education, the local organizations, various church groups, parents groups, and all the rest. It troubles me that so many of our colleagues are willing to try to impose something on a particular community that doesn't have representation here in the U.S. Senate, where so many are against it, and when it has such broad educational implications. I know the Senator has responsibilities. If he has a moment, the Senator remembers our long and extensive battle to try to bring reform to our public schools. We understood that we needed two elements: Reform and resources. We had the reform and the resources. Then the administration backed out. But this chart shows public schools are held accountable when students fail. Private schools are not held accountable. Public schools are required to see that every child is taught by highly qualified teachers. In the No Child Left Behind Act, that was the requirement for 4 years. There has to be a highly qualified teacher in each classroom. There is no such requirement here, in private schools. Public schools must provide parents with report cards. Private schools don't have to provide public report cards. I ask unanimous consent this chart be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. Just to continue the observation, of course, if the District of Columbia wanted to go ahead with the program, there is nothing prohibiting them from going ahead and developing this program on their own. That is the extraordinary irony. That is what I say to those who suggest we are holding this legislation up. We cannot pass this part if it has this mandated program in terms of vouchers which has very important educational implications, not only in terms of this bill, but in the broader sense in terms of our country. If the District of Columbia wanted to develop a program, they could do it themselves. They haven't, as has been pointed out. Effectively, we are requiring them to do so. I am going to have more of a chance to speak on this issue, but I want to draw to the attention of the Senate the progress that has been made in what we call the transformation schools in the District of Columbia. I will take time to go through the bill in detail when we get a chance to return to it. Some things just come out at you when you look at the District of Columbia schools. And I have had the opportunity to look. I have the good opportunity to read at the Brent School. I will read there weekly, starting in October again for this year. I have been doing that now for 7 years--this will be my seventh year. I have also taken the opportunity to speak at graduations in the District of Columbia. I did this this year. I look for that opportunity when I can, and will continue to do so. The fact is, just a few years ago we passed the No Child Left Behind Act, with some rather basic and fundamental principles on this idea of developing the curriculum that was going to be appropriate for these children, and which was going to require well-qualified teachers to teach the curriculum. We are going to examine the child as he or she goes through the year, to find out what the child does not know. We are going to have support services for that child so they can keep up, and well-trained teachers. We have accountability for the parents so they will have information for accountability of the schools, and accountability for everyone, including the Federal Government. We are the ones who failed in terms of providing the resources to which we committed, but the transformation schools in the District of Columbia have followed many of these same principles as in No Child Left Behind. We have made very important progress in these transformation schools. They are demonstrating the essential elements of what was in the No Child Left Behind Act. We know what works. We don't have to rediscover and find out what works. That is what is so tragic because we know the progress that has been made in these transformation schools. We know the needs. We know the struggle those parents have keeping their children in the transformation schools. We know the pressures the teachers face. Although my chart is small, it shows the transformation schools. It compares their scores in reading and math for 2002, and reading and math for 2003. The progress is dramatic. We know what works. We will have a chance to review this. I ask unanimous consent that the progress of a number of these transformation school be printed in the Record. One school is Simon Elementary School located in Ward 8, one of the poorest wards in the city. It serves 400 students, almost entirely African Americans, with 10 percent special education. Last year they raised assessment by 30 points in reading and math combined. Reading scores rose 10 points and math scores rose 20 points. Noyes Elementary School is another transformation school which is showing significant improvement. With the resources we have available, invest in what we are doing rather than trying to superimpose another system on the District of Columbia. I will elaborate later in the debate.

Mr. KENNEDY. Finally, the public schools are required to accept and serve all students. Private schools are not required. As we understand, many of the private schools can't do this because they don't have either the facilities for special needs children, or the trained personnel. We understand that. But, nonetheless, the Senator would agree with me that public school systems have served our Nation well. They are taking all children. And they would serve much better if we had an administration that would fulfill its commitment, in terms of supporting them and No Child Left Behind.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask the good Senator, it is my understanding that, if we did not have the issue of the imposition of vouchers on the District of Columbia, we could move right to third reading?

Mr. KENNEDY. May I ask the Senator a question on this? It is very interesting. We will have a chance to get into this in more detail. They say, yes. They say, well, Senator, kids will have some kind of lottery in terms of the selection, in terms of who will attend. But there is nothing in here that requires the school to accept what the outcomes are. People run around saying: Oh, yes, we have a better system. But nothing requires them to take the children who go through this process, unlike the public school system.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I commend the leadership of my colleague from Tennessee. He's a strong advocate for better education in both history and civics. We need to do much more to broaden students' understanding of American history and encourage them to participate in the democratic process. Freedom's Answer is an excellent model. It is a nonpartisan program founded by Mike McCurry and Doug Bailey to involve high school students in elections. The mission of Freedom's Answer is ``to turn today's students into tomorrow's voters.'' The program was launched after the tragic events of 9/11. It was organized in over 2,500 high schools across the Nation, asking each student to line up 10 pledges from others to vote in the 2002 election--not for a particular candidate or party, but in tribute to the servicemen and women serving abroad whose commitment to our country is safeguarding our national security. Their participation was a worthwhile factor in enhancing voter turnout in the 2002 elections. These young students learned the power of each individual vote, as well as the importance of greater involvement in the political process. It was an extraordinary civics lesson for them and for their families and neighbors, too, and it will encourage them to vote as soon as they become eligible to do so. I'm confident that this program will generate even greater election participation in coming years. Their participation will enrich our country and help to inspire the next generation of leaders. Freedom's Answer is the kind of innovative and practical idea that will strengthen our democratic process and the Nation as a whole, and it deserves our strong support. I commend Senator Alexander for his impressive leadership on this impressive initiative.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this November marks 10 years since our Nation imposed the discriminatory law known as ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' on the lesbian, gay, and bisexual patriots of our Nation. During the past decade, almost 10,000 men and women have been fired from our Armed Forces simply because of their sexual orientation. Many of those men and women have sought the assistance and advocacy of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, SLDN, the Nation's only legal aid and advocacy organization for those harmed by the military's gay ban. In August, SLDN's executive director, C. Dixon Osburn, commemorated 10 years of service to the organization he founded and the brave Americans it serves. Mr. Osburn cofounded the organization in 1993 with former Army CPT Michelle Benecke. Under Mr. Osburn's leadership, SLDN has provided legal services to 5,000 service members and obtained 35 changes in military policy and practice related to ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue, Don't Harass.'' Also under his leadership, SLDN's policy efforts have included obtaining new Pentagon and Service policies on anti-gay harassment, an Executive order on hate crimes in the military and an Executive order providing, for the first time, a limited psychotherapist privilege in the armed forces. Due in large part to Mr. Osburn's work, The Boston Globe has said ``[SLDN] knows far more than the Pentagon about what reality is like in the military and helps individuals caught in the mess.'' Deb Price of The Detroit News also commended their work, nothing that: ``SLDN has repeatedly forced the Pentagon not just to take notice, but to change.'' And the Nation reports, ``It's amazing how much this small legal-aid group has accomplished already.'' Mr. Osburn received the 1994 GAYLAW Distinguished National Service Award, and the 1998 Kevin Larkin Award for Public Service from the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association. In 1998, Mr. Osburn was named by the Advocate magazine as one of the Top 10 National Gay Leaders. In 2000, under Mr. Osburn's leadership, SLDN received ``Organization of the Year'' awards from both the District of Columbia Bar Association Young Lawyers Division and the International Lesbian & Gay Museum of History. I am honored today to recognize his decade of leadership at the helm of SLDN and his unparalleled advocacy for our men and women in uniform.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this week, the Senate begins a debate on the most important question facing any government. It is not just about the administration's policies and its conduct in Iraq. It is about the way we pursue American interests in a dangerous world. It is about the way our Government makes one of its most important decisions--whether to send young American men and women to war. Everything we do this week--every amendment we consider and every word of our debate--should be focused on protecting our men and women in uniform, providing for the support and care of their families, and helping them complete their mission and come home with honor. It is wrong to put American lives on the line for a dubious cause. Many of us continue to believe that this was the wrong war at the wrong time. There were alternatives short of a premature rush to a unilateral war that could have accomplished our goals in Iraq with far fewer casualties and far less damage to our goals in the war against terrorism. But above all, at this time, as our men and women face constant danger, as American lives are lost almost daily in Iraq, it is not only wrong, but an irresponsible failure of leadership for the administration to have no plan for Iraq. Our troops deserve a plan that will bring in adequate foreign forces to share the burden and restoring stability and building democracy as part of a vision for the future of Iraq, and bring us closer to the day when our troops will come home with honor. There is no question that the Senate owes it to our men and women in uniform to provide the support they need. But $87 billion cannot be a blank check. The administration must tell the country what it intends to do with $87 billion and its plans for sharing the burden with our allies at the U.N. and achieving our goals. The American people are entitled to know whether, with all the current difficulties, the administration has a plausible plan for the future, instead of digging the hole even deeper. During this debate, my colleagues and I will raise questions about the administration's failed policy in Iraq. We do so not only out of concern for its effect on American security but especially out of concern for the safety of American service men and women, who are paying for that failed policy with their lives. In its effort to secure swift approval of this enormous $87 billion, the administration and its allies undoubtedly will criticize those who raise questions about its policy in Iraq. Rather than acknowledging its failures, the White House and its friends in Congress with attack those who question its policies,and may even accuse us of undermining our troops. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the administration's failure to consider other alternatives before rushing recklessly into war that has now put our soldiers at risk. It is the administration's failure to gain international support that has put our soldiers at risk. It is the administration's failure to have a plan to win the peace that has created a breeding ground for terrorism in Iraq and put our soldiers at risk. The embarrassing rebuff of President Bush by the United Nations last week has made these errors even worse. We may never know for sure who or what persuaded President Bush to go to war in Iraq. We know now that we should not have accepted at face value the claims that Iraq was linked to al-Qaida, or that Iraq was building nuclear weapons, or that Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. Our intelligence agencies clearly had inadequate information to justify such claims by the administration, but it is far from clear why President Bush was persuaded to accept that information as adequate. There is a greater responsibility now than ever on Congress to have an open and honest debate about these failures, and do all that we can to put our country back on the right course in Iraq and in the larger ongoing war on terrorism. Our soldiers' lives are at stake. Patriotism is not the issue. Support of our troops is not the issue. The safety of the 140,000 American service men and women serving in Iraq today is the issue, and, it is our solemn responsibility to question, and question vigorously, the administration's current plan to request for funds to restore stability in Iraq, achieve democracy in Iraq, and bring our soldiers home with dignity and honor. So far, the administration has failed, and failed utterly, to provide a plausible plan for the future of Iraq and to ensure the safety of our troops. America's military is the finest in history. It is no surprise that we won the war in just 21 days. The war was a spectacular victory--but the postwar effort has been a resounding failure. Our soldiers and Marines in Iraq are displaying their extraordinary military skill, but their mission has become infinitely more complex and difficult. Our soldiers were told they would be welcomed as liberators. Instead, they are increasingly resented as occupiers and are under siege every day. They face surprise attacks and deadly ambushes from an unknown enemy. It is increasingly difficult to tell friend from foe. The average number of daily attacks against American troops has recently increased from 13 to 22. We are losing a soldier a day; 309 Americans have been killed in Iraq since the war began. In the 150 days since President Bush declared ``mission accomplished'' aboard the USS Liberty, 171 American soldiers have died. Ten soldiers from Massachusetts have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq. This chart shows the list of casualities and total deaths. We do not see the number of wounded; we do not hear that number quoted in the Senate because it isn't published. I wonder why it isn't published. What possible justification is there for concealing the number of brave young men and women who have been wounded over there? Why can't the public know the number of these young Americans who have been wounded so we have a better understanding of what the cost has been? What possible national security threat is there to publishing of the number of American service men and women who are wounded, along with those killed? These are not just statistics. Each fallen soldier has someone who mourns. The loss--whether it is a parent, a husband or wife, a brother or sister, or a child--weighs heavily on us, and we must do our best to see that their sacrifice is not in vain. The administration's failure to plan for the security of our forces in Iraq has created a crisis for the military. It is already stretched thin. We do not have enough active-duty soldiers to sustain their presence. Half of our Army divisions are in Iraq or Afghanistan. Of the 33 active-component Army combat brigades, 18 are in the Middle East. According to the Congressional Budget Office, by March of 2004, all of U.S. active-component combat units will be serving in Iraq or will have served there in the last year. Let me repeat that. By March of 2004, all of the U.S. active- component combat units will be serving in Iraq or will have served there in the last year. To solve this urgent problem, some have advocated creating two new divisions in the Army. But that is a long-term answer. These divisions would not be available for another 5 years, and would cost more than $40 billion. The real crisis in our troop levels comes this spring. If the administration is unsuccessful at getting an additional multinational division, they will have to send in another division of American troops--some combination of Marines and National Guard--and we don't have enough Active-Duty Forces to do the job. Without those international troops, we would have to notify reservists before the end of the month to ensure they will be available by spring. This means more American troops in Iraq. Even with this large contingent of Active Forces, close to half of the troops now in Iraq are reservists, and they are under increasing strain. Already, more than 170,000 National Guard soldiers and reservists are on active duty. Of those, about 13,000 have been on active-duty for at least a year. Others return 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 spends 13 times longer on active duty today than during the 1990s. Many reservists cannot leave the service when their original time is up, and are repeatedly sent on new overseas deployments. As our colleague Representative John Murtha recently said, ``the reservists are stuck. . . . In fact, we have a draft. We cannot sustain this force.'' Even worse, our National Guard soldiers and reservists believe they are being sent to combat with substandard equipment. Reservists have told me that they used Vietnam-era night vision goggles that obscured more than they revealed, when the latest technology is being used by the regular military. They tell me that they used outdated and less- effective flak jackets. They didn't have the latest body armor with bulletproof ceramic inserts. They tell me that they had to wait for 3 months for appropriate gear. Many units lacked armored Humvees, and needed to hang flak jackets in the windows to protect themselves from attack. While we haven't seen a fall-off in recruitment or retention in military to some extent, the high unemployment rate is keeping these numbers high. But inevitably, the hardship and back-to-back extended deployments will take their toll over time. One soldier I recently talked to said that he was leaving the Reserves to avoid being sent away from his new family. Other families feel the strain of deployment both emotionally and financially. Many give up large civilian salaries when they go on active duty. Some reservists are unwilling to tell employers of their military service obligation for fear they will not be hired. This was a conversation I had 10 days ago, in my own State of Massachusetts. It is against the law to discriminate against those who are part of the Reserves or the Guard, but they are finding increasing numbers of people who have found their jobs eliminated as a result of the declining economy. They have been trying to find employment. But there is a clear pattern that those who are part of the Reserves or the Guard are not being favorably considered for employment. As a result, some reservists are unwilling to tell employers of their military service obligation for fear they will not be hired. It is a sad day for patriotism that service to our Nation is considered a negative by employers. Despite these hardships, the administration proposes to rely even more heavily on the Reserves in the months ahead, increasing their proportion of the force in Iraq to close to two-thirds. Last week, the administration announced that the tours of the 20,000 Army Reserve and National Guard in Iraq could be extended for up to a year, even though those brave of men and women had planned to be home months earlier. Our National Guard soldiers and reservists love their country. They are proud of their military service. They want to do their job, and they expect to be called to service when the Nation needs them, and to endure periods of difficult separation from their families. But enough is enough. It is one thing to spend occasional months away from their families and their careers, but it is quite another to spend a year or more in active duty, only to have further callups possible in the near future. Under this administration, they are no longer citizen soldiers. They are treated as full-time troops, and this cannot be sustained. Much of these problems would not exist if the administration had abandoned its go-it-alone, my-way-or-the-highway foreign policy, and had worked with the international community. If the administration hadn't rushed to war without the broad support of other nations, greater numbers of their peacekeepers would have joined our effort. The administration agreed to go to the United Nations earlier this month to obtain a new Security Council resolution, but it was a flawed request. The administration still refuses to share power on the ground. They are asking the international community to share the danger, but other nations will still have no say in the future course of Iraq. We have an all ``take'' and no ``give'' policy that does nothing to encourage other nations of the world to share the heavy burden of security. America, for the foreseeable future, will continue to represent 85 percent of the forces on the ground and suffer 85 percent of the casualties. Indeed, our failure at the United Nations last week led GEN John Abizaid to tell the Senate Armed Services Committee last week: The fight against terrorism is far from over. The enemy's ideological base, financial networks and information networks remain strong. Indeed, the demographic and economic conditions that breed terrorists may be worsening and those conditions are heightening the ideological fervor associated with radical Islamist extremism. It appears to me that statement is a fundamental truth; that is, in the battle against terrorism, for us to assume that there is a limited number of volunteers out there for terrorism is entirely inaccurate. The number of recruits who are going to be resupplying these terrorist groups can go on and on and on. For us to imagine that with a certain number of troops we will be able to eliminate these terrorists or we will be able to use the military force in such a way that in Iraq can free ourselves from the dangers of terrorism is a failure to understand history and to understand, in terms of political challenges and ideological challenges--such as the British learned in Northern Ireland, as we have seen in Kosovo, we saw in Serbia, and we have seen in the West Bank of Israel--that we have to deal with the idea behind the terrorism to get to the root causes as well as to deal with the immediate challenge. Secretary Rumsfeld says that if we can train the Iraqis to police themselves, we can turn the country over to them. But in many areas, Iraqi police are afraid to leave their stations for fear that they will be killed for collaborating with Americans. Terrorists bomb police stations and assassinate those who cooperate with us, including moderate clerics and members of the governing counsel. All of us are profoundly impressed by the dedication, professionalism, and commitment of our soldiers in Iraq. They are willing to endure hardships and dangers in Iraq to complete their mission. But they want to know, their families want to know, and our country wants to know that our policy makes sense. Today that policy, I believe, is a failure, and American servicemen and women are paying with their lives. Before Congress writes a check for an $87 billion failed policy in Iraq, we must know that the administration has changed course and developed a realistic plan to protect our troops, win the support and respect of the international community, and achieve long-term stability and democracy for Iraq. It is time for the administration to convince Congress and the American people that they have a plan to achieve these goals. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to be a sponsor with Senator Cochran of S. 1666, the Diabetes Prevention & Treatment Act of 2003. Today, our health care system spends 1 out of every 4 Medicare dollars on diabetes. Almost 200,000 Americans die because of diabetes each year, and almost one-third of Americans alive today are not aware that they have the disease. The tragedy is that with the simple preventive and treatment measures available today, we can dramatically improve the likelihood that patients will never develop type 2 diabetes, and we can give good care to those who have type 1 diabetes. With only 30 minutes of walking a day and a healthy diet, people can reduce their chance of developing type 2 diabetes by 58 percent. Despite these innovations far too many citizens do not realize they are at risk for diabetes or that they may already have the disease. Even more shocking is the disproportionate manner in which diabetes affects children and communities of color. Our bipartisan legislation is intended to see that as many citizens as possible receive the education, treatment, and care they need at the earliest and most treatable stages of the disease. The Diabetes Prevention and Treatment Act will apply proven methods of prevention and control throughout the country. Its success will produce major improvements in health, and major reductions in diabetes- related costs. The bill authorizes quality improvement grants for diabetes. It supports the widespread application of best practices in diabetes prevention and control. It also authorizes further education initiatives and outreach strategies, including public awareness campaigns, public service announcements, and community partnership workshops. In addition, the bill strengthens the ability of the Centers for Disease Control to support State programs, with the goal of establishing a comprehensive, fully funded program in every State. It strengthens the ability of the National Institutes of Health to enhance the role of federally funded centers for diabetes research and training. It authorizes additional initiatives to identify the genetic basis of diabetes and its complications. It expands research on diabetes in historically underserved and minority populations. The bill will help to reduce diabetes in children and in communities of color, where it disproportionately affects American Indians, Latinos, and African Americans. In the American Indian and Alaskan Native communities, type 2 diabetes has rates 8 to 10 times higher than among whites. African American adults have a 60 percent higher rate, and Latinos have a 90 percent higher rate of type 2 diabetes than whites. People of color also have unacceptably high death rates from diabetes. African Americans and Latinos die twice as often from the disease as whites, and American Indians and Alaskan Natives die three to four times as often. The bill provides the CDC and NIH with new resources to discover why this epidemic is disproportionately affecting communities of color. The epidemic level of type 2 diabetes among children is also extremely disturbing. Ten years ago type 2 diabetes was unheard of in the pediatric community. Today, apparently because of poor nutrition and more sedentary behavior, children are developing a disease that 10 years ago usually only affected adults 45 years of age or older. The bill's provisions on children expand and intensify research on this crisis, and add long-term epidemiological surveillance for type 1 and type 2 diabetes and the establishment of regional clinical research centers. Saving lives will save costs too. Providing better testing, prevention, and treatment for diabetes will save billions of dollars a year in the years ahead. By 2008, we could save $5.7 billion on costs of end-stage renal disease alone. Many leaders from the diabetes community have worked closely with us on this legislation this year. I commend them for their leadership and I look forward to early action by Congress to approve this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, early next week we will take up what has now become the defining issue of this session of Congress--the Bush administration's proposal for $87 billion for Iraq. I support our troops in Iraq. We all support our troops in Iraq. If that is the issue, the vote will be 100 to nothing in the Senate. The administration had an effective plan to win the war. The tragedy is that our troops are paying with their lives because the administration failed to prepare a plan to win the peace. Our troops performed superbly in the war. They are doing their very best under enormously difficult circumstances now. They deserve the full support of Congress, and they will get it. But they also deserve a realistic plan from the administration. They deserve to know how the administration will bring in the international community, deliver on the promise of democracy, and bring our troops home with honor. The administration has refused to provide a realistic plan to the Congress and our troops. It has provided only a 2-month-old, 28-page plan called ``Achieving The Vision To Restore Full Sovereignty To The Iraqi People.'' I would like to know why it is called a working document. I would like to know why the administration is asking the Congress to write an $87 billion blank check based on the draft plan. This is the draft plan. I will include it by reference rather than including all of it in the Record. It is 28 pages, including the cover page, ``Coalition Provisional Authority, Baghdad, Iraq, Achieving the Vision to Restore Full Sovereignty to the Iraqi People,'' dated July 21. It is a working document that is the basis of the administration plan that was provided to the Armed Services Committee. I will read from the provisions in the plan on security from August 1 to October 3, point 4: Locate and secure and eliminate WMD capability. Then November 3 to January 4: Continue to locate and secure and eliminate WMD capability. And then from February 4: Continue to locate and secure and eliminate WMD. Point No. 1: Defeat internal armed threats. That is August to October. November to January 4: Continue to defeat all threats. February 4: Continue transfer responsibility to the Iraqis. It is an insult to the American people. It is an insult to our troops who are paying with their lives. For most of us, when it comes to Iraq, there is a widening credibility gap between rosy descriptions of progress by the administration and the hard reality on the ground for our troops and for the Iraqi people. On September 14, Vice President Cheney said ``90 percent of the cities and towns and villages are governed by democratically elected or appointed local councils.'' He said that ``all the schools are open, and that all the hospitals are up and functioning.'' In yesterday's Washington Post, Secretary Rumsfeld wrote glowingly of our ``solid progress'' in restoring Iraq. Yet we all know that the reality on the ground is quite different. And we are learning that there are even those within the administration who are reporting that things are not going well. Yet, those concerns are kept carefully from public view. In fact, the New York Times reported just last week on September 17 that new intelligence reports conclude that ordinary Iraqis are turning against us. And Defense Department officials believe that ``indications of that hostility extend well beyond the Sunni heartland or Iraq, which has been the main setting for attacks on American forces.'' We are still losing an American a day. After going it alone on the war, we have few allies to relieve our troops and join us in winning the all-important peace. Secretary Rumsfeld admitted this week that our failure to recruit sufficient foreign troops likely means additional callups for our reservists and guard units. General Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday that ``it doesn't look like we'll have a coalition brigade. We have no choice but to plan for American forces.'' He is not counting on foreign troops. Clearly, the situation in Iraq is out of control. Our policies are not working. Our plan in Iraq is an $87 billion failure, and our troops are paying the price. The administration must admit that our plan is not working, that we cannot stay this course. We know it. The American people know it. Our allies know it. We cannot afford just to stay the same failing course. We owe our troops a change in plan. Before the Congress writes a blank check for $87 billion, we need to know that the administration has a realistic plan. Our troops who are paying with their lives deserve no less. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are in morning business?

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I bring to your attention today the exemplary work and most commendable service to one of our country's outstanding public servants. Mr. Donald P. Oulton, Chief of the International Law Branch, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, U.S. Air Force Electronic Systems Center, Hanscom Air Force Base, MA. Mr. Oulton retired on September 1, 2003, following an extraordinary career of more than 30 years of service to the Nation. Born in upstate New York at the beginning of the Great Depression, Mr. Oulton was one of 10 children. Part of a close and loving family, at an early age he and his siblings became accomplished singers and dancers, helping support their large family performing ``minstrel shows'' through those challenging years. Mr. Oulton became a one- handicap golfer in his teenage years while working as a caddy at a local country club. He had aspirations to become a professional golfer, but his plans were cut short by the call to service in the Korean war. An outstanding marksman, Mr. Oulton served as an intelligence and reconnaissance scout with the Seventh Infantry Division in the Chorwon Valley. There, he spend much of his time in outposts far in front of the main line of resistance, scouting out enemy positions and coordinating artillery and mortar fire by American and United Nations forces. He performed these duties repeatedly under hostile fire and in extremely harsh and primitive conditions. Of his great physical courage and devotion to duty there can be no doubt. After more than 9 months of combat at or in front of the main line of resistance, Mr. Oulton returned to the United States and was assigned to the United States National Honor Guard in Arlington, VA. Upon his honorable discharge from the Army he relocated to the greater Boston area, married his lovely wife Carol, and started his devoted family of four children David, Nancy, Sarah and Carol. After more than a decade, he also began to pursue his boyhood dream of becoming an attorney. In 1970, he achieved that goal, and after three years servicing as an Assistant District Attorney in Middlesex County, MA, he began his long association with the United States Air Force, and the Electronic Systems Center at Hanscom Air Force base. Mr. Oulton's contributions have been monumental. He was on the ground floor of many novel, complex issues arising from the passage of the Arms Control Act of 1976. He quickly became, and remains, one of the Department of Defense's leading experts on the act, security assistance, and foreign military sales. His contributions over three decades are too numerous to recount, but among the most significant have been as the lead attorney for the sale of the Airborne Warning and Control System, AWACS, to a variety of U.S. allies, including the United Kingdom, France, Turkey, Australia, Japan, and most notably NATO. In the build up to, and in the wake of, Operation Desert Storm, Mr. Oulton provided the expert legal advice that served as the foundation for the early deployment of the Joint STARS aircraft before the Air Force formally accepted it. His efforts have been instrumental in promoting the common defense and freedom throughout the world. A well-recognized legal expert, Mr. Oulton was the 1980 recipient of the James O. Wrightson Award, as the outstanding Air Force civilian attorney. In 1983, he was selected as the outstanding senior civilian in the electronic systems division of Air Force Systems Command, and presented the Harold M. Wright award. He is widely published and cited in the field of security assistance and foreign military sales, has been an adjunct faculty member at Western New England College, and has been a guest lecturer on International Law at Harvard University. I ask that my colleagues join me and Mr. Oulton's many friends and family in saluting his many distinguished years of selfless service to the United States of America. I know our Nation, his wife Carol, and his family are extremely proud of his accomplishments. It is fitting that the Senate honors this true patriot today.

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I missed rollcall No. 513 due to technical difficulties. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I heard many of my colleagues today discussing my remarks on this administration's go-it-alone policy in Iraq. This administration and my colleagues across the aisle are trying to deflect attention away from the administration's failed policy in Iraq. For the sake of our troops, it is time for this administration to speak honestly about its failures in Iraq. Many Americans share my views, and I regret that the President considers them uncivil and not in the national interest. The real action that was not in the American interest was the decision to go to war unilaterally without the support of our allies and without a plan to win the peace. There is no question that the White House sees political advantage in the war. You can see it in Karl Rove's speeches to Republican strategists. Just this morning, the New York Times reports that ``the White House goal is to show substantial improvement in Iraq before next fall's reelection campaign.'' You can see it in the way they attack the patriotism of those who question them. There are valid questions and deep concerns about the administration's rush to war in Iraq--in its rationale, whether there is a plan for winning the peace, how the money is being spent, and when our troops can come home with honor. Our troops, their families, and the American people deserve answers--not more politics as usual. The administration has no plan for Iraq, and it shows. American service men and women are paying with their lives. The President's trip to the United Nations this week is now the most important journey of his administration but it didn't have to be this way. The situation in Iraq is out of control, and American troops are paying the price every day with their lives. We have now lost more troops since the President declared an end to major combat than during the war itself. The administration says it has an international coalition, but it is paper-thin. America has 85 percent of all the coalition troops on the ground, and we are taking 85 percent of the casualties. This administration is muddling through day-by-day, while the lives of our soldiers are at risk and their families worry here at home. The administration has been unwilling so far to make the compromises needed at the United Nations to obtain the support our troops need to ease their burden and bring stability and peace to Iraq. The American people want to know from President Bush, when can their sons and daughters, their husbands and wives, their fathers and mothers, return from Iraq with dignity, having fulfilled their mission? The White House may be saying things are going well and we should stay the course. But the American people know that major changes in policy are essential. We need a plan from the administration--a real plan--before we write an $87 billion blank check to pay for this administration's hollow policy in Iraq. Terrorist are sabotaging the reconstruction efforts, lashing out in every way they can. U.S. casualties continue to rise. The headquarters of the United Nations was devastated by a truck bomb that specifically targeted and killed the U.N.'s highly respected chief representative in Baghdad. Nothing is sacred. A key Shiite cleric was assassinated in the bombing of a mosque. Even the Jordanian Embassy in Baghdad was bombed, in an ominous message to other Middle East nations that cooperate with the U.S. Terrorists are said to be streaming into Iraq to take advantage of the new breeding ground that our failed policy has given them. President Bush has asked Congress to provide $87 billion more in the coming year to set it right in Iraq, but it is essentially a blank check. He says he will internationalize the conflict, but he doesn't want to share power on the ground. The administration had a brilliant plan to fight the war, but no plan to win the peace. It had a brilliant plan to overthrow a government, but no plan to deliver on the promise of democracy. The American people are confused about why we fought this war, and what our strategy is for winning the peace. Last fall, the President said that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons. The, he said Iraq has an active weapons of mass destruction program. This spring, the administration claimed that Iraq was linked to al-Qaida. None of these are true. No one doubts that Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator, but what was the imminent threat to our national security? The administration's rationale was built on a quicksand of false assumptions. In terms of how we will win the peace, the administration also seems confused. The Secretary of State has argued that additional time is needed to establish a new government in Iraq. A few weeks ago, he said, ``it will be some time before any new government could take over the responsibilities inherent in being in charge of security.'' But Secretary Rumsfeld, in an effort to assure that we are not getting bogged down, says that things are ``moving at a very rapid pace in Iraq.'' Which is it? These and other facts lead the American people to question whether the administration has an effective plan to share the security burden with the international community, reduce the burden on our troops, and deliver on the promise of democracy. The American people deserve answers. How will the administration obtain a broader international mandate-- through the United Nations--to bring in other countries' troops and provide a greater role for the United Nations in the political development and reconstruction of Iraq? How many additional troops are needed to prevent the sabotage undermining the reconstruction? What nations will supply troops? What is the estimate of the duration of the U.S. military occupation and the likely levels of U.S. and foreign troops required for security? What is the estimate of the total cost of security and reconstruction, including the likely amount of international contributions? What is the schedule for restoring electricity, water, and other basic services to the Iraqi people? What is the long-term schedule for the withdrawal of foreign and American armed forces? The administration must answer these questions and provide a credible long-term plan for Iraq. We can't afford to continue our failed strategy of making it up day-by-day as we go along, when our soldiers are paying for it with their lives. We all hope the window to peace will stay open. If it closes, history will have no mercy--it will say this is how we went to war against Iraq, for the wrong reason, and lost the war on terrorism. That is the precipice we not stand on. The administration needs to show the American people and the world a plausible plan to correct this colossal failure in our policy. In addressing the United Nations, the President should have taken responsibility for his administration's mistakes in going to war without the broad support of the international community. We need to involve the United Nations in a meaningful way in the transition in Iraq. Our policy cannot be all take and no give. The President should work with the United Nations as long as it takes to get an agreement to help our troops and bring stability to Iraq. Our troops are doing their jobs in Baghdad; now President Bush must do his in New York.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues in introducing the Agricultural Jobs, Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act. The treatment of immigrant farm workers, dating back to the Bracero program, represents a shameful chapter in our history. The decades of exploitation these workers have endured continues to this day. Large numbers of men and women employed in agriculture today are indispensable workers who also happen to be undocumented. As a result, they are easily exploited by unscrupulous employers, who get away with paying them very low wages and forcing them to work in dangerous conditions. Inevitably, that means lower wages for legal farm workers. We have been struggling for decades to find a solution to this emotional heart-wrenching problem. This legislation--a historic and far-reaching agreement between the United Farm Workers of America and the representatives of agricultural industries--provides a common sense solution to this long-standing problem. It will provide farm workers and their families with dignity and justice and give agricultural industries with a legal workforce. We need an agriculture policy grounded in reality, a policy that recognizes their contributions and respects and rewards their work. This legislation will improve the wages and working conditions of all farm workers, and provide a way for foreign-born workers to become permanent residents. Under this bill, 500,000 farm workers currently working the United States will be able to legalize their status. These changes will benefit both workers and growers. The legislation will improve the wages and working conditions of all farm workers, and provide a way for foreign-born workers to become permanent residents. Agriculture is a unique industry. Growers must have an immediate and reliable workforce at harvest time. Everyone is harmed when crops rot in the field because the workers are not available. With these changes, growers will have greater access to dependable, hard-working employees, and a workforce that is no longer subject to sudden immigration raids. I urge my colleagues to support this needed legislation. These reforms are long overdue, to improve the lives and working conditions of all farm workers, and it is long past time for Congress to act.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 8\1/2\ minutes of my 10 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues in introducing the Agricultural Jobs, Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act. The treatment of immigrant farm workers, dating back to the Bracero program, represents a shameful chapter in our history. The decades of exploitation these workers have endured continues to this day. Large numbers of men and women employed in agriculture today are indispensable workers who also happen to be undocumented. As a result, they are easily exploited by unscrupulous employers, who get away with paying them very low wages and forcing them to work in dangerous conditions. Inevitably, that means lower wages for legal farm workers. We have been struggling for decades to find a solution to this emotional heart-wrenching problem. This legislation--a historic and far-reaching agreement between the United Farm Workers of America and the representatives of agricultural industries--provides a common sense solution to this long-standing problem. It will provide farm workers and their families with dignity and justice and give agricultural industries with a legal workforce. We need an agriculture policy grounded in reality, a policy that recognizes their contributions and respects and rewards their work. This legislation will improve the wages and working conditions of all farm workers, and provide a way for foreign-born workers to become permanent residents. Under this bill, 500,000 farm workers currently working the United States will be able to legalize their status. These changes will benefit both workers and growers. The legislation will improve the wages and working conditions of all farm workers, and provide a way for foreign-born workers to become permanent residents. Agriculture is a unique industry. Growers must have an immediate and reliable workforce at harvest time. Everyone is harmed when crops rot in the field because the workers are not available. With these changes, growers will have greater access to dependable, hard-working employees, and a workforce that is no longer subject to sudden immigration raids. I urge my colleagues to support this needed legislation. These reforms are long overdue, to improve the lives and working conditions of all farm workers, and it is long past time for Congress to act.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield for a comment. I have been made aware that technology exists in the marketplace that is capable of protecting power generation assets. I am aware of at least one company, in fact, a Massachusetts company, that has developed software capable of protecting our power generation assets from cyber attack. If the technology exists, are we not obligated to protect these assets? Protecting transmission without protecting generation is like protecting airports without protecting aircraft. Isn it reasonable, therefore, to conclude that the entire national power grid, including generation, should be protected?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I am recognized for how long?

Mr. KENNEDY. And how much on the other side?

Mr. KENNEDY. Four minutes?

Mr. KENNEDY. Then, would the Chair let me know when I have a minute and a half left, please? First of all, I welcome the opportunity to be here with my friend and colleague from California in what I consider to be one of the most important votes that we will have this year. It is an issue involving our security. It is an issue, I believe, also, in the battle on terrorism. It was just 40 years September 24, 40 years ago on September 24, that we had the signing of the first partial test ban treaty. This chart reflects in a very abbreviated way, but an enormously important way what has happened over the last 40 years as leaders of the Democrats and Republicans alike moved us away from the real possibility of nuclear confrontation, and we have seen enormous success. We have seen the willingness of countries around the world to give up their capability of developing nuclear weapons because they wanted to be a part of the worldwide effort on nuclear proliferation. They also recognized it would be a more secure world if we didn't have further nuclear expansion. We listened to the debate yesterday and the points that were well- made by my very good friend from New Mexico about how this legislation is really not about developing a new nuclear weapon. But the Senator from California pointed out three different references, all which have been included as a part of the Record. The most obvious is the administration's own statement of administration policy this past spring asking for the continued need for ``flexibility in the cooperative threat reduction program and support for critical research and the development''--I will say this again--``and the development for low-yield nuclear weapons.'' That is what this issue is about. Are we going to reverse the last 40 years? Do we possibly think there will be a safer America if we begin to move back towards the testing and the developing of what they call mini-nukes? I don't believe so, because I believe a nuke is a nuke is a nuke. It is an entirely different weapons system than those in our conventional forces. We understand that. We have to take what the administration has stated: they intend to move ahead in the development of a new nuclear capability. Those with responsibility within the administration have made it very clear. In February of 2003, Fred Celec, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Affairs, said: If a nuclear bomb could be developed to penetrate rock and concrete and still explode, it will ultimately get fielded. In April of 2003, Linton Brooks, Chief of Nuclear Weapons at the Department of Energy, stated before the Senate Armed Services Committee: I have a bias in favor of the lowest usable yield because . . . I have a bias in favor of things that might be usable. We have been warned. We have the capability that exists to make sure we have the deterrence on into the future. But this is a radical departure of 40 years of Republicans and Democrats alike moving us away from the dangers of nuclear confrontations and the dangers of nuclear proliferation to the development of small nuclear weapons. And we will find this an invitation for the terrorists around the world to come and seek out that weapon. If we develop a small nuclear weapon, what are we going to find? The corresponding action by countries around the world-- the Iranians and the North Koreans continuing their progress in developing their own nuclear weapons system. That doesn't make sense in terms of the country that is the number one military force in the world today. It doesn't make sense, and it doesn't make sense for our battle against the war on terrorism. It is very clear why this amendment is needed. The administration pretends it is not really planning to produce these new kinds of nuclear weapons--the mini-nukes and the bunker busters. They just want to find out if they are feasible. We all know what is at stake. The administration wants us to take the first steps down a new path. But going down that path could easily make nuclear war more likely. Just a little step--they say. But it is still a first step. And a step down that path now could make the next step easier, and the next and the next. It is a path that makes nuclear war more likely, and the time to call a halt is now--before we take the first step. We ask for and implore the support of our colleagues to move us away from the real dangers of nuclear proliferation and the development of these dangerous mini-nukes that can pose a danger to the world population. I withhold whatever time is left.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President. In a strong democracy, a variety of views must be available to citizens. Protections are essential so that minority views can be heard. That was the vision of America's founders when they drafted the First Amendment to the Constitution, and it has served the Nation well. Its principles are especially important today. Neither the broadcast industry nor anyone else is entitled to a monopoly over the dissemination of information in our society. The presence of a diversity of voices, each contributing to our national discourse, is essential for the functioning of our democratic society. And the best way to foster that diversity is through competition. Today, however, an increasingly serious problem is being caused by the buyouts of local broadcast stations by national media conglomerates. Competition suffers, and local issues of great importance to individual communities often go unheard. Many of us in Congress are deeply concerned that the remaining diversity of our media will be further be reduced by the Federal Communications Commission's recent decision to weaken media ownership rules. The new rules allow even greater media concentration, in spite of its adverse effect on competition, the diversity of views, and major national, State, and local priorities. I support Senator Dorgan's proposal to reject these rules, because they are not in the public interest, and would seriously weaken the protections in current law that prevent excessive concentration in the broadcast industry. The public has little to gain and a great deal to lose if we allow the FCC to slash the protections that serve them so well. Each weakening of restrictions on media ownership in recent years has been followed by a burst of new corporate consolidation. Mergers have sharply reduced the number of media companies and threaten to erode the diversity and competition that are so important to our Nation. The new rules will greatly increase this problem, by allowing fewer firms to control the flow of information--locally or nationally. It makes no sense for Congress to allow restrictions on the flow of information that is so important to our democracy in this information age. As a trustee of the Nation's public airwaves, the FCC has a responsibility to include the American public in its decision-making process. Yet the commission has largely ignored public comment and debate before it these sweeping changes in the nation's broadcasting rules. The commission agreed to one public hearing on the overall issue, and it refused to publicly disclose the rules before they were voted on. Such secrecy is unacceptable. What possible harm can come from public disclosure? The commission's ``notice and comment'' procedure is intended to allow an informed debate about these important issues of public policy, but in this case the agency used its procedures to keep the public in the dark. Even with incomplete information, the public reaction against the proposed changes has been unique in the history of the FCC. The commission received nearly three quarters of a million comments, and over 99.9 percent of them opposed the increase in media consolidation. As a result, a wide variety of organizations--including civil rights groups, churches, family values groups, and labor unions--have called on the FCC to reconsider the proposal. The National Rifle Association, the National Organization for Women, and many others expressed grave doubt about the wisdom of allowing greater consolidation. Nevertheless, the FCC approved the new rules. I urge my colleagues to send a clear message today to the commission and the public by nullifying these rules and reversing this misguided decision the commission to support the interest of media conglomerates and ignore the public interest. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)