Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, the true greatness of America lies in the values we share as a nation. From America's beginning, we shared a passionate concern for the rights and the well-being of each individual--a concern stated eloquently in our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. From our immigrant roots, we learned not only to tolerate others whose appearance, religion, and culture are different from our own, but to respect and welcome them, and to recognize our diversity as a source of great strength. From our religious faith and our sense of community, we gained an understanding of the importance of fairness and compassion for the less fortunate. In the same way that parents try to build a better life for their children, each generation of Americans has tried to leave a more just society to the next. We all know that our history includes periods when grave injustices were tolerated. Those dark periods in our national history teach us lessons we must never forget. But we have battled fiercely to overcome injustice, and we are a better nation for our willingness to fight those battles. Our most deeply held national values are rooted in our pursuit of justice for all. It urges us to ensure fair treatment for each person, to extend help to those in need, and to create opportunity for each individual to advance. Those are among the most important yardsticks by which we measure our success in building ``a more perfect union.'' Now as we consider the prospect of war with Iraq, many of us have serious questions about whether current national policy reflects America's values. We owe it to the brave men and women of our armed forces to ensure that we are embarked on a just war--that the sacrifice we ask of them is for a cause that reflects America's basic values. Our men and women in uniform are working and training hard for the serious challenges before them. They are living in the desert, enduring harsh conditions, and contemplating the horrors of the approaching war. Their families left behind are sacrificing, too, each and every day here at home, wondering if their loved ones in uniform will return unharmed. Many--especially the families of our reservists--are struggling to make ends meet as their spouses are called up for months of duty abroad. Wives are separated from husbands. Children are separated from fathers and mother. Businesses and communities are struggling to go forward without valued employees now serving in the gulf. More than 150,000 National Guard and Reserve soldiers have been mobilized. Of these, 13,000 have been on active duty for at least a year. Others return home from deployments, only to turn around and head back overseas for a new tour of duty. For many of these soldiers, ``the expected one weekend a month, two weeks a year'' is merely a slogan, and does not reflect their new reality. In fact, today's reservists are spending thirteen times longer on active duty than they did a decade ago. A recall to active duty brings financial hardship as well. Many give up larger civilian salaries when they go on active duty. The law requires employers to take back reservists after their deployments. But for those who work in small firms or are self-employed, there are no such guarantees unless their firms are still in business. The families of our men and women in uniform pay a price for this deployment. During the Vietnam War, only 20 percent of all Army military personnel were married. Today over 50 percent of the military are married, which means enormous strain on the families who are left behind to worry and cope with the sudden new demands of running a household alone, never knowing how long their loved ones will be away. Among those on active duty, we are demanding more from our troops for longer periods of time. One of our aircraft carriers, the USS Abraham Lincoln, has been away from home port for 233 days. The crew expected to return for Christmas, and had made it half way home across the Pacific Ocean when they were given orders to turn around and head for the Persian Gulf. These men and women are forced to put their lives on hold, missing births, delaying weddings, and dealing with family crises by phone and e-mail. These men and women are well-prepared to serve their country. But in calling them up, we also pay the price here at home with increased vulnerability in our police and fire departments. A recent survey of 8,500 fire departments by the International Association of Fire Chiefs showed that nearly three-fourths of them have staff in the Reserves. A similar survey of more than 2,100 law enforcement agencies by the Police Executive Research Forum found that 44 percent have lost personnel to call ups. These are Americans who love their country. They proudly wave the Stars and Stripes on our national holidays. They honor and pray for past veterans on Memorial Day. Their children are in our schools. They attend our churches, our synagogues, and our mosques. We see them in the grocery store or at PTA meetings. They are a part of our communities--and a part of us. And they are willing to give their lives for their country. So we owe it to these men and women and their families--these brave Americans--to get it right. I am concerned that as we rush to war with Iraq, we are becoming more divided at home and more isolated in the world community. Instead of persuading the dissenters at home and abroad, the Administration by its harsh rhetoric is driving the wedge deeper. Never before, even in the Vietnam war, has America taken such bold military action with so little international support. It is far from clear that the United Nations Security Council will pass any new resolution that we can use as authorization for military action in Iraq. Even some strategically important allies, such as Turkey, who were expected to be with us, have backed away. The administration continues to turn a deaf ear to all of these voices, and single-mindedly pursues its course to war. Within the rising chorus of dissent have been the voices of much of the organized religious community in this country--Christian, Jewish and Muslim. Within the Christian community, opposition to war against Iraq includes the Roman Catholic Church, to which I belong, and many mainline Protestant and Orthodox churches. These are not pacifist groups who oppose war under all circumstances. They are religious leaders who say the moral case has not been made for this war at this time. War is not just another means to achieving our goals. More than any other option, it is dangerous, it is deadly, it is irreversible. That is why, whenever we resort to force in the world, there is an urgent need to ensure that we remain true to our values as Americans. Saddam Hussein is one of the most brutal tyrants on the world stage today. He has murdered thousands of his own people--many with chemical and biological weapons. He has attempted to wipe out entire communities. He has attacked neighboring countries. He supports terrorism against innocent civilians throughout the Middle East. Undeniably, the world would be a better place without Saddam Hussein. That fact, however, should not be the end of the inquiry, but only the beginning. From the perspective of our shared values, the fundamental question is whether this is a ``just war.'' That is not an easy question to answer, because some elements of a just war are clearly present. There are six principles that guide the determination of ``just war.'' They were first developed by St. Augustine in the Fifth Century and expanded upon by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Thirteenth Century. To be just a war must have a just cause, confronting a danger that is beyond question; it must be declared by a legitimate authority acting on behalf of the people; it must be driven by the right intention, not ulterior, self-interested motives; it must be a last resort; it must be proportional, so that the harm inflicted does not outweigh the good achieved; and it must have a reasonable chance of success. These are sound criteria by which to judge our impending war in Iraq. First, does Iraq pose a danger to us that is beyond question? Clearly, Iraq does pose a considerable danger, principally because of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons and his history of attempts to develop nuclear weapons. But it is not at all clear that the only way to protect ourselves from that threat is war. In fact, many of us are deeply concerned that initiating a war to remove Saddam Hussein will actually increase the danger to the American people. The biological and chemical weapons Saddam has are not new. He has possessed them for more than a decade. He did not use them against us in the gulf war and he did not use them against us in the years since then, because he understands that any use of them would lead to his certain destruction. As CIA Director George Tenet stated last year in testimony before Congress, the greatest danger of their use occurs if Saddam knows he is about to be removed from power and therefore perceives he has nothing left to lose. Iraq, to the best of our knowledge, has no nuclear weapon. If nuclear weapons in the hands of a rogue state are our principal concern, then certainly North Korea poses a much more imminent threat. And Iran--not Iraq--is close behind. The President must explain why war with Iraq will not distract us from the more immediate and graver danger posed by North Korea. Something is wrong at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue if we rush to war with a country that poses no nuclear threat, but will not even talk to a country that brandishes its nuclear power right now. Any nuclear threat from Iraq, we are told, is probably 5 years into the future. But the threat from North Korea exists today. Desperate and strapped for cash, North Korea is the greatest current nuclear danger to the United States, and it is clearly taking advantage of the situation in Iraq. It is the country most