Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services and International Security be authorized to meet on Thursday, September 27, 2007, at 3:30 p.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Cost Effective Airlift in the 21st Century''.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 27, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 128, to amend the Cache La Poudre River Corridor Act to designate a new management entity, make certain technical and conforming amendments, enhance private property protections, and for other purposes; S. 148, to establish the Paterson Great Falls National Park in the State of New Jersey, and for other purposes; S. 189, to decrease the matching funds requirement and authorize additional appropriations for Keweenaw National Historical Park in the State of Michigan; S. 697, to establish the Steel Industry National Historic Site in the State of Pennsylvania; S. 867, to adjust the boundary of Lowell National Historical Park, and for other purposes; S. 1039, a bill to extend the authorization for the Coastal Heritage Trail in the State of New Jersey; S. 1341, to provide for the exchange of certain Bureau of Land Management land in Pima County, Arizona, and for other purposes; S. 1476, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resources study of the Tule Lake Segregation Center in Modoc County, California, to determine the suitability and feasibility of establishing a unit of the National Park System; S. 1709 and H.R. 1239, to amend the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Act of 1998 to provide additional staff and oversight of funds to carry out the Act, and for other purposes; S. 1808, to authorize the exchange of certain land in Denali National Park in the State of Alaska; S. 1969, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility of designating Estate Grange and other sites related to Alexander Hamilton's life on the island of St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Effectively, when the administration says this is going to be additional kind of spending, they leave out the fact that it is going to be funded--children's health--with a cigarette tax. Is the Senator familiar with the fact that the procedure, the process by which the children actually get the health insurance in the State is basically identical to what the administration asked on their prescription drug program? It is using the private sector in terms of the contract, and in terms of an individual getting coverage for their children. The worker will find out there are several alternatives from which they can make a choice. They are all based on the private sector. Therefore, I ask the Senator, is he somewhat troubled by the administration's opposition, since we have effectively tracked the delivery system that the administration has asked and it is being paid for independently from spending programs by the Federal Government and that the total expenditure, as the Senator I am sure has pointed out, is some $35 million over 5 years as compared to $120 billion dollars for the war in Iraq in a single year?

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield further?

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. On the point the Senator makes about this being a matter that is paid for, it is not effectively costing the taxpayers any resources. As I understand it, it is going to mean an increase in the cigarette tax, and the implication of the increase in the cigarette tax is the fact that less children will be smoking; so you have a double value here, where we are not only getting coverage for the children but discouraging children from smoking, which will help and assist and make sure future generations are going to be healthier as well. I know the Senator is familiar with that argument. Does he think the administration has missed that point?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I hope our friends and colleagues had a good opportunity to listen to the excellent, extraordinary, compelling presentation my friend from Oregon has made on this issue. I have had the good opportunity to work with him for a good number of years. I always find that when he speaks on this issue, as he does on other issues of war and peace, he is able to get to the heart and the soul of these matters. Today, he has described the moral requirements presented to us on the issue of hate crimes, and he has done that in a very thoughtful and sensitive way, besides explaining in a very detailed way not only the underlying legislation but the compelling reasons for it at this time. One can say that, on this legislation, now is the time, to repeat those wonderful words of Dr. King; that now is the time for action. Senator Smith has reminded us why this legislation is so important now on the Defense authorization bill. We cannot let another day, really hours, go by without this legislation. It reminds us of not only the moral compulsion but also why it is necessary to put this as an amendment onto the Defense authorization bill. As we are facing terrorism abroad, we also want to deal with terrorism here at home; and as we are looking at the values those serving abroad are fighting for against the terrorist elements abroad, it is important to reaffirm them and make them consistent with our best instincts. I commend the Senator for his presentation on this issue. We are hopeful, Senator Smith and I, we will have the chance to actually vote on this measure. As he has pointed out, this is not a new issue or question for this body. This is one of those issues we have had a chance to debate, debate, debate, and debate. The House of Representatives has taken a very clear and compelling stand. We have voted, the majority of the membership of this body, Democrat and Republican, in Republican Senates and Democratic Senates, to take action on this proposal. We don't need a great amount of time to deal with this issue, but it is appropriate that we lay out this case for it, and I welcome the chance to make some comments on it today. I am hopeful we will have the opportunity to proceed to it. I was in the Senate when we passed the first hate crimes legislation in 1968, after