Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Boston Celtics are heroes on the basketball court and off the court as well. In 1997, they established the ``Heroes Among Us'' award to honor outstanding individuals in New England who have made an especially significant impact on the lives of others. The award is designed to honor men and women in Massachusetts who stand tall in their commitment to their community. The extraordinary achievements of the honorees include saving lives, sacrificing for others, overcoming obstacles to achieve goals, or lifelong commitments to improving the lives of those around them. They include persons of all ages and from all walks of life, including students, community leaders, founders of nonprofit organizations, members of the clergy, and many others. At each home game during the season, the Celtics and their fans salute the exemplary efforts of an honoree in a special presentation on the basketball court. So far, over 250 individuals have received the ``Heroes Among Us'' award. All of us in Massachusetts are very proud of this program, which has become one of the most recognized and respected initiatives in our State. I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the names of the honorees for the 2002-2003 season. Dira Barbosa, Cambridge, MA; Ethan Zohn, Lexington, MA; Lisa Scherber, Reading, MA; David Gordenstein, Needham, MA; Jonathan Adams, Littleton, MA; Jerry Smith, Hyannis, MA; David Gonthier, Amesbury, MA; Joe Lester, Tewksbury, MA; Robert Coard, West Roxbury, MA; Frank Chin, Boston, MA; Josh Powell, Dorchester, MA; Amy Maki, North End, MA. Linda Whitlock, Newton, MA; Stephen Clay, Springfield, MA; Crew of the USS Constitution, Charlestown, MA; Rebecca Chernin, Sharon, MA; Bill Murphy, Centerville, MA; David Crandell, Needham, MA; Moe Boisvert, Shrewsbury, MA; Paul Manley, Nashua, MA; Technical Sergeant Cynthia Chagnon, Concord, MA; Captain Thomas Hudner, Concord, MA; Jason and Sharon Silber, Peabody, MA; Staff Sergeant David Johnson, Amesbury, MA. Maureen Dunn, Randolph, MA; Darryl Williams, Milton, MA; Lieutenant Commander Bill Timmons, Buzzard's Bay, MA; Lou Bianchi, Natick, MA; Stephen and Ann Connally, Chesire, MA; Justin Pasquariello, Arlington, MA; Tom Kelley, South Boston, MA; Pam Singer, Dunbarton, NH; John and Magi Bish, West Warren, MA; Travers DeGroot, East Greenwich, RI; Gerald Chertavian, Boston, MA; Jeffrey Ryan, Watertown, MA. Bill McAndrews, Medfield, MA; Patrick Doyle, Dorchester, MA; Macy DeLong, Lexington, MA; Hope Wilson, East Bridgewater, MA; Terry Lenczycki, East Bridgewater, MA; Lee Kennedy, Norwood, MA; Jane Sapp, Springfield, MA; Tony and Virginia Brenna, Milford, MA; Crew of the USS Preble, United States Navy; Gary Twombly, Hull, MA; Zachary Jewett, North Attleboro, MA.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, it is important to know what this is and what this is not. We are not asking for war plans. We are talking about how we are going to win the peace. We have a policy which is adrift in Iraq today. Americans are getting shot every single day. We are not asking for secret conversations between heads of state. All we are trying to do is ask the President of the United States, as we did a week ago, to consider going to the United Nations. We asked him to consider going to NATO. Now we are asking him: If you are going to NATO, tell us; and if you are not going to NATO to try to get relief for our military, tell us. This is about the postwar period, not a secret plan about whether we are going through Turkey or how many bombers we are going to have or how many ships. We are talking about the plan for the postwar period and where Americans are getting shot every single day. The policy is adrift. We are asking the President to clarify for the American people what his policy is. I think the American people are entitled to it. I am prepared to yield back my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Secretary Rumsfeld told the Armed Services Committee last week that except for the area around Baghdad, most of Iraq is already secure. If that is so, then why not reduce the burden on our military and allow this large area of Iraq, which needs police officers as well as combat troops, to be turned over as soon as possible to the United Nations-approved and NATO-led force? Why not allow American and coalition forces to secure the area around Baghdad and allow other nations to provide security for the rest of Iraq? We all know that as long as Iraq continues to dominate our attention, we cannot give other aspects of the war against terrorism the clear focus they deserve. It is not just what happens in Iraq itself, as important as that issue is, but the continuing urgency of the ongoing fight against terrorism that should persuade us to seek allies in an international plan for a peaceful Iraq. Otherwise, we run the grave risk of exposing our Nation to more terrorist attacks. We won the war in Iraq, as we knew we would, but if our present policy continues, we may lose the peace. We must rise to the challenge of international cooperation. Saddam may no longer be in power, but the people of Iraq will not truly be liberated until they live in a secure country. The war will not be over until the fighting stops on the ground, democracy takes hold, and the people of Iraq are able to govern themselves. My amendment asks the administration to make a major, genuine effort to enlist the official support of NATO and the United Nations for our forces in Iraq. I urge the Senate to affirm it. Mr. President, I will take a few moments to review the amendment. It is two pages. It says: Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to Congress an unclassified report (with a classified annex, if necessary) on the United States strategy regarding activities related to post-conflict security, humanitarian assistance, governance, and reconstruction in Iraq that are undertaken as a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The report shall include the following: (1) A schedule for the President to seek NATO participation, as an organization of many nations, in ongoing operations in Iraq. (2) A schedule for the President to seek and obtain approval of a resolution of the United Nations Security Council authorizing a multinational civil and security force (including substantial participation by armed forces of NATO member countries under unified command and control) to guarantee the stability, democratization, and reconstruction of Iraq. (3) An estimate of the number of Armed Forces personnel that are needed in Iraq to guarantee the stability and reconstruction of Iraq, separately stated for each of the Armed Forces and, within each of the Armed Forces, for each of the components. (4) An Estimate of the number of personnel of armed forces of foreign countries that are needed in Iraq to guarantee the stability and reconstruction of Iraq. (5) A statement and justification from the President for his actions in seeking or failing to seek NATO participation or a U.N. Security Council resolution. Basically, what this amendment is saying is, let us hear from the President on what the plan is for postwar Iraq. Let the Senate hear from the President his response to what was the 97 to 0 vote in the Senate Chamber last week that asked him to consider going to the United Nations, going to NATO, and reporting back to the Congress so the American people will have knowledge and understanding of exactly what the plans for the future of Iraq would be. I hope as we were able to gather a virtually unanimous vote in the Senate last week on the previous resolution, we could gather support in the Senate on this resolution. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. The amendment I sent to the desk did not need a modification. I provided for the Senator paragraph 5.

Mr. KENNEDY. I will not take the time. Mr. President, American service men and women are dying every day. This amendment does not require the President to go to the United Nations. It does not require him to go to NATO. All we are trying to find out is what his policy is. If he does not want to go to the United Nations, if he does not want to ask NATO to come in there and get additional help and assistance and troops that might provide some relief for ours--just tell us. Just tell us. He ought to be able to tell us, give us the answers very quickly. All we are asking for is to know the policy. I think parents are entitled to know whether this President will go to ask for additional kinds of military force in terms of NATO--in Muslim countries, other countries that will be interested in helping and assisting the Americans secure Iraq. I think the American people are entitled to know whether we will follow the other measures that have been taken that have been successful in Kosovo and in Bosnia and also in East Timor. If the President doesn't want to do it, fine, but just tell us. American servicemen are dying over there. We are entitled to know what the President is going to do. But we do not have an answer now. We do not have an answer except more of the same. And this postwar policy is adrift. It is bankrupt. It is nonexistent. It is being made up on the back of an envelope every single day, and American service men and women are dying. That is what this amendment addresses. Finally, the Senator from Alaska, as I understand it, voted on this resolution last week, where the Senate included in the sense-of-the- Senate resolution that the President should consider requesting formally and expeditiously that NATO raise a force for deployment. The Senator supported that sense of the Senate that the President should consider calling on the United Nations. This was passed last week. All we are saying is, if you are not going to do it, tell us you are not going to do it, and tell us within the 30-day period. If you are going to do it, let us know that as well. I think the American people are entitled to know what our policy is because I don't believe they do know, today. I reserve my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I understand there are 2 minutes remaining.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have had the opportunity to share this amendment with the manager of the bill. I believe the floor manager is familiar with it. The amendment is now at the desk. I welcome the opportunity to address the Senate on the substance of the amendment. I supported the Boxer amendment that we just voted on, which failed to carry. She was seeking important information on the Iraqi operation. I believe the American people deserve this information. But they also deserve a plan. My amendment requires the administration to report information on that plan. This amendment asks the President to submit a report to the Congress within 30 days of enactment on the efforts to internationalize our operations in Iraq. The report would provide a timetable for the President to seek NATO participation as an institution in the ongoing operations in Iraq. It would provide a timetable for the President to seek and obtain the approval of a resolution of the United Nations Security Council authorizing a multinational security force, including substantial participation by the Armed Forces of NATO member countries, to guarantee the stability and reconstruction of a democratic Iraq. The report would include an estimate of the number of American Armed Forces personnel needed in Iraq to guarantee the stability and reconstruction of Iraq, and an estimate of the number of personnel from foreign countries that the administration believes are necessary to accomplish that goal. Finally, if the administration chooses not to go to NATO or the U.N., the report would require an explanation of the rationale. Last week, by a vote of 97 to 0, the Senate approved a resolution encouraging the President to consider requesting the involvement of NATO and the U.N. in Iraq. This amendment builds on that action by seeking a plan and timetable for doing just that. The administration has had plenty of time to consider this. For the sake of the soldiers in Baghdad, it is time to act. Supporters and opponents of the war alike are enormously proud of the way our troops performed in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The speed and success of their mission in toppling Saddam Hussein demonstrated the extraordinary ability of our Nation's Armed Forces. It is no accident that so few of our forces paid the ultimate price during the 3 tumultuous weeks this took. It was a foregone conclusion that we would win the war, but the all- important challenge now is to win the peace. In fact, we are at serious risk of losing it. Each day now, as the guerrilla war goes on, our troops and their families are paying the price. Our clear national interests in the emergence of a peaceful, stable, and democratic Iraq is being undermined. Since May 1, when President Bush announced on the aircraft carrier that major combat operations in Iraq had ended, 82 more American troops have died. For the men and women of our Armed Forces who are dodging bullets in the streets and alleys of Baghdad, and other parts of Iraq, the battle is far from over. President Bush says to the attackers, ``bring 'em on,'' but how do you console a family by telling them their son or daughter is a casualty of the postwar period? The debate may go on many months, or even years, about our intelligence failures before the war began. The failures of intelligence were bad enough, but the real failure of intelligence was our failure to understand Iraq. There is no question that long before the war began, the serious issue was raised about the danger of winning the war and losing the peace. In fact, it was one of the principal arguments against going to war. Based on our past experience in Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, and Afghanistan, we knew the postwar rebuilding of Iraq would be difficult. These are not new issues. Rather than learning from the past experience in these previous conflicts, the administration rushed ahead, and the result has been chaos for the Iraqi people and continuing mortal danger to our troops--all because we insisted on doing it unilaterally, without the support of the two international organizations that could have made all the difference in winning the peace. Sadly, we quickly went from liberators to occupiers in a few short weeks. Cynicism and anger against America are rife. Many Iraqis believe we are unwilling, not just unable, to restore basic services. They are losing faith and trust in our promise of a reconstructed, stable, peaceful future, and they fear that Saddam may still be alive. Under fire from guerillas who are determined to see America fail, our soldiers are now performing police functions for which they have had little training. We are straining their endurance, and they want to know how long they will have to stay in Iraq. Even President Bush is now saying rebuilding Iraq will be a massive and long-term undertaking. What we need most now is to share at least some of the burden with the international community. Our troops are now sent overseas for longer tours of duty than ever. Because we rely on their skill and the skill to meet commitments on a global scale, more than 150,000 troops are in Iraq, and many have been deployed in the region for close to a year. Half of our Army divisions are in Iraq or Afghanistan. Of the 33 Army combat brigades, 18 are in Iraq. The strain is also great for citizens serving in the Guard and Reserves because we depend upon them with greater frequency, ever since we reduced our forces after the cold war. It is difficult to continue to put patriotic reservists through the deployment grinder year after year and expect them to hold up indefinitely. It is also difficult to sustain the cost of such missions. We are now spending $3.9 billion a month in Iraq, and with the ongoing costs of the war on terrorism, our operations in Afghanistan, and our potential new responsibility around the globe in places such as west Africa, let alone Iran and North Korea, we are creating an unsustainable financial burden at a time of exploding budget deficits, soaring demands for homeland security, and mounting needs for health care, education, and other domestic priorities. As a nation with honor, responsibility, and the vision of a better world, America cannot invade and then cut and run from Iraq, but we also cannot afford the continuing costs in dollars or in blood of continuing to go it alone. If our national security is at stake, we will spare no cost. The alternative is so obvious. Working with the international community, we can develop and implement an effective strategy to reduce the burden and risk to our soldiers, stabilize Iraq, and deliver on the promise of a better future for its people. Whatever our divisions before the war, the challenge is very different now. There is every chance we can secure broad international support and participation in the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq. All we may have to do is ask because so much is clearly at stake for the rest of the world. At issue is the stability and the future of the entire highly volatile Middle East. No one would be immune from the dangers that a resentful and disorganized Iraq presents for its nation and neighbors everywhere. If we diversify the faces of the security force, it is far less likely that Iraqis will see us as the enemy, oppressor, and occupier. We want the 25 million citizens of Iraq to see the armed strangers in their country as friends and partners in their pursuit of freedom. We want the new governing council appointed last Sunday to succeed. We need to bring regional forces into Iraq, especially Muslims. Countries such as Jordan, Pakistan, and Egypt could transform this mission with both their diversity and their expertise. The United Arab Emirates have contributed to the effort in Kosovo. Morocco, Albania, and Turkey have worked with us in Bosnia. Many nations have well- trained police. Reaching out to other countries and bringing them into the postwar process is the surest path to a stable Iraq. But most other nations are unlikely to send troops to serve what is perceived as an American occupation. India turned us down earlier this week. Other nations will be far more likely to do their part if the international mission is approved by the United Nations or organized by NATO. Instead of asking our Armed Forces to carry out a mission they are not trained for, and to do it alone, we need to rely on the expertise and the resources of the international community. The United Nations has assumed that responsibility in other countries in the past, and it is one of the major reasons the U.N. was created. Necessity is the mother of invention. In the case of Iraq, President Bush obviously had to modify his strong opposition to nation building. The challenge now is to move beyond unilateral nation building. The new Iraqi council announced on Sunday is a step in the right direction, but it will be much more effective if the United Nations has a major presence in overseeing it. Those who join a United States-dominated, government-run council run the high risk of being dismissed by the Iraqis as American puppets. As long as America alone is calling the tune, Iraqi moderates may remain in the background or even oppose us. Our interests in the emergence of a true democracy in Iraq are best fulfilled by involving the world community, and especially other Arab nations, as part of helping the Iraqis themselves shape a new Iraq. Only then would a new Iraq government be viewed as legitimate by the Iraqi people. The U.N. has a modest role now through its mandate for humanitarian issues, but it has only an advisory role in the civil administration of Iraq. That has to change. The U.N. should have a formal role in overseeing the establishment of a political process. The U.N., rather than the United States, should preside over the evolution of a new Iraqi government. Doing so will win international legitimacy and indispensable international support for this challenge, minimizing the danger that Iraqis will keep regarding their new government as a puppet of ours. With Arab-speaking spokesmen, the U.N. could also convey a different image and a different message to the people of that country, a sense of reassurance that an overwhelming American occupation never can. NATO, as an institution, should clearly be in Iraq as well. Military experts believe it will take at least 200,000 troops to stabilize Iraq. Our goal should be to include NATO and some of its 2 million-member pool of armed forces in military operations as soon as possible. America will provide a majority of troops, but over time the overall number of forces would decrease. As in Kosovo and Bosnia, we should ask the United Nations Security Council to authorize NATO to organize an international security force to demilitarize and stabilize Iraq. To do so does not mean the United States should or must relinquish all military control. On the contrary, we would have a significant role in the NATO force and could continue to have a defining role in Iraq. An American commander was in charge of American troops in Bosnia, and the head of NATO forces in Europe is and always has been an American. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. KENNEDY. How much time do I have?

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. That was the modification. Rather than sending the modification to the desk, I sent a completely new amendment and I believe my staff shared it with the Senator. The only difference was these four lines: A statement and justification from the President for his actions in seeking or failing to seek NATO participation or a U.N. Security Council resolution. So the purpose of the last paragraph is that if the President decides he is not going to follow this, that he will send back to the Congress and to the Senate a report stating to the American people the reasons and the justification for not doing so.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, 82 American soldiers have been shot since the President of the United States landed on the Abraham Lincoln and effectively said this war is over. There is no postwar policy. It is a bankrupt policy. We attended the hearings with General Garner regarding postwar Iraq policy. He lasted 21 days and was fired. Now we have new personnel in Iraq, operating out of the palace in Iraq. We have American servicemen who are in a shooting gallery over there; and the Senator from Alaska is rejecting our request for the President of the United States to tell us what our policy is? We do not have a postwar policy for development in Iraq. We have failed intelligence. One day they are saying the army is going to defect and join us; the next day they fire the army, the next day they are trying to rehire them. One day they say they will recruit the police and the next day they say they are thugs and will have nothing to do with them. They don't have a policy. For the Senator from Alaska to stand here and say he is indignant because the American people want to hear what the policy is surprises me just as much as I surprised him. The American people want to know how long their sons and daughters are going to be shot at in Iraq. What is the policy? A week ago we had 97 Members of the Senate, including the Senator from Alaska, urging the President of the United States to consider going to the United Nations and to consider, as well, using NATO. The Senator from Alaska supported that. What this amendment is saying is, tell us if you are going to go to the United Nations, tell us if you are going to include NATO. And if you are not going to, come back and tell the American people why not. We had a President who said we were going to use NATO in Bosnia. It worked, and we reduced the number of Americans who were killed. We had a President say we were going to use NATO in Kosovo. It worked, and we reduced the number of Americans killed. We had a President who said we would bring in U.N. forces in East Timor. We did and reduced the dangers to America. There are many who believe that is a viable option. Maybe the Senator from Alaska does not, but there are a lot of people and a lot of parents who do. I say to the Senator from Alaska, the American people are entitled to know the policy of this administration. To hear such rejection to find out the policy is amazing. This is supposedly an open government. We would think the President would want to share his thinking in order to galvanize support. No President can lead a country in time of war unless he galvanizes the support of the American people. We ought to know what the policy is. If this is not the policy, tell us what it is--not behind closed doors but in open session. Tell us what it is. We did not hear it at the Armed Services Committee last week from the Secretary of Defense and we did not hear it today, evidently--unless a few selected Senators heard it in a closed session. What is wrong with requesting the President of the United States to tell the American people where we are going to be in 30 days in Iraq when our American servicemen are being shot and killed every day. I am sorry that irks or bothers the Senator from Alaska but parents of American service men and women would like to know. The American people want to know. We are entitled to that kind of information. If he does not want to go that particular route, come back and tell us what he does want to do. This is a makeup policy over in Iraq. One person heading it up today and he is gone tomorrow. We have people deciding they will do one thing today and they change it tomorrow. In the meantime, one thing is consistent: the killing of American servicemen who are doing tasks they were not trained for and they should not be doing in that country. Many believe it would be worthwhile to bring other troops in and share the responsibility and burden of securing Iraq. Maybe the Senator rejects that. There are people within the administration who want to go it alone. If that is the position, the posture of this President, let's hear it out and have a debate on it. One day it is, no, we do not want to go it alone; we want to use the United Nations and NATO but we really do not want to request them. Secretary General Robertson of NATO has indicated that the United States has not made a direct appeal to him in order to galvanize NATO as an institution to provide security. Sure, some of the countries have been asked, but the Secretary General of the United Nations says the United States has not asked the United Nations in a formal way to try to take over some of the responsibilities. Maybe there is good reason for it. But the American people are entitled to know what the reasons are. This amendment is to try to find out that information. We do have a responsibility in foreign policy in terms of making war, the war powers, as well as in approving treaties. This Senate, the people's Senate, has a responsibility in foreign policy. The American people are entitled to know the thinking of this administration as their sons and daughters are getting shot every day. I am sorry if 30 days is too long a time. But we know what is going to happen. There will be 30 more Americans killed during that period of time. We are entitled to know. With all respect--and I have great affection for the Senator from Alaska--I am as troubled by his reaction as he is troubled by this amendment. I withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a fellow in my office, Ava Shinigal, be allowed on the floor during consideration of the Defense Appropriations bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, I want to congratulate my friend and colleague, the Senator from West Virginia, for his constancy in terms of ensuring to the best of his ability and the best of this institution's ability that we were going to meet our constitutional responsibilities some months ago, and understanding the Constitution, and that the issue of making war is something that was reserved to the Congress of the United States, and the extraordinary service he provided for our country in reminding us of our responsibilities in the United States to make a judgment and decision about sending and committing our men and women overseas in this conflict. I welcomed the opportunity to join with him at that time. His eloquence, passion, and knowledge of this institution and the history of the Constitution still ring in my ears from that experience. I think history will show that even though he did not at that time persuade the majority of the Members of the Senate, when history evaluates that effort it will be one of the important contributions he has made, and he has made many to this institution. As we all understand, he is a person who has placed the interests of this institution at the forefront of his agenda on many occasions, and it is a better institution and it is living up to its historic role as our Founding Fathers wanted it to be because of his contribution. So I thank him for what he has done and particularly in terms of the whole issue of policy toward Iraq. I welcomed again his comments earlier today. I was unable to catch all of them, but I will study them closely during the evening time, and I know as we are considering the Defense appropriations, we will hear more from him about the issue of American troops overseas, the National Guard and Reserve here at home-- the importance of them, and also about what we as a country are going to do in terms of funding this commitment that has been made in terms of Iraq as well as Afghanistan. The issue of the Guard and Reserve comes to us in a very clear way because of the number of troops we have over in Iraq at the present time. As the Senator knows full well, we have effectively half of all of the Army divisions tied up either in Iraq or Afghanistan. Eighteen out of the 35 or 36 combat divisions are in Iraq. So even when we talk to 148,000 troops, and 22 percent or 23 percent of our Army over there, when you are talking about the combat arms of the United States and the location of those service men and women, we are talking about in Iraq. And when we are talking about the Reserve and the Guard, in my State of Massachusetts, it is the fastest tempo that we have had, I believe, since the end of World War II--13 times higher today than the average over the previous years. I know he has spelled this out in great detail about what this has meant. What we do know is that it has meant really a stronger military because of the Guard and the Reserve in my own State, having known those individuals and visited those facilities and met those leaders. They are as committed as any military men and women who have served in our country. They provide indispensable services. But as has been pointed out, we are straining these individuals. Mr. President, last fall, many of us emphasized in the Senate that 9/ 11 had not nullified the long-standing basic principle that war should be the last resort. We felt that America should not go to war against Iraq unless and until all other reasonable alternatives for a peaceful solution had been exhausted. Then--as now--I believed that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein was not serious enough or imminent enough to justify a rush to war, and that we were going to war under false pretenses. Then--as now--I believed that war would distract from our broader war against terrorism and that we should not go to war with Iraq without the clear support of the international community. Then--as now--I believed that without a systematic re-examination, with dubious and even false rationalization, and without the informed consent of the American people, the Bush administration was drastically altering our long-standing foreign policy against preventive war, in order to justify its preconceived determination to invade Iraq. Supporters and opponents of the war alike were enormously proud of the way our troops performed in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The speed and success of their mission demonstrated the outstanding strength of the Nation's armed forces. As a citizen of Massachusetts and a member of the Armed Services Committee in the Senate, it never ceases to amaze me how far we have come in the two centuries since the embattled farmers at Concord Bridge fired the shot heard around the world. In the past decade alone, technology has put vast changes in warfare on fast-forward. We redefined the nature of modern warfare in the Persian Gulf war, we redefined it again in Afghanistan, and yet again in Iraq. We have by far the world's best military on the ground, on the sea, and in the air. It is no accident that so few paid the ultimate sacrifice during those 3 tumultuous weeks in March and April in Iraq. It was a foregone conclusion that we would win the war. But pride goes before a fall, and the all-important question now is whether we can win the peace. In fact, we are at serious risk of losing it. Our policy toward Iraq is adrift. Each day, our troops and their families are paying the price. Our clear national interest in the emergence of a peaceful, stable, democratic Iraq is being undermined. Since May 1, when President Bush announced aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier that ``major combat operations'' in Iraq had ended, 81 more American troops have died. For the men and women of our Armed Forces who are dodging bullets in the streets and alleys of Baghdad and other parts of Iraq, the battle is far from over. President Bush says of the attackers, ``Bring `em on.'' But how do you console a family by telling them that their son or daughter is a casualty of the post-war period? The debate may go on for many months or even years about our intelligence failures before the war began. As we now know, despite the claim made in the State of the Union Address, Saddam was not purchasing uranium from Africa to build nuclear weapons. Despite all the intelligence we were shown in the months leading up to war, despite the additional intelligence they said was there but could not be shared, we have yet to uncover any evidence that Iraq was stockpiling chemical or biological weapons. There was and is no evidence that Saddam was conspiring with al-Qaida. What was the imminent threat to the United States that required us to launch a preventive war in Iraq with very little international support? It is a disgrace that the case for war seems to have been based on shoddy intelligence, hyped intelligence, and even false intelligence. We have undermined America's prestige and credibility in the world and undermined the trust that Americans should and must have in what their nation tells them. How many will doubt a future claim of danger even if it is real? The failures of intelligence were bad enough. But the real failure of intelligence was our failure to understand Iraq. There is no question that long before the war began, a serious issue was raised about the danger of winning the war and losing the peace. In fact, it was one of the principal arguments against going to war. Before the war began, 11 separate agencies of the United States Government worked with 280 Iraqi citizens in the State Department's so- called ``Future of Iraq'' working groups. In numerous briefings, Pentagon officials assured us on the Senate Armed Services Committee that firm plans were in place to secure and rebuild Iraq. But the reality is that the administration had no realistic plan. We knew the post-war rebuilding of Iraq would be difficult. Based on our experience in Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, and Afghanistan, we knew that security could be a profound problem, and that there would be challenges from a restless population. We knew that building a national police force and a credible new government would be complicated tasks. These are not new issues. But rather than learning from past experience in these previous conflicts, the administration was blinded by its own ideological bravado. It rushed ahead without planning for contingencies or raising even basic questions about likely events. The foundation of our post-war policy was built on a quicksand of false assumptions, and the result has been chaos for the Iraqi people, and continuing mortal danger for our troops. The truth, as our colleague Senator John Kerry starkly stated last week, is clearer with each passing day and each new casualty: ``The administration went to war without a thorough plan to win the peace.'' The Pentagon assumed that we would be able to draw on thousands of Saddam's police force to protect security--but in the critical early weeks that followed the war, they were nowhere to be found, and too many of their officers turned out to be thugs and torturers. The Pentagon assumed that the bulk of the Iraqi Armed Forces could be used to supplement our forces--but those soldiers did not join us. The Pentagon assumed that some Iraqi exile leaders could return to Iraq to rally the population and lead the new government--but they were resented by the Iraqi people and the exiles were put on hold. The Pentagon assumed that after a few hundred of Saddam's top advisers were removed from power, large numbers of local officials would remain to run the government--but the government crumbled. The Pentagon assumed that Americans would be welcomed as liberators-- but for large numbers of Iraqis, we went from liberators to occupiers in a few short weeks. The dancing in the streets after the fall of the statue of Saddam was accompanied by an orgy of massive looting and chaos and was followed by growing frustration even from those who first saw us as liberators. There was egg on the face of the administration and its peace plan from Day 1. Plan A was so obviously the wrong plan that GEN Garner, the man sent to oversee it, was abruptly replaced on Day 21, and Paul Bremer was rushed in to make up Plan B as he went along. Today, Paul Bremer rules the country from Saddam's palace, while the Iraqi people too often sit in the dark without adequate water or electricity. Hospital equipment and medical supplies have been stolen. Power grids in major cities are being sabotaged. Cynicism and anger toward America are growing. Many Iraqis believe that we are unwilling--rather than unable--to restore basic services. They are losing faith and trust in our promise of a reconstructed, stable, peaceful future. They fear that Saddam may still be alive. Under fire from guerrillas determined to see America fail, our soldiers are now performing police functions for which they have little training. They are building schools and hospitals--a task for which they are ill prepared. We are straining their endurance, and they want to know how long they will have to stay in Iraq. That America would be seen as occupier should have come as no surprise. Former Secretary of State James Baker wrote in the New York Times last August, ``If we are to change the regime in Iraq, we will have to occupy the country militarily.'' Retired four-star Marine Corps General and former Central Command Commander Anthony Zinni said last August that we would ``inherit the country of Iraq'' and ``put soldiers that are already stretched so thin all around the world into a security force there forever.'' James Webb, an Assistant Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration, warned last September that we could occupy Iraq ``for the next 30 to 50 years.'' We knew--or should have known--that if we went into Iraq without the genuine support of the international community, there would be no easy way out. As James Webb also warned, ``Those who are pushing for a unilateral war in Iraq know full well that there is no exit strategy if we invade and stay.'' The White House is only just beginning to face the truth. On July 3, President Bush finally agreed that rebuilding Iraq would be a ``massive and long-term undertaking.'' But that undertaking cannot be sustained--and no foreign policy in this free society can succeed--unless it is supported by our people. With the administration's credibility frayed, and distrust rising here at home, it is time for President Bush to level with America. It is time for him to hear and heed the words of the great World War II general and great post-war Secretary of State George Marshall in his historic commencement address at Harvard in 1947: An essential part of any successful action on the part of the United States is an understanding on the part of the people of America of the character of the problem and the remedies to be applied. The Marshall Plan proposed in that address became one of the great achievements of the 20th century. It succeeded because it involved a coordinated effort by the United States and many nations of Europe to advance the recovery of the continent after the war, and Marshall won the Nobel Peace Prize. Is it too much to ask that we now be guided by that example? President Bush should face the truth and level with the American people about the cost of stabilization and reconstruction in Iraq--both financial and human. We need a plan--a real plan, to which we are truly committed--to share the burden with the international community, including old allies who can be enlisted if we make a genuine effort to heal the divisive past. Our troops are now sent overseas for longer stretches than ever-- because we rely on their skill and talents to meet commitments on a global scale. More than 150,000 of our troops are in Iraq, and many have been deployed in the region for close to a year. Half of our Army divisions are in Iraq or Afghanistan. Of 33 Army combat brigades, 18 are in Iraq. The strain is also great for citizens serving in the Guard and Reserves because we must depend upon them with greater frequency, ever since we reduced our forces after the cold war. More than 150,000 Guard and Reserve soldiers have been mobilized; 13,000 have been on active duty for at least a year. Others return home from deployments, only to be turned around and sent overseas for another tour. In fact, today our Reservists are spending 13 times longer in active duty than they did a decade ago, forced to put their lives on hold, missing births of their children, dealing with family crises by phone and e-mail. Open-ended missions are a serious strain on our forces and their families. It is difficult to continue to put these patriotic men and women through the deployment grinder year after year and expect them to hold up indefinitely. It is also difficult to sustain the cost of such missions. We are now spending $3.9 billion a month in Iraq. With the ongoing cost of the war on terrorism, our operations in Afghanistan, and our potential new responsibilities around the globe, in places such as West Africa, let alone Iran and North Korea, we are creating an unsustainable financial burden at a time of exploding budget deficits, soaring demands for homeland security, and mounting needs for health care, education, and other domestic priorities. Despite the escalating cost of the military operation in Iraq, not one cent of its cost is included in the defense-spending legislation being considered this very week in the Senate. Not one penny. How will we pay the bill? To this question, there is only resounding silence at the White House, another refusal to level with the American people. As a Nation with honor, responsibility, and the vision of a better world, America cannot invade and then cut and run from Iraq. But we also can't afford the continuing cost--in dollars or in blood--of stubbornly continuing to go-it-alone. If our national security is at stake, we will spare no cost. But we have options here that reach beyond the checkbook of the American people. Working with the international community, we can develop and implement an effective strategy to change a failed course, reduce the burden and risk to our soldiers, stabilize Iraq, and deliver on the promise of a better future for the Iraqi people. As we all know, a number of countries supported our military action against Saddam Hussein. Many others did not. But if the administration is willing to put the national interest ahead of its own ideological pride, I believe that we can secure broad international support and participation in the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq. After all, so much is clearly at stake for the rest of the world. At issue are the stability and the future of the entire highly volatile region. None would be immune from the dangers that a disunited and disorganized Iraq could present for its neighbors and for nations everywhere. These are not just American or British concerns. They are true international concerns. America cannot be effective in its mission in Iraq if old wounds don't heal and bitterness continues to fester. We need to take the chip off our shoulder, mend fences with France and with Germany, and stop the divisiveness. As we seek to stabilize and democratize Iraq, we do not need to go it alone and should not try to. If we diversify the faces of the security force, it is far less likely that Iraqis will see us as the enemy, oppressor, and occupier. We want the 25 million citizens of Iraq to see the forces that are there as friends and partners in their pursuit of freedom. We need to bring regional forces into Iraq--especially Muslim ones. Countries like Jordan, Pakistan, and Egypt could transform this mission with both their diversity and their expertise. The United Arab Emirates have contributed to the effort in Kosovo. Morocco and Albania and Turkey have worked with us in Bosnia. Countries such as France, Germany, Italy, Argentina, and Spain could provide well-trained police. Reaching out to other countries and bringing them into the post-war process is the surest path to a stable Iraq. But most other nations are unlikely to send troops to serve in what is perceived as an American occupation. They will be more likely to do their part if an international mission is approved by the United Nations and organized by NATO. Secretary Rumsfeld insists that we are reaching out to the international community and that we are working with NATO. But the Secretary General of NATO, Lord Robertson, says that the alliance as an institution has never been asked to play the formal role in Iraq that it plays in Bosnia and Kosovo, and soon will play in Afghanistan. Nor has the Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, been asked to seek international consent for a truly multilateral force. The United States insists on a coalition of the few, dominated and controlled by our Nation. Instead of asking our Armed Forces to carry out a mission for which they are not trained and to do so alone, we need to rely on the expertise and resources of the international community. The United Nations has assumed that responsibility in other countries in the past. It is one of the major reasons why the U.N. was created--to bring international vision and strength to the difficult issues of peace keeping and nationbuilding after the Second World War. Necessity is the mother of invention. In the case of Iraq, President Bush has at last been persuaded to abandon his strong opposition to nationbuilding. The challenge now is to persuade him to move beyond unilateral nationbuilding. The new Iraqi council announced on Sunday was a step in the right direction. But it would have been much more effective if the U.N. Special Representative--and not the U.S. Government--was seen as sponsoring its creation. If America alone sets up a new government in Baghdad, it may fail--if not now, later; if not while our forces are there, as soon as they are gone. Those who join such a government run the risk of being dismissed by the Iraqi people as American puppets. And for as long as America alone is calling the tune, Iraqi moderates may remain in the background, and possibly even oppose us. Our interests in the emergence of a true democracy in Iraq are best fulfilled by involving the world community and especially other Arab nations as partners in helping the Iraqis themselves shape a new Iraq. Only then will a new Iraqi government be viewed as legitimate by the Iraqi people. So it is time for the administration to stop giving lip service to international participation and start genuinely seeking and accepting it--on reasonable terms, and with a real commitment to it. President Bush's meeting with U.N Secretary General Kofi Annan at the White House yesterday should be the beginning of a renewed relationship and a shift in attitude at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue about the rightness and the practical imperative of working with others. The U.N. has a mandate for humanitarian issues. But it has only an advisory role in the civil administration of Iraq. That has to change. The U.N. should have a formal role in overseeing the establishment of a political process. The U.N.--rather than the United States and Britain--should preside over the evolution of the new Iraqi government. Doing so will win international legitimacy and marshal international support for this challenge, minimizing the danger that Iraqis will regard their government as a puppet of ours. With Arab-speaking spokesmen, the U.N. could also convey a different image and a different message to the people of that country, a sense of reassurance that an overwhelmingly American occupation never can. NATO, as an institution, should clearly be in Iraq as well. Military experts believe it will take at least 200,000 troops to stabilize Iraq. Our goal should be to include NATO and some of its 2-million-member pool of armed forces in military operations as soon as possible. America would provide a majority of the troops, but over time the overall number of forces would decrease. As in Kosovo and Bosnia, we should ask the United Nations Security Council to authorize NATO to organize an international security force to demilitarize and stabilize Iraq. Doing so does not mean that the United States should or must relinquish all military control. On the contrary, we would have a significant role in the NATO force, and could continue to have the defining role in Iraq. An American commander was in charge of American troops in Bosnia, and the head of NATO forces in Europe is--and always has been--an American. Secretary Rumsfeld told the Armed Services Committee last week that except for the area around Baghdad, most of Iraq is already secure. If that is so--and we have to hope this estimate is more accurate than others we have heard--then why not reduce the burden on our military and decide that this large area of Iraq, which needs police forces as well as combat troops, should be turned over as soon as possible to a United Nations-approved and NATO-led force? Why not allow American and coalition forces to secure the area around Baghdad, and allow other nations to provide security for the rest of Iraq? Finally, as long as Iraq continues to dominate our attention, we cannot give other aspects of the war against terrorism the focus they deserve. Has the American occupation of Iraq defeated Osama bin Laden and al- Qaida? No. Has it increased our security against the continuing al-Qaida threats in Afghanistan and other terrorist sanctuaries? No. Has our action in Iraq led Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida to lay aside their sworn purpose of killing Americans and destroying our way of life? No. It is not just what happens in Iraq itself, as important as that issue is, but the continuing urgency of the ongoing fight against terrorism that should compel this administration to enlist allies in an international plan for a peaceful Iraq. Otherwise, we run the grave risk of exposing our Nation to more terrorist attacks. America won the war in Iraq, as we knew we would, but if our present policy continues, we may lose the peace. We must rise to the challenge of international co-operation. Saddam Hussein may no longer be in power, but the people of Iraq will not truly be liberated until they live in a secure country. And the war will not be over until the fighting stops on the ground, democracy takes hold, and the people of Iraq are able to govern themselves.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last week I joined Massport CEO Craig Coy, Logan Airport's Federal Security Director George Naccara, and Congressman Stephen F. Lynch to mark a significant milestone in our efforts to better protect the Nation's passenger aviation system. The occasion was the announcement that the Transportation Security Administration and Massport had reached an agreement concerning Federal reimbursements for Massport's installation of a comprehensive explosive detection baggage screening system. That the announcement was made at Logan Airport was fitting because since 9/11 Massport has been a leader among airport operators in strengthening aviation security. In fact, Logan was the only major airport in the country to have met the deadline mandated by Congress in the Aviation and Transportation Security Act by having its permanent baggage screening system up and running by December 31, 2002. In order to accomplish this feat, Massport had to invest nearly $146 million of its own money before it was clear that the Federal Government would reimburse any of these costs. Additionally, meeting this deadline required the around-the-clock efforts of over 700 laborers who completed 2 years of construction in less than 6 months. Finally, this effort required Massport to work in close collaboration with the Transportation Security Administration, an agency headed by dedicated and talented professionals, but also one that, having just been created, was still working to define its mission and scope in the 9/11 environment. While there are still many security enhancements to be completed at Logan--as there are at every major airport in the country--solid and consistent progress is being made under Massport's new CEO, Craig Coy, and his management team. Just as they have done with regard to the new baggage screening system, Massport's leadership, security officials, and professional staff continue to work to define complex security challenges and to meet those challenges. And I believe they are setting a very strong example for those public agencies across the country charged with the complicated and costly responsibilities of protecting key pieces of our Nation's transportation, energy transmission, and public health infrastructure. The manner in which Massport is approaching these new challenges is outlined succinctly in an April 1 Boston Business Journal editorial by John A. Quelch, a Harvard Business School professor and the current chairman of the board of the Massachusetts Port Authority. The performance model Quelch describes is, I think, instructive for other public agencies--and some corporate boards--that are struggling to adopt a governance structure that encourages performance and works to eliminate obstacles to achievement. I ask unanimous consent to print the text of Chairman Quelch's article in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend my friend from Oregon who has been steadfast in his support on the hate crimes legislation and has really provided extraordinary leadership both in the Senate and nationally in helping us to get to the point where we will have a real opportunity to take action. His involvement and work has been enormously important and added a very significant dimension to the movement of the legislation. Senator Smith has just stated very eloquently the fundamental reasons for this legislation and has also talked about why this is related to the current measure before the Senate, the State Department authorization. The challenge we are facing around the world in terms of terrorism and violence is rooted in hatred and bigotry. The same kind of hatred and bigotry are rooted in these crimes of hate. You do not go very far between potential terrorists and potential perpetrators of hate crimes. They are brothers and sisters--maybe in different locations physically, but they are very much against everything this Nation stands for and believes in. As the Senator has pointed out, hate crimes are so particularly objectionable and heinous because they focus on a particular class of people. The reason and the motivation for that is bigotry and hate. The idea that the Federal Government is not putting the full force of its support in rooting out and assaulting these crimes has been a great failure. The good Senator from Oregon and I believe very deeply that we as a society and as a nation ought to be using the full resources of the Federal Government to attack heinous crimes. Briefly, this chart shows the FBI hate crime statistics, showing the ever-increasing total incidence of hate crimes taking place in the United States. My next chart demonstrates the FBI hate crimes based on sexual orientation, showing the dramatic escalation and increase in hate crimes based on sexual orientation. The terrible tragedy of Mr. Shepherd in Wyoming still resonates in the minds of all Americans, as well as the other hate crimes that have taken place in our Nation. We have seen since September 11 the dramatic increase in hate crimes against Muslims; hate crimes against American Arabs have escalated dramatically. We believe, not unlike the outcome we saw when we brought to bear the full resources of the Federal Government in fighting the church burnings primarily in the South 8 to 10 years ago, once we pass legislation in the House and in the Senate to bring the FBI into these investigations, they virtually halt. People in these local communities who were involved in these church burnings knew this country was serious about church burnings. That had a dramatic impact. Senator Smith and I believe we should bring the full resources of the Federal Government to focus on these hate crimes--whether it is on the basis of sexual orientation, gender, religiously motivated, anti- Semitic, the whole range of different activities resulting in hatred against groups in our society. Even Attorney General Ashcroft has said criminal acts of hate run counter to what is best in America, our belief in the quality of freedom. This is not a Democratic issue; it is not a Republican issue; it is an American issue. I am very hopeful we can get an opportunity to take action. I think it is completely consistent with the overall objectives, in the highest form and sense, of the State Department authorization and is something that needs to be done. I again thank my friend from Oregon for all of good work and leadership.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is exactly correct in reminding the Senate about the holding of the Supreme Court, the holding 6 to 3, a very powerful statement by the Supreme Court in terms of the support for this legislation. As the Senator has pointed out, we have had hate crimes but we have had limitations and restrictions, particularly with regard to Federal hate crimes, which has limited the ability of the Federal Government to involve itself unless the actual hate crime occurred on Federal property. Therefore, the Federal Government has been unable, really, to become involved the way it should. But, on the broader point about aren't all crimes basically hate crimes, the Senator has stated very clearly that every crime is tragic and harmful in its consequences but not all crime is based on hate. Hate crimes are based on bigotry and prejudice, and hate crimes occur when a perpetrator selects a victim because of who the victim is. Like acts of terrorism, the hate crimes have an impact far greater than the impact on individuals and their families. They are crimes against entire communities, the entire Nation, against the fundamental ideals of liberty and justice for all, on which this country was founded. That is why it is so important we take action. Mr. President, although there was a significant overall reduction in violent crimes during the 1990's, the number of hate crimes continued to grow. As this chart shows, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 9,730 hate crimes were reported in the United States in 2001. That's over 26 hate crimes a day, every day. More than 83,000 hate crimes have been reported since 1991. According to the F.B.I., even though overall crime increased by only 2.1 percent from 2000 to 2001, the number of reported hate crimes increased dramatically--by more than 20 percent. Sadly, these F.B.I. statistics only show part of the problem. A recent Justice Department report confirmed that many hate crimes go unreported. Another report by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit organization that monitors hate groups and extremist activity, estimated that the real number of hate crimes committed in the United States each year is closer to 50,000. Hate crimes based on sexual orientation continue to be a serious danger, constituting 14 percent of all hate crimes reported. As you can see on this next chart, hate crimes based on sexual orientation are increasing at an alarming rate. Hate crimes based on sexual orientation increased by 7.2 percent from 2000 to 2001, with nearly 1,400 reported for the year. Each person's life is valuable, and even one life lost is too many. It is not the frequency of hate crimes alone that makes these acts of violence so serious. It is the terror and intimidation they inflict on the victims, their families, their communities, and, in some cases, the entire nation. The need for an effective national response to the problem of hate crimes is as compelling as it has ever been. As is clearly demonstrated in this chart, hate crimes against Arabs and Muslims rose dramatically in 2001, after the terrorist attacks of September 11th. These hate crimes included murder, beatings, arson, attacks on mosques, shootings, and other assaults. In 2001, anti-Islamic incidents were the second highest-reported type of hate crimes based on religion--second only to anti-Jewish hate crimes. Los Angeles and Chicago reported a massive increase in the number of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim crimes after 9/11. Over 550 hate crimes were committed against Muslims in 2001--that is fifteen times more than in 2000, and almost six times more than 1998, 1999, and 2000 combined. Almost 900 hate crimes against Arab-Americans, or those perceived to be Arab-American, took place in 2001--eight times the number in 2000. The backlash following the September 11th attacks has been shameful. Congress cannot sit silent while this hatred spreads. It is long past time for us to do more to end hate motivated-violence. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act will strengthen the ability of Federal, State, and local governments to investigate and prosecute these vicious and senseless crimes. Our legislation is supported by over 175 law enforcement, civil rights, civic, and religious organizations. The current Federal law on hate crimes was passed soon after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Today, however, it is as generation out of date. It has two significant deficiencies. It does not cover hate crimes based on sexual orientation, gender, or disability. And even in cases of hate crimes based on race, religion, or ethnic background, it contains excessive restrictions requiring proof that the victims were attacked because they were engaged in certain ``federally protected activities.'' This ``federally protected activity'' requirement is outdated, unwise, and unnecessary. There is no reason why the Justice Department should have to prove that someone was engaging in a ``federally protected activity'' before a case can be brought. This requirement severely limits the ability of the Justice Department to respond to hate crimes against Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and other religious groups. And it hamstrings the Department in its effort to respond to hate crimes motivated by the victim's race or ethnic background. Our bill is designed to close these substantial loopholes. It has six principal provisions: No. 1, it removes the federally protected activity'' barrier. No. 2, it adds sexual orientation, gender and disability to the existing categories of race, color, religion, and national origin. No. 3, it protects State interests with a strict certification procedure that requires the Federal Government to consult with local officials before bringing a Federal case. No. 4, it offers Federal assistance to State and local law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute hate crimes in any of the Federal categories. No. 5, it offers training grants for local law enforcement. No. 6, it amends the Federal Hate Crime Statistics Act to add gender to the existing categories of race, religion, ethnic background, sexual orientation, and disability. These much needed changes in current law will help ensure that the Department of Justice has what it needs to combat the growing problem of hate-motivated violence more effectively. Nothing in the bill protects or punishes speech, expression, or association in any way--even ``hate speech.'' It addresses only violent actions that result in death or injury. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly--and as recently as this year, in the cross-burning decision Virginia v. Black--that a hate crimes statute that considers bias motivation directly connected to a defendant's criminal conduct does not violate the First Amendment. No one has a First Amendment right to commit a crime. A strong Federal role in prosecuting hate crimes is essential, because crimes have an impact far greater than their impact on individual victims. Nevertheless, our bill fully respects the primary role of State and local law enforcement in responding to violent crime. The vast majority of hate crimes will continue to be prosecuted at the State and local level. The bill authorizes the Justice Department to assist State and local authorities in hate crimes cases, but it authorizes Federal prosecutions only when a State does not have jurisdiction, or when it asks the Federal Government to take jurisdiction, or when it fails to act against hate-motivated violence. In other words, the bill establishes an appropriate back-up for State and local law enforcement, to deal with hate crimes where states request assistance, or cases that would not otherwise be effectively investigated and prosecuted. Working cooperatively, State, local and Federal law enforcement officials have the best chance to bring the perpetrators of hate crimes to justice. Federal resources and expertise in the identification and proof of hate crimes can provide invaluable assistance to State and local authorities without undermining the traditional rule of States in prosecuting crimes. As Attorney General Ashcroft has said of current law, ``Cooperation between federal agents and local law enforcement officers and between Justice Department prosecutors and local prosecutors has been outstanding.'' And it will continue to be so, and be even more effective, when this legislation is enacted into law. Now is the time for Congress to speak with one voice and insist that all Americans will be guaranteed the equal protection of the laws. Now is the time to make combating hate crimes a high national priority. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a needed response to a serious problem that continues to plague the nation. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. If I could have 30 more seconds on this. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. KENNEDY. I see my friend and colleague, Senator Smith, who hopefully will address another issue of hate crimes legislation, for which we have had support and we are also very hopeful of getting a vote on as well. I see my friend and colleague from New Jersey, Senator Corzine, and my friend and colleague from Louisiana, as well. I understand my time on morning business has expired.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, the Senator has made the compelling case on this. We have heard these arguments against it, that it adds to inflation, adds to unemployment, that it works to the disadvantage of minority youth. We had that argument. We can show the statistics that that is not true. They say, well, what we really need is not an increase in minimum wage but we need an increase in the training wage. We have said, fine, we will add an increase in the training wage. We are prepared to meet any legitimate argument, but we do believe that people who have been working, and working hard and playing by the rules and have waited 7 years and have seen the reduction in terms of the purchasing power, are entitled to at least an accounting in the Senate. That is what we want to find out. This is not an issue that takes a great deal more discussion and debate. Members knew about the minimum wage before they were elected to the Senate. It is an old issue, older than most of us in this Chamber. People are familiar with it. They have heard the arguments. It is not a new issue, but it is an issue of fairness and decency. It is an issue that should be acted on. To reiterate, millions of minimum wage workers are suffering because of the continuing weak economy. For years, they have not had any wage increase at all, because Congress continues to refuse to raise the minimum wage. Even in this troubled economy, Congress has not hesitated to raise its own pay. It is only fair that we raise the minimum wage, too. That is why I am proposing this amendment to enact a long-overdue increase in the minimum wage. My amendment will raise the current minimum wage of $5.15 an hour by 75 cents this year and another 75 cents next year, bringing it up to $6.65 an hour. We know that poverty has doubled among full-time, year-round workers since the late 1970s. Nearly 33 million people live in poverty today in this country, and an unfairly low minimum wage is a large part of the problem. Congress has not acted to raise the minimum wage in 7 years. Minimum wage employees working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, earn only $10,700 a year. That's $4,500 below the poverty line today for a family of three. The current minimum wage fails to provide enough income for minimum wage workers to afford adequate housing in any area of this country. A worker earning the minimum wage in Georgia or Illinois, or many other areas of the country, would have to work more than 100 hours a week to afford a two-bedroom apartment. Every day the minimum wage is not increased, it continues to lose value, and workers fall farther and farther behind. Minimum wage workers have lost all of their gains since we last raised the minimum wage in 1997. Today, the real value of the minimum wage is $3.00 below what it was in 1968. To have the purchasing power it had in 1968, the minimum wage would have to be more than $8 an hour today, not $5.15. It is shameful that Members of Congress have raised their own pay by $21,000 in the last 7 years--almost twice what a minimum wage workers makes in a year--without giving the Nation's lowest paid workers any increase at all. Nearly 7 million workers would directly benefit from the proposed minimum wage increase, and many of them are parents and the sole breadwinners in their families. The minimum wage is an economic issue, but it is also a woman's issue. Sixty-three percent of the workers who would benefit from minimum wage increase are women and one-third of those women are mothers. The minimum wage is also a civil rights issue. An increase in the minimum wage boosts the wage levels of people of color--who are often segregated into low-paying jobs. Millions of African American and Hispanic workers will benefit from an increase in the minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage is a family issue, too. It is so low that many workers must work long hours to make ends meet. The increase in work hours has a damaging impact on every aspect of life: on families, on personal time, and on employers. At least one in five workers has a work week that exceeds 50 hours. According to the Families and Work Institute, three out of the top four things that children would most like to change about their working parents are these: They wish their parents were less stressed out by work; they wish they were less tired because of their work; and they wish they could spend more time with them. Employers as well pay a high price for overworked employees. Productivity suffers, and so does turnover. Overworked employees are more susceptible to illness. They need more sick days, and they are less productive on the job. Raising the minimum wage obviously will not solve all these problems. But a higher minimum wage may mean that employees can work a little less, and have a few more hours a week of family time and personal time. Minimum wage earners are forced to make impossible choices--between paying the rent and buying groceries or between paying the heating bill and buying new clothes. It has been too long since Congress last acted. History clearly shows that raising the minimum wage has not had a negative impact on jobs, employment, or inflation. In the four years after the last minimum wage increase, the economy had its strongest growth in three decades. Nearly 11 million new jobs were added, at a rate of more than 200,000 per month. A fair increase in the minimum wage is long overdue. How can Congress keep saying no, when more and more workers cannot make ends meet? Can't we all at least agree on this basic principle--that no one who works for a living should have to live in poverty?

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct. We have not been able to get a vote on this issue of an increase in the minimum wage over that period of time. I must say if it had not been for the persistence of our Democratic leaders, Senator Reid and Senator Daschle, we would not have gotten a vote on it this time. If it had been up to the other side, they would have said, no, we only want the relevant amendments and we can wait for consideration of an increase in the minimum wage. These workers cannot wait. They do not need to wait. During this period of time, we have found the opportunity to raise our own salaries on five different occasions. We have not found the time to raise the minimum wage, but we have raised the Senate salaries on five different occasions. I think that is something the American people can understand as well. We are doing something for these Members--and I do not begrudge it, and I voted for those increases--but the fact is we should not leave these people behind.

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, the Senator probably remembers, we had to file cloture on this in order to try to get a vote, and during that period of time we were able always to get a majority of the Senate, some Republicans and Democrats, but we were blocked because we could not get the 60 votes. We were required to get the 60 votes for the consideration, and we were denied that opportunity. The Senator remembers very well, as I do, that we were effectively blocked from taking action on the minimum wage.