likely to sell nuclear material to terrorists. It may well have a long-range missile that can strike our soil. War with Iraq will clearly undermine our ability to deal with this rapidly escalating danger. But our options are not limited to invading Iraq or ignoring Iraq. No responsible person suggests that we ignore the Iraqi threat. The presence of U.N. inspectors on the ground in Iraq, coupled with our own significant surveillance capacity, make it extremely unlikely that Iraq can pursue any substantial weapons development program without detection. If we can effectively immobilize Saddam's activity, the danger his regime poses can be minimized without war. Above all, we cannot allow differences over Iraq to shatter the very coalition we depend upon in order to effectively combat the far greater and more imminent threat posed by the al-Qaida terrorists. Close international cooperation is what led to the recent arrest in Pakistan of the planner of the 9/11 attack. Second, has the war been declared by a legitimate authority acting on behalf of the people? When Congress voted last October, most Members believed that the use of force by America would have United Nations backing. Such backing is now highly unlikely. Last October, no international inspectors had been in Iraq for 5 years. Now, U.N. inspectors are on the ground engaged in disarming Saddam. No war by America can be successfully waged if it lacks the strong support of our people. And America remains divided on an invasion of Iraq without United Nations approval. The reason for that lack of support today is clear. The administration has not made a convincing case that war is necessary, nor have they credibly answered crucial questions about the cost of the war in lives and dollars, how long American troops will remain in Iraq, and what type of Iraqi government will replace Saddam. In his address last week on a post-war Iraq, President Bush failed to give adequate answers to the key questions on the minds of the American people about the war and its aftermath. He painted a simplistic picture of the brightest possible future--with democracy flourishing in Iraq, peace emerging among all nations in the Middle East, and the terrorists with no base of support there. In a dangerous world, the fundamental decision on war or peace cannot be made on rosy and unrealistic scenarios. Third, any war must be driven by the right intention. I do not question the President's motive in pursuing this policy, but I seriously question his judgment. The Bush administration was wrong to allow the anti-Iraq zealots in its ranks to exploit the 9/11 tragedy by using it to make war against Iraq a higher priority than the war against terrorism. Al-Qaida--not Iraq--is the most imminent threat to our national security. Our citizens are asked to protect themselves from al-Qaida with plastic sheeting and duct tape, while the administration prepares to send our armed forces to war against Iraq. Those priorities are wrong. In a desperate effort to justify its focus on Iraq, the administration has long asserted that there are ties between Osama and Saddam--a theory with no proof that is widely doubted by intelligence experts. Two weeks after 9/11, Secretary Rumsfeld claimed that we had ``bulletproof'' evidence of the link. But a year later, CIA Director Tenet conceded in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee that the Administration's understanding of the link was still ``evolving'' and was based on ``sources of varying reliability.'' In fact, the link is so widely doubted that intelligence experts have expressed their concern that intelligence is being politicized to support the rush to war. Fourth, war must always be a last resort. That is why all options must be pursued. Inspections still have a chance to work in Iraq. Progress is difficult. No one said it would be easy. But as long as inspectors are on the ground and making progress, we must give peace a chance. But before resorting to war, it is extremely important to reach agreement that there is no alternative. Nations that have been among our closest allies oppose us now because they do not believe that the alternatives to war have been exhausted. Many of them believe that an invasion of Iraq could destabilize the entire Middle East. Many of them believe that instead of subduing terrorism, war with Iraq will increase support and sympathy in the Islamic world for terrorism against the West. We cannot cavalierly dismiss these concerns of our allies. War with Iraq runs the very serious risk of inflaming the Middle East and provoking a massive new wave of anti-Americanism that may well strengthen the terrorists, especially if we act without the support of the world community. A year ago, The Wall Street Journal quoted a dissident in Saudi Arabia who has turned his focus from his own government to the U.S. Government. He said: [The main enemy of the Muslims and the Arabs is America--and we don't want it to impose things on us. We would rather tolerate dictatorship in our countries than import reforms from America.] The war against al-Qaida is far from over, and the war against Iraq may make it worse. After 9/11 we witnessed an unprecedented rallying of the world community to our side. That international unity was our strongest weapon against terrorism. It denied terrorists sanctuary, it led to a vital sharing of intelligence, and it helped to cut off the flow of financial resources to al-Qaida. We cannot allow that international cooperation to shatter over our differences on Iraq. We cannot be a bully in the world school yard and still expect friendship and support from the rest of the world. Fifth, any war must be proportional, so that the harm inflicted does not outweigh the good achieved. If there is a war, we all pray that it will be brief, and that casualties will be few. But there is no assurance of that. Certainly, we have the military power to occupy Iraq. But that may only be the beginning. Our troops may be confronted by urban guerilla warfare from forces still loyal to Saddam or simply anti-Western. The war may be far more brutal than we anticipate. In such a conflict, innocent civilian casualties could also be high. We cannot let Saddam hide behind innocent human shields if there is a war. But that large risk makes it all the more imperative for war to be only a last resort. We have been told that an attack on Iraq will begin with an enormous cruise missile assault to destroy their infrastructure, strike fear and awe in the hearts of the enemy, and undermine their will to resist. We know that thousands of cruise missiles will be fired in the first 48 hours of the war, more than were launched in the entire 40 days of the gulf war. Such a massive assault will unavoidably produce a very substantial number of civilian casualties. That harsh reality adds greatly to the burden that must be overcome by those who argue that war is the proper response now. It is a burden they have not met. One of the highest and worst costs of war may be the humanitarian costs. Sixty percent of Iraq's people rely on the United Nations' Oil- for-Food Program for their daily survival. Food is distributed through 46,000 government distributors supplied by a network of food storage barns. A war with Iraq will disrupt this network. Many Iraqis, especially poor families, have no other source of food. Women and children will be the most vulnerable victims. According to recent reports, 500,000 Iraqi children already suffer from malnutrition. And what are the costs to America? We all know there is an increased risk of another domestic terrorist attack. The war will make it a more dangerous time on the American homefront. There will also be a very substantial financial cost to the war The short-term cost is likely to exceed $100 billion. The long-term cost, depending on how long our troops must remain in Iraq, will be far more. If our national security were at stake, we would spare no expense to protect American lives. But the administration owes the nation a more honest discussion about the war costs we are about to face, especially if America has to remain in Iraq for many years, with little support from other nations. The sixth element of a just war is that it must have a reasonable chance of success. I have no doubt that we will prevail on the battlefield but what of the consequences for our own national security and the peace and security of the Middle East? We know that a stable government will be essential in a post-war Iraq. But the administration refuses to discuss in any real detail how it will be achieved and how long our troops will need to stay. President Bush assumes everything will go perfectly. But war and it's consequences hold enormous risks and uncertainties. As retired General Anthony Zinni has asked, will we do what we did in Afghanistan in the 1970s--drive the old Soviet Union out and let something arguably worse emerge in it's place? The vast majority of the Iraqi people may well want the end of Saddam's rule, but they may not welcome the United States to create a government in our own image. Regardless of their own internal disagreements, the Iraqi people still feel a strong sense of national identity, and could quickly reject an American occupation force that tramples on local cultures. We must recognize that from the day we occupy Iraq, we shoulder the responsibility to protect and care for its citizens. We are accountable under the Geneva Conventions for public safety in neighborhoods, for schools, and for meeting the basic necessities of life for 23 million Iraqi civilians. This daunting challenge has received very little attention from the administration. As the dust settles, the repressed tribal and religious differenced of the past may come to the fore--as they did in the brutal civil wars in the former Yugoslavia, in Rwanda, and other countries. As our troops bypass Basra and other Iraqi cities on their way to Baghdad, how will we prevent the revenge bloodletting that occurred after the last Gulf War, in which thousands of civilians lost their lives? What do we do if Kurds in northern Iraq proclaim an independent Kurdistan? Or the Shia in southern Iraq move toward an alliance with Iran, from which they have long drawn their inspiration? We have told the government of Turkey that we will not support an independent Kurdistan, despite the fact that the Kurdish people in Iraq already have a high degree of US-supported autonomy and have even completed work on their own constitution. Do we send in our troops again to keep Iraq united? Post-War Afghanistan is not exactly the best precedent for building democracy in Iraq. Sixteen months after the fall of the Taliban government in Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai is still referred to as ``the Mayor of Kabul''--because of the weak and fragile hold of his government on the rest of the nation. Warlords are in control of much of the countryside. The Afghan-Pakistani border is an area of anarchy-- and ominous al-Qaida cells. The U.S. military is far from equipped to handle the challenge of meeting the needs of a post-Saddam Iraq. Our government must have a plan in place to care for the population. Yet we have heard little from the administration on how they intend to meet this obligation. To succeed in winning the peace, we will need the help and support of the international community. That is afar less likely to happen if we do not have the international community with us the start. Before the President makes the final fateful decision to go to war in Iraq, his administration must answer each of these just war questions much more convincingly than they have so far. The American people are waiting for the answers. The entire world is waiting for the answers. We are no at a major cross-road in our history. The 9/11 attrocities has forced us all to think profoundly about what is great in America. All through our shock and grief, the people's courage never failed. 9/ 11 was one of the Nation's saddest hours, but the response was one of our finest hours. That hour must not be lost. It can mark the beginning of a new era of common purpose--a return to policies which truly reflect America's values, a return to the genuine pursuit of justice. The unselfishness we saw in 2001 must not give way to selfishness in 2003. The noble caring for one another that we celebrated then must not be succeeded now by a retreat from our ideals. Yes, our country is strong but it can be stronger--not just in the power we hold, but in the promise we fulfill of a nation that truly does make better the life of the world. If we rededicate ourselves to that great goal, our achievements will reverberate around the globe, and America will be admired anew for what it must be now, in this new time, more than ever--``the last, best hope of earth.'' I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to make a brief response to the points made by our colleagues on the floor and in the press during the past week. It is not true that majority rule is the only rule in our country. The purpose of the great checks and balances under the Constitution is to protect the country from the tyranny of the majority. As far as shutting off debate in the Senate is concerned, majority rule has not been the rule since 1806. Even in our presidential elections, majority rule is not the rule, or we would have a different President today. There is nothing even arguably unconstitutional about the Senate Rule providing for unlimited debate unless and until 60 Senators vote to cut off debate. The same Constitution which gave the Senate the power of advice and consent gave the Senate the power to adopt its own rules for the exercise of all of its powers, including the rules for exercising our advice and consent power. The Constitution does not say that judges shall be appointed by the President as he wishes. It says that they shall be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. We are not potted plants decorating one end of Pennsylvania Avenue. We play a very special role under the Constitution. The Founders gave us numerous powers to balance and moderate the powers of the President. They gave us longer terms than the President, and staggered our terms, so we would be less subject to the passions of the time. Clearly, we have the power and the responsibility to oppose the President when he refuses to provide us with the only documentation that can tell us what kind of person he has nominated for a lifetime appointment on the Nation's second highest court.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join my colleague Senator Grassley today in re-introducing the Family Opportunity Act of--so that once and for all, we can remove the health care barriers for children with disabilities that so often prevent families from staying together and staying employed, and that so often prevent their children from growing up to live independent lives and become fully contributing members of their communities. More than 9 percent of children in this country have significant disabilities, many of whom do not have access to the basic health services they need to maintain their health status, let alone prevent its continuing deterioration. To obtain theses health services for their children, families are being forced to become poor, stay poor, put their children in institutions or ever give up custody of their children--all so that their children can qualify for the health coverage available under Medicaid. In a recent survey of 20 States, families of special needs children report they are turning down jobs, turning down raises, turning down overtime, and unable even to save money for the future of their children and family--all so that their child can stay eligible for Medicaid through the Social Security Income Program. The lack of adequate health care in our country today continues to force these families into poverty in order to obtain the care they need for their disabled children. The legislation we are reintroducing will close the health care gap for the nation's most vulnerable population, and enable families of disabled children to be equal partners in the American dream. In the words of President George Bush in his ``New Freedom Initiative,'' ``To many Americans with disabilities remain trapped in bureaucracies of dependence, and are denied the access necessary for success--and we need to tear down these barriers. The Family Opportunity. Act will do just that. It will tear down the unfair barriers to needed health care that so many disabled and special needs children are denied. It will make health insurance coverage more widely available for children with significant disabilities, through opportunities to buy-in to Medicaid at an affordable rate. States will have greater flexibility to enable children with metal health disabilities to obtain the health services they need in order to live at home and in their communities. It will establish Family to Family Information Centers in each state to assist families with special needs children. The passage of Work Incentives Improvement Act in 1999 demonstrated the nation's commitment to give adults with disabilities the right to lead independent and productive lives without giving up their health care. It is time for Congress to show the same commitment to children with disabilities. We came very close to passing the Family Opportunity Act in the last Congress. I look forward to working members of this new Congress to enact this important legislation, and give disabled children and their families their rightful opportunity to fulfill their dreams and participate fully in the life of our nation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join my colleague Senator Grassley today in re-introducing the Family Opportunity Act of--so that once and for all, we can remove the health care barriers for children with disabilities that so often prevent families from staying together and staying employed, and that so often prevent their children from growing up to live independent lives and become fully contributing members of their communities. More than 9 percent of children in this country have significant disabilities, many of whom do not have access to the basic health services they need to maintain their health status, let alone prevent its continuing deterioration. To obtain theses health services for their children, families are being forced to become poor, stay poor, put their children in institutions or ever give up custody of their children--all so that their children can qualify for the health coverage available under Medicaid. In a recent survey of 20 States, families of special needs children report they are turning down jobs, turning down raises, turning down overtime, and unable even to save money for the future of their children and family--all so that their child can stay eligible for Medicaid through the Social Security Income Program. The lack of adequate health care in our country today continues to force these families into poverty in order to obtain the care they need for their disabled children. The legislation we are reintroducing will close the health care gap for the nation's most vulnerable population, and enable families of disabled children to be equal partners in the American dream. In the words of President George Bush in his ``New Freedom Initiative,'' ``To many Americans with disabilities remain trapped in bureaucracies of dependence, and are denied the access necessary for success--and we need to tear down these barriers. The Family Opportunity. Act will do just that. It will tear down the unfair barriers to needed health care that so many disabled and special needs children are denied. It will make health insurance coverage more widely available for children with significant disabilities, through opportunities to buy-in to Medicaid at an affordable rate. States will have greater flexibility to enable children with metal health disabilities to obtain the health services they need in order to live at home and in their communities. It will establish Family to Family Information Centers in each state to assist families with special needs children. The passage of Work Incentives Improvement Act in 1999 demonstrated the nation's commitment to give adults with disabilities the right to lead independent and productive lives without giving up their health care. It is time for Congress to show the same commitment to children with disabilities. We came very close to passing the Family Opportunity Act in the last Congress. I look forward to working members of this new Congress to enact this important legislation, and give disabled children and their families their rightful opportunity to fulfill their dreams and participate fully in the life of our nation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am honored today to join Senator Gregg in introducing the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2003. This bill is an important bipartisan effort to help protect our Nation's public safety officers on the job. The events of September 11 made clear that our Nation's true heroes are our fire fighters, police officers, and emergency medical technicians. We will never forget the sacrifices they made at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The photographs of tired, dust-covered, fire fighters confronting the unimaginable horror of that day are permanently emblazoned in our minds. Thousands of public safety officers throughout the country serve in some of the country's most dangerous, strenuous and stressful jobs today. Every year, more than 80,000 police officers and 75,000 firefighters are injured on the job. An average of 160 police officers and nearly 100 firefighters die in the line of duty each year. It is a matter of basic fairness to give these courageous men and women the same rights that have long been enjoyed by other workers. For more than 60 years, collective bargaining has enabled labor and management to work together to improve job conditions and increase productivity. Through collective bargaining, labor and management have led the way together on many important improvements in today's workplace--especially with regard to health and pension benefits, paid holidays and sick leave, and workplace safety. Collective bargaining in the public sector, once a controversial issue, is now widely accepted. It has been widespread, since at least 1962, when President Kennedy signed an Executive order granting these basic rights to Federal employees. Congressional employees have had these rights since enactment of the Congressional Accountability Act almost a decade ago. It is long past time for State and local government employees to have Federal protection for the basic right to participate in collective bargaining agreements with their employers. The bill we are introducing today extends this protection to firefighters, police officers, correctional officers, paramedics and emergency medical technicians. The bill guarantees the fundamental rights necessary for collective bargaining--the right to form and join a union; the right to bargain over hours, wages and working conditions; the right to sign legally enforceable contracts; and the right to a means to resolve impasses in negotiations. The benefits of this bill are clear and compelling. It will lead to safer working conditions for public safety officers. States that lack these collective bargaining laws have death rates for fire fighters nearly double the rate in States in which such bargaining takes place. In 1993, fire fighters in nine of the 10 States with the highest fire fighter death rates did not have collective bargaining protection. Because public safety employees serve on the front lines in providing firefighting services, law enforcement services, and emergency medical services, they know what it takes to create safer working conditions. They should have a voice in decisions that can literally make a life- or-death difference on the job. This bill will benefit all of us, not just public safety officers. When workers who actually do the job are able to provide advice on their working conditions, there are fewer injuries, increased morale, better information on new technologies, and more efficient ways to provide the services, all of which improve the safety and security of the communities that our public safety officers serve. This bill will also save money for States and local communities. Experience has shown that when public safety officers can discuss workplace conditions with management, partnerships and cooperation develop and lead to improved labor-management relations and better, more cost-effective services. A study by the International Association of Fire Fighters shows that States and municipalities that give firefighters the right to discuss workplace issues have lower fire department budgets than States without such laws. This bill accomplishes its goals in a reasonable way. It requires that public safety officers be given the opportunity to bargain collectively, but it does not require that employers adopt agreements, and it does not regulate the content of any agreements that are reached. In States with collective bargaining laws that substantially provide the modest minimum standards in the bill--as a majority of States already do--those States will be unaffected by this legislation. Where States do not have such laws, they may choose to enact them, or to allow the Federal Labor Relations Authority to establish procedures for bargaining between public safety officers and their employers. This approach respects existing State laws, and gives each state the authority to choose the way in which it will comply with the requirements of this legislation. States will have full discretion to make decisions on the implementation and enforcement of the basic rights set forth in this proposal. This amendment will not supersede State laws which already adequately provide for the exercise of--or are more protective of--collective bargaining rights by public safety officers. It is a matter of basic fairness for these courageous men and women to have the same rights that have long been enjoyed by other workers. They put their lives on the line to protect us every day. They deserve to have an effective voice on the job, and I urge the Senate to approve this important bipartisan legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate that.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, the Republican leadership is wrong to ask the Senate to support legislation that has been ruled unconstitutional by numerous courts. Since the last debate in the Senate in 1999, the Supreme Court found a very similar law enacted by the State of Nebraska to be unconstitutional. This bill is unconstitutional as well. The Republican leadership has chosen to make as its top priority a flatly unconstitutional piece of legislation at a time when so many families across the country are facing economic hardship, when communities are struggling to deal with homeland security needs, and being forced by State budget crises to cut back on education and health care. Because of the Republican leadership's decision to act on this bill, we will do nothing this week to provide an economic stimulus plan for the Nation's families and workers. We will do nothing to provide new funding for communities struggling to protect themselves from new terrorist attacks. We will do nothing to help the millions of uninsured children in this country get the health care they need. We will do nothing for schools struggling to meet higher standards under the No Child Left Behind Act. We will do nothing to help college students struggling to pay tuition and relieve their debt. We will do nothing to help the millions of families across the Nation who are worried about their economic future. Let us be clear as to what this bill does not do. This bill does not stop one single abortion. The proponents of this bill distort the law and the position of our side with inflammatory rhetoric, while advocating a bill that will not stop one single abortion. This bill purports to prohibit a medical procedure that is only used in rare and dire circumstances. It is not used for unhealthy mothers carrying unhealthy babies. If this bill is passed, a doctor could be forced to perform another, more dangerous procedure if it becomes necessary to terminate a pregnancy to protect the life, the health of the mother. This bill does not protect the health of the mother. Nowhere is there language that will allow a doctor to take the health of the mother into consideration, even if she were to suffer brain damage or otherwise be permanently impaired if the pregnancy continued. And this bill is not needed to protect the life of the babies who could live outside the mother's womb because those babies are already protected under the law of the land. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court specifically held that unless there was a threat to the life, health of the woman, she did not have a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy after viability. So what is this legislation all about? It is about politics and inflammatory language and hot-button topics, but it is not about stopping abortion. Because of the sound and fury and high emotion that surrounds this issue, I make my own personal views clear. I am pro-choice. But I believe that abortion should be rare. I believe we have an obligation to create an economy and the necessary support systems to make it easier for women to choose to bring children into the world. If the proponents of this legislation were serious about limiting the number of abortions in this country, then we would be debating access to health care, quality education, the minimum wage, and other issues of economic security that are so important to parents bringing up children. Those issues are not on the Republican leadership's agenda. Instead, for rank political reasons we are here this week debating the so-called partial-birth abortion. I do not believe it is the role of the Senate to interfere with or regulate the kind of medical advice that a doctor can give to a patient. The doctor-patient relationship and the protection of the health of the mother is what is in jeopardy with this legislation. From the time of the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade through to the Stenberg-Carhart decision, the Constitution allows States to restrict postviability abortion as long as there are protections for the life and the health of the mother. Indeed, 41 States already ban postviability abortions regardless of the procedure used. My own State of Massachusetts prohibits these abortions except when the woman's life is in danger, or the continuation of the pregnancy would impose a substantial risk of grave impairment of a woman's health. I would vote for a postviability ban that protects women's life and health today. The role of the Senate is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Each of us in this body has taken that oath of office, and that oath of office and the Constitution require me to oppose this legislation. This bill unconstitutionally seeks to restrict abortion in cases before viability. It does not provide an exception to protect the mother's health after viability. It also impermissibly attempts to interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. For all these reasons, I oppose this bill. Finally, I commend my friend and colleague, Senator Harkin, and indicate my strong support for his amendment. This is a reaffirmation of the 1973 Supreme Court decision. It gives focus to the underlying debate and the policy issues which surround this whole issue. As the Senator remembers so well, before Roe as many as 5,000 women died from illegal abortions each year. Many others suffered serious complications. In the years since 1973, the number of deaths resulting from abortion procedures has decreased dramatically. In order to keep abortion safe, we must keep it legal. That is why I support Senator Harkin's amendment and strongly urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, may we have order. The Senator is entitled to be heard. This is an important matter.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will be ready in about 2 minutes, and I would like to have 10 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Republican leadership is wrong to ask the Senate to support legislation that has been ruled unconstitutional by numerous courts. Since the last debate in the Senate in 1999, the Supreme Court found a very similar law enacted by the State of Nebraska to be unconstitutional. This bill is unconstitutional as well. The Republican leadership has chosen to make as its top priority a flatly unconstitutional piece of legislation at a time when so many families across the country are facing economic hardship, when communities are struggling to deal with homeland security needs, and being forced by state budget crises to cut back on education and health care. Because of the Republican leadership's decision to act on this bill, we will do nothing this week to provide an economic stimulus plan for the Nation's families and workers. We will do nothing to provide new funding for communities struggling to protect themselves from new terrorist attacks. We will do nothing to help the millions of uninsured children in this country get the health care they need. We will do nothing for schools struggling to meet higher standards under the No Child Left Behind Act. We will do nothing to help college students struggling to pay tuition and relieve their debt. We will do nothing to help the millions of families across the Nation who are worried about their economic future. Let us be clear as to what this bill does not do. This bill does not stop one single abortion. The proponents of this bill distort the law and the position of our side with inflammatory rhetoric, while advocating a bill that will not stop one single abortion. This bill purports to prohibit a medical procedure that is only used in rare and dire circumstances. It is not used on healthy mothers carrying healthy babies. And if this bill is passed, a doctor could be forced to perform another, more dangerous procedure if it becomes necessary to terminate a pregnancy to protect the life and health of a woman. This bill does not protect the health of the mother. Nowhere is there language that would allow a doctor to take the health of the mother into consideration, even if she were to suffer brain damage or otherwise be permanently impaired if the pregnancy continued. And this bill is not needed to protect the life of babies who could live outside the mother's womb because those babies are already protected under the law of the land. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court specifically held that unless there was a threat to the life or health of a woman, she did not have a constitutional right to terminate a pregancy after viability. So what is this legislation all about? It is about politics and inflammatory language and hot-button topics. But it is not about stopping abortion. Because of the sound and fury and high emotion that surrounds this issue, I would like to make my personal views clear. I am pro-choice. But I believe that abortions should be rare. I believe that we have an obligation to create an economy and the necessary support systems to make it easier for women to choose to bring children into the world. If the proponents of this legislation were serious about limiting the number of abortions in this country, then we would be debating access to health care, quality education, the minimum wage, and the other issues of economic security that are so important to parents bringing up children. But those issues are not on the Republican leadership's agenda. Instead, for rank political reasons, we are here this week debating so-called partial birth abortion. I do not believe that it is the role of the United States Senate to interfere with or regulate the kind of medical advice that a doctor can give to a patient. And that doctor/ patient relationship and the protection of the health of the mother is really what is in jeopardy with this legislation. From the time of the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade through the Stenberg v. Carhert decision in 2000, the Supreme Court of the United States has made clear that the Constitution allows states to restrict post-viability abortions as long as there are protections for the life and health of the mother. Indeed, 41 states already ban post-viability abortions, regardless of the procedure used. My own State of Massachusetts prohibits these abortions except when the woman's life is in danger or the continuation of the pregnancy would impose a substantial risk of grave impairment of the woman's health. I would vote for a post-viability ban that protects women's life and health today. The role of the United States Senate is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Each of us in this body has taken that oath of office. And that oath of office and the Constitution require me to oppose this legislation. This bill unconstitutionally seeks to restrict abortions in cases before viability and it does not provide an exception to protect the mother's health after viability. It also impermissibly attempts to interfere with the doctor/patient relationship. For all of these reasons, I oppose this bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as President Bush prepares for war with Iraq, the administration also must prepare to win the peace. While I have grave reservations about this administration's rush to war with Iraq, we all hope that if the President goes forward, the war will be quick and our troops will be safe. But we must also recognize that once war is launched, American obligations in Iraq are only just beginning. The instant we occupy Iraq, we become responsible for the security, care, and feeding of its people--even the education of its children. Years of reconstruction and assistance to the Iraqi people will be necessary to bring Iraq to independence into the family of nations. And we can expect an American presence in that country for months and even years to come. This is an enormous enterprise and an extraordinary obligation. But to win the peace in Iraq, we must get it right. Today the Council on Foreign Relations issued a report on how this might be accomplished. The experts who contributed to this thoughtful report bring years of experience in addressing post-conflict reconstruction issues in both Republican and Democratic administrations. The task force that developed this report was chaired by former Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger. And the project director is Eric Schwartz, who served in the Clinton White House as a senior official in the National Security Council. The administration and Congress would do well to heed their recommendations. And I ask unanimous consent that the executive summary of the report be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am honored today to join Senator Gregg in introducing the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2003. This bill is an important bipartisan effort to help protect our Nation's public safety officers on the job. The events of September 11 made clear that our Nation's true heroes are our fire fighters, police officers, and emergency medical technicians. We will never forget the sacrifices they made at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The photographs of tired, dust-covered, fire fighters confronting the unimaginable horror of that day are permanently emblazoned in our minds. Thousands of public safety officers throughout the country serve in some of the country's most dangerous, strenuous and stressful jobs today. Every year, more than 80,000 police officers and 75,000 firefighters are injured on the job. An average of 160 police officers and nearly 100 firefighters die in the line of duty each year. It is a matter of basic fairness to give these courageous men and women the same rights that have long been enjoyed by other workers. For more than 60 years, collective bargaining has enabled labor and management to work together to improve job conditions and increase productivity. Through collective bargaining, labor and management have led the way together on many important improvements in today's workplace--especially with regard to health and pension benefits, paid holidays and sick leave, and workplace safety. Collective bargaining in the public sector, once a controversial issue, is now widely accepted. It has been widespread, since at least 1962, when President Kennedy signed an Executive order granting these basic rights to Federal employees. Congressional employees have had these rights since enactment of the Congressional Accountability Act almost a decade ago. It is long past time for State and local government employees to have Federal protection for the basic right to participate in collective bargaining agreements with their employers. The bill we are introducing today extends this protection to firefighters, police officers, correctional officers, paramedics and emergency medical technicians. The bill guarantees the fundamental rights necessary for collective bargaining--the right to form and join a union; the right to bargain over hours, wages and working conditions; the right to sign legally enforceable contracts; and the right to a means to resolve impasses in negotiations. The benefits of this bill are clear and compelling. It will lead to safer working conditions for public safety officers. States that lack these collective bargaining laws have death rates for fire fighters nearly double the rate in States in which such bargaining takes place. In 1993, fire fighters in nine of the 10 States with the highest fire fighter death rates did not have collective bargaining protection. Because public safety employees serve on the front lines in providing firefighting services, law enforcement services, and emergency medical services, they know what it takes to create safer working conditions. They should have a voice in decisions that can literally make a life- or-death difference on the job. This bill will benefit all of us, not just public safety officers. When workers who actually do the job are able to provide advice on their working conditions, there are fewer injuries, increased morale, better information on new technologies, and more efficient ways to provide the services, all of which improve the safety and security of the communities that our public safety officers serve. This bill will also save money for States and local communities. Experience has shown that when public safety officers can discuss workplace conditions with management, partnerships and cooperation develop and lead to improved labor-management relations and better, more cost-effective services. A study by the International Association of Fire Fighters shows that States and municipalities that give firefighters the right to discuss workplace issues have lower fire department budgets than States without such laws. This bill accomplishes its goals in a reasonable way. It requires that public safety officers be given the opportunity to bargain collectively, but it does not require that employers adopt agreements, and it does not regulate the content of any agreements that are reached. In States with collective bargaining laws that substantially provide the modest minimum standards in the bill--as a majority of States already do--those States will be unaffected by this legislation. Where States do not have such laws, they may choose to enact them, or to allow the Federal Labor Relations Authority to establish procedures for bargaining between public safety officers and their employers. This approach respects existing State laws, and gives each state the authority to choose the way in which it will comply with the requirements of this legislation. States will have full discretion to make decisions on the implementation and enforcement of the basic rights set forth in this proposal. This amendment will not supersede State laws which already adequately provide for the exercise of--or are more protective of--collective bargaining rights by public safety officers. It is a matter of basic fairness for these courageous men and women to have the same rights that have long been enjoyed by other workers. They put their lives on the line to protect us every day. They deserve to have an effective voice on the job, and I urge the Senate to approve this important bipartisan legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Republicans claim that we do not have a right to an extended debate on a judicial nominee lacks any foundation. The Constitution gives a strong role to the Senate in confirming federal judges. Both the text of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution and the debates over its adoption make clear that the Senate should play an active and independent role in selecting judges. The Constitutional Convention met Philadelphia from late May until mid-September of 1787. On May 29, 1787, the Convention began its work on the Constitution with the Virginia Plan introduced by Governor Randolph, which provided ``that a National Judiciary be established, to be chosen by the National Legislature.'' Under this plan, the President had no role at all in the selection of judges. When this provision came before the Convention on June 5th, several members were concerned that having the whole legislature select judges was too unwieldy. James Wilson suggested an alternative proposal that the President be given sole power to appoint judges. That idea had almost no support. Rutledge of South Carolina said that he ``was by no means disposed to grant so great a power to any single person.'' James Madison agreed that the legislature was too large a body, and stated that he was ``rather inclined to give [the appointment power] to the Senatorial branch'' of the legislature, a group ``sufficiently stable and independent'' to provide ``deliberate judgments.'' A week later, Madison offered a formal motion to give the Senate the sole power to appoint judges and this motion was adopted without any objection. On June 19, the Convention formally adopted a working draft of the Constitution, and it gave the Senate the exclusive power to appoint judges. On July 18, the Convention reaffirmed its decision to grant the Senate the exclusive power. James Wilson again proposed ``that the Judges be appointed by the Executive'' and again his motion was overwhelmingly defeated. The issue was considered again on July 21, and the Convention again agreed to the exclusive Senate appointment of judges. In a debate concerning the provision, George Mason called the idea of executive appointment of Federal judges a ``dangerous precedent.'' Not until the final days of the Convention was the President given power to nominate Judges. On September 4, 2 weeks before the Convention's work was completed, the committee proposed that the President should have a role in selecting judges. It stated: ``The President shall nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint judges of the Supreme Court.'' The debates, make clear, however, that while the President had the power to nominate judges, the Senate still had a central role. That is what the debate made clear. For instance, Governor Morris of Pennsylvania described the provision as giving the Senate the power ``to appoint Judges nominated to them by the President. The Convention, having repeatedly rejected proposals that would lodge exclusive power to select judges with the executive branch, could not possibly have intended to reduce the Senate to a rubber stamp role. The reasons given by delegates to the Convention for making the selection of judges a joint decision by the President and the Senate are as relevant today as they were in 1787. The Framers refused to give the power of appointment to a ``single individual.'' They understood that a more representative judiciary would be best served by giving Members of the Senate a major role. The Senate has never hesitated to fully exercise this power. During the first 100 years after ratification of the Constitution, 21 of 81 Supreme Court nominations--one out of four--were rejected, withdrawn, or not acted on. During these confirmation debates, ideology often mattered. John Rutledge, nominated by George Washington, failed to win confirmation as Chief Justice in 1795. Alexander Hamilton and other Federalists opposed him because of his position on the controversial Jay Treaty. A nominee of President James Polk was rejected because of his anti-immigration position. A nominee of President Hoover was rejected because of his anti-labor view. A very substantial number of us believe that we are facing another historic constitutional confirmation which only the Senate's power and processes can resolve. Our President has embarked on a course that threatens the balance of powers and the independence of the judiciary. His legal advisors have set him on a course to stack the U.S. Courts with judges who will judge in accordance with a narrow and extreme set of views, views outside of the judicial mainstream and aimed at making draconian and sudden changes in the direction of life and liberty in this Nation. President Bush is not the originator of this court-stacking plan. It began decades ago with his predecessors in the White House and Justice Department. It has been enabled by the successful efforts of some in our own body to retard the filling of judicial vacancies over the past two presidential terms. The White House and its allies have not been bashful about admitting their radical goal. Our own respect for the judiciary leaves no doubt that our President was lawfully elected. But there is not the slightest basis for the argument that any popular mandate supports such a massive shift in judicial direction. As Senators we have the power, and the responsibility to ourselves, our constituencies and our institution, to resist revolutionary change in the balance of power. We have the power--and responsibility--to reject the notion that a President can suddenly fashion the judiciary in his own image. We have a special responsibility to do so when the Senate is so evenly divided that, after due consideration and debate based on all the necessary information, the switch of a few votes could change the result. We certainly have the obligation to do so when the Executive Branch prevents us from exercising our assigned constitutional powers of advice and consent by depriving us of any access to the only documents which might tell us what kind of a judge a nominee will be--the very documents which the President's lawyers used to select and vet the nominee. The issue before us today is about much more than Miguel Estrada. It is about the essential nature of our government; it is about the core values of the Senate; it is about our history and our legacy. We must not let the Founders down. We must not let our predecessors down. We must not let our constituents down. We must not let our Nation down.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join colleagues Senator Clinton, Warner, Snowe, Mikulski, Jeffords, Murray, Breaux, Collins and Smith in introducing the Lifespan respite Care Act. The act will authorize grants to promote a coordinated system of accessible respite care services for 26 million Americans who care for a family member or friend who is chronically ill or disabled. Caregivers today work tirelessly to support their loved ones and help them to maintain their quality of life as effectively as possible. Without this important care, many seniors and people with disabilities would be forced to live in institutions, reducing their quality-of-life and resulting in more costly care. Services provided by family caregivers are estimated to be worth nearly $200 billion annually. Even if we tried to replace these family caregivers with paid workers, we would face workforce shortages, a serious problem that will only worsen as the baby boom generation reaches retirement age. By 2010, more than 780,000 additional caregivers must be found to fill long-term staff positions, an increase of 39 percent over the year 2000. We now rely, and we will have to continue to rely, on unpaid caregivers in order to meet the growing need and enable those who receive the care to continue to live in the least restrictive environment possible. Many family caregivers are themselves suffering from the stress and physical strain of their work. Often, they live the caregiver life, which is frequently called the 36-hour day. They deserve more support in order to do their essential work. Sometimes, the relief they need may be a ``timeout'' for just an hour or two a week to do the grocery shopping or have time to go to the doctor. Other family caregivers may need far more relief. Our bill will provide essential respite care services and ensure that respite care providers are trained appropriately, so caregivers will feel at ease when they leave their loved one with respite providers. I urge the Senate to support this important legislation that will provide long needed support for the elderly and disabled and that will mean so much to the family caregivers of our Nation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues Senators Mikulski, Bond, Breaux, Dodd, Lincoln, Landrieu and Cochran in introducing this important bipartisan legislation. The Alzheimer's Research, Prevention and Care Act will expand federal efforts to find new ways of treating and preventing Alzheimer's Disease and to provide better care for the 4 million Americans suffering from this devastating illness. Alzheimer's disease is the most serious threat to the health and well-being of America's seniors. It has a devastating impact on individuals, families, the health care system, and society as a whole. Today, four million Americans have Alzheimer's disease, and that number is expected to grow to 14 million as baby boomers age. Currently, one in 10 people over the age of 65 have Alzheimer's disease, and nearly half of those over 85 suffer from it. This figure is particularly alarming, since the over-85 age group is the fastest growing segment of our population. The annual cost of formal care for Alzheimer's disease is immense-- $100 billion, and the value of the care provided by family caregivers is an additional $196 billion. As the baby boomer generation continues to age, the costs will rise to at least $375 billion a year, which presents a serious challenge to Medicare, Medicaid and our entire health care system. We can avoid this crisis. Researchers have been working hard to find a cure. Scientists have come close to discovering the scientific causes of Alzheimer's disease. Newly released studies have begun to reveal information on what aging Americans can do to reduce the risk of developing this devastating disease. One study found that those who consumed the most saturated fat had double the risk of those who consumed the lowest amount. Another study has found that blood pressure played an important role in the risk of developing Alzheimer's disease in those 75 or older. These and other research studies are helping to create a better understanding of why brain cells shrink and die. Hopefully, we are on the verge of a breakthrough, and scientists deserve greater support in order to make the goal of cure a reality. That is why we must do more to accelerate the research critical to finding a cure. The Act we propose will advance our country toward the goal of doubling the future investment in Alzheimer's disease research at NIH. It authorizes $1.5 billion for the National Institute on Aging by the year 2008, which is the lead NIH institute for this research. The research funding authorized by the Act will add new speed in the race to prevent this illness that touches the lives of so many Americans. These funds will support the Alzheimer's Disease Prevention Initiative authorized by the act. Prevention is our best opportunity to halt the growth of Alzheimer's disease. Observational studies in large populations suggest that drugs already in wide use in middle-aged and older people may have a protective effect against the disease. Those results must now be validated in large-scale, controlled clinical trials. Among prevention initiatives, the Act authorizes trials to determine whether compounds such as estrogen, vitamin E, ginko biloba and aspirin can prevent the onset of the disease. The act also authorizes cooperative clinical research at the National Institute on Aging. Clinical trials can cost millions of dollars and involve thousands of participants and years of work. This legislation will enhance these needed trials, develop new ways to design these trials, and make it easier for patients to enroll in key studies. Cooperative research is essential to launching these clinical trials and supporting productive research. The act also supports research and programs to help millions of family caregivers who provide loved ones with care at home. Seventy percent of those with the disease live at home in which families provide at least 77 percent of their care. It is vitally important to find better ways to help families who are the backbone of our long-term care system. The support they provide is extraordinary, and often jeopardizes their own health. It is unacceptable that one in eight Alzheimer's caregivers becomes ill or injured as a direct result of caregiving. Family caregivers provide the support which prevents these patients from having to enter institutions. This issue is especially important, given the nationwide health workforce shortage in nursing homes. The act also reauthorizes the Alzheimer's Demonstration Program in the Administration on Aging and increases funding to expand it. This program has been highly successful in pioneering new ways to fill gaps in existing state delivery systems, so that local and community-based programs can do more for underserved populations with Alzheimer's disease. In Massachusetts, the Multicultural Alzheimer's Services Project in Springfield will receive funding through this program to provide information and supportive services to those with Alzheimer's and their caregivers. We have no time to waste in the battle against Alzheimer's disease. We must act now to accelerate scientific efforts to find a cure and halt the continuing epidemic of the disease. We can improve the lives of millions of Americans by demonstrating our commitment to enhance research, and to support programs that help patients and their families. I urge my colleagues to support this very important legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I did not say ``just begun.'' No, the Senator is not correct. There was a provision, there was a filtering out of this material. It was very slow in January. We are getting close to classified. I remember the briefing we had from the deputy of the CIA at that time. It was clear they were cooperating. It was also clear there were a limited number of inspectors and they were going to provide more, and it would be soon. I think the Senator would remember that briefing. I remember it clearly. This has been a process of filtering out. The authority I have, I sat right next to Carl Levin, 2\1/2\ weeks ago, when he looked in the eyes of the Secretary of Defense and they reviewed documents, and the Secretary of Defense leaned over and shared various documents. At the end of that, he had to agree with the position Senator Levin had, that all of the information had not been provided. I will put that in the Record. My point is, if we still, 2\1/2\ weeks ago, had a ways to go with intelligence information that would be advantageous to the inspectors, it strengthens those who believe we should make sure our inspectors have all of the relevant material that will help them do the job which we all agree should be done.

Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate the Senator's response. This is enormously important because we have seen in Kosovo and other areas where servicemen did not protect local populations because they did not have what they call the ``orders'' and the appropriate rules of engagement to provide those protections. We are on notice about what is going to happen now in northern Iraq, with the desire of Kurd families returning to many of their home communities. We are on notice about the southern part of Iraq, where many of the Shia who have been denied their cities and communities want to reclaim them. It seems to me we ought to have some understanding about what our servicemen are going to be asked to do during those periods. I don't understand, for the life of me, why we cannot know that information and cannot have that information. One more word. Why can we not say, if we are going to have these circumstances, these are going to be the rules of engagement? At least we need to have some awareness and understanding that we are going to meet our responsibilities under the Geneva Convention. We have an international responsibility, obviously, in terms of protecting civilian populations. We have seen, in Kosovo and Serbia, where those populations were not protected in a number of instances because the rules of engagement were not proper. I say to the chairman of the committee, I hope prior to the time we go to war, we will have at least some understanding about what these instructions are. There is no reason they need to be kept secure. If we are interested in avoiding large bloodletting in that region of the country, we ought to know exactly what we are expecting of our service men and women. They are the best in the world, and they are trained to overcome any military force.

Mr. KENNEDY. I see my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I would like to maybe ask him a question.

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, my information is somewhat different from the Senator's, in terms of the recruitment and the ability to hold these individuals into any kind of a national army. I want to finish with this point. We are facing a variety of security challenges in this country. My belief is the No. 1, which is continuing, is al-Qaida and the dangers of terrorism. We have to look at everything. We know Saddam Hussein is a despot. We know progress is being made. We also have on the scene the danger of North Korea and the imminent threat they present. We ought to be making a judgment about our national security interests, our overall security--the security of the American people within the construct of the dangers of al-Qaida, the threat that is posed in North Korea, and whatever the current situation is with the inspectors in Iraq. On that kind of a situation, I draw the conclusion that we should give more time to the inspectors and work to try to galvanize the international community to support us in that effort.

Mr. KENNEDY. If I could ask unanimous consent to ask him a question and retain the right to the floor. I was interested in what our rules of engagement will be for our men and women in Iraq. I am concerned, as are many of the nongovernmental agencies, that if we go past Basra, if we let it alone for a period of 48 hours--this is a community that is largely Shia, ruled by the Sunnis--I have heard estimates of up to 10,000 people being slaughtered there in bloodletting unless there is an immediate kind of police action and force presence which would keep these parties apart. I am wondering, in those circumstances, what will be the rules of engagement of American servicemen. Are they going to be called upon in terms of separating these blood feuds, which have been so much a part of these revolutions in Iraq? I want to know whether American servicemen are going to be instructed that they are to fire on the Iraqi people who are involved in these kinds of acts of violence. I am interested in what the rules of engagement will be for northern Iraq, if there should be a rush by the Kurds to go back to their old homes where, in many instances, families have lived for centuries and have been separated by Saddam Hussein. What are American troops going to be told to do when the Iraqi forces collapse and the Kurds make a rush to Kirkuk, for example, one of the great oil-producing areas? What are American service men and women going to be told to do? What will be the rules of engagement outside of just engaging with the Iraqi Army? What are going to be the rules of engagement in terms of maintaining civilian control?

Mr. KENNEDY. Does the Senator want to explain, on the reconstituting of the armed forces, how successful that has been?

Mr. KENNEDY. I know, but why do they say--I will be glad to read this and go through it, Mr. President, but I want to stick with the facts I know about. The facts I know about are the testimony of the Secretary of Defense and the exchange that he had with Senator Levin in open session in the Armed Services Committee where Senator Levin had been told the evening before, and it was represented that a complete list of these sites had been provided, and he had the materials that demonstrated it had not been complete. Those are security matters, as the Senator well knows. That was 2\1/2\ weeks ago. The point is, as to the intelligence given to the inspector, whatever has been given, is it the Senator's statement now as chairman of the Armed Services Committee that all of the information the intelligence agency has in terms of weapons has been given to the inspectors? Is that what the Senator is telling us?

Mr. KENNEDY. Let me answer, if I may, in this way. First of all, the administration was strongly opposed to inspections. I heard the exchange with my friend and colleague from Connecticut. That is very clear. Secretary Rumsfeld said it. They never believed in inspections, No. 1. Then they agreed to the inspection process at the United Nations. It is only today, evidently, when the CIA is giving the inspectors all the information we have. The Senator from Virginia attended the Armed Services Committee hearings that I attended where our colleague and friend from Michigan, Senator Levin, pointed out time and again that the administration and the CIA had still not provided all of the material on intelligence to the inspectors. But all during this time, the administration was saying: Let's go to war; let's go to war; let's go to war; Saddam isn't complying. Now the Senator--and I have not had a chance to look at the document--says the record is clear, and he put the document in the Record an hour ago, that finally we are giving everything to the inspectors. Today, we had the leader of the inspection team say he believes they can do the job not in weeks, not in years but in some months. The international community says: We will be with you if you can do that in a period of months. My position is, it is better to work the international community to try and do it in weeks--if we cannot, do it in months. It is cheaper in terms of treasure and human life to keep the necessary military force there to make sure it is done. That is my position, I say to the Senator. I know we differ on some aspects, but we do not differ on the willingness to give to the inspectors the intelligence information.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to do it. I understand the agreement goes to 12:30. I have not had an opportunity, and I have been here almost an hour. We extended the time shortly over on the other side. I will be glad to yield if we can work that out, but I would like an opportunity.