the death of Dr. King. We started off with strong legislation. It was cut back and cut back, so now we find that basically it is ineffective in dealing with hate crimes for a number of the reasons the Senator has outlined, because of the kinds of restrictions that have been placed on it. Again we are reminded of the need for this legislation. With the passage of this legislation, we will be, hopefully, a safer and more secure nation. Legislation has real implications when it is effective. I believe this legislation is effective. I can remember years ago, when we had the series of church burnings in the southern part of our Nation, we passed here at that time--it was Lauch Faircloth and myself--additional responsibility for investigation and working with the prosecution by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in these circumstances and enhanced support for local law enforcement and State law enforcement in the prosecution of these church burnings. We saw a dramatic alteration and change in the pattern of church burnings. My Governor now, Deval Patrick, was the head of the division in the Justice Department during this period of time, when I had a chance to meet him. We find when we take action, when we are serious, we are saying to the American people we are going to fight hate crimes and violence with both hands instead of one hand tied behind our backs, as we are doing now with the restrictions we have, using all our crime- fighting ability, we will be a more fair and safer land. That is what this legislation is about. I am going to take a few minutes to remind the Senate about why this is a particular issue in the military. It is also outside the military, but I will just mention some of the incidents. The Senator from Oregon mentioned some, but I wish to take a few moments to elaborate on this question. At a time when our ideals are under attack by terrorists in other lands, it is more important than ever to demonstrate that we practice what we preach, and that we are doing all we can to root out the bigotry and prejudice in our own country that leads to violence here at home. Crimes motivated by hate because of the victim's race, religion, ethnic background, sexual orientation, disability, or gender are not confined to the geographical boundaries of our great Nation. The current conflicts in the Middle East and Northern Ireland, the ethnic cleansing campaigns in Bosnia and Rwanda, or the Holocaust itself demonstrate that violence motivated by hate is a world-wide danger, and we have a special responsibility to combat it here at home. This amendment will strengthen the Defense Authorization Act by protecting those who volunteer to serve in the military. The vast majority of our soldiers serve with honor and distinction. These men and women put their lives on the line to ensure our freedom and for that, we are truly grateful. Sadly, our military bases are not immune from the violence that comes from hatred--and even though members of the military put their lives on the line for us every day--they have not been immune from hate- motivated violence. Just last month, the FBI arrested members of the 82nd Airborne Division in Fayetteville, NC, and charged them with selling stolen military property to an agent they believed was a white supremacist. The pair allegedly sold drugs and bulletproof vests, and were also reportedly interested in selling an Army Humvee and weapons. Officials said the two men had been seen at a white supremacist rally. One of them had a page on the Web with photos of him posing with military weapons, statements about his Nazi heroes, and racist rants from his network of friends. In December 2006, a Coast Guard procurement officer was given a bad conduct discharge and sentenced to a year in a military brig for posting Ku Klux Klan recruitment fliers on a white supremacist web site, illegally possessing weapons and explosive powder and grenade parts, lying to investigators, and other charges. In December 1995, two paratroopers in a skinhead gang at Fort Bragg gunned down a black couple in a random, racially motivated double murder that shocked the Nation and led to a major investigation of extremism in the military. The killers were eventually sentenced to life in prison, and 19 other members of their division were dishonorably discharged for neo-Nazi gang activities. As Senator Smith points out, in 1992, Allen Schindler, a sailor in the Navy was viciously murdered by two fellow sailors because of his sexual orientation. Seven years later, PFC Barry Winchell, an infantry soldier in the Army, was brutally slain for being perceived as gay. These incidents prompted the military to implement guidelines to prevent this type of violence, but there is more that we can do. We have to send a message that these crimes won't be tolerated against any member of society. These examples clearly demonstrate the relevance of this amendment to the military. We can't tolerate hate-motivated violence and must do all we can to protect our men and women in uniform. A disturbing trend has also been discovered in the military. Last year, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported that members of hate groups have been entering into the military. As recruiters struggle to fulfill their quotas, they are being forced to accept recruits who may be extremists, putting our soldiers at higher risk of hate motivated violence. This can't be tolerated. We must stem the tide of hatred and bigotry by sending a loud and clear message that hate crimes will be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Since the September 11 attacks, we have seen a shameful increase in the number of hate crimes committed against Muslims, Sikhs, and Americans of Middle Eastern descent. Congress has done much to respond to the vicious attacks of September 11. We have authorized the use of force against terrorists and those who harbor them in other lands. We have enacted legislation to provide aid to victims and their families, to strengthen airport security, to improve the security of our borders, to strengthen our defenses against bioterrorism, and to give law enforcement and intelligence officials enhanced powers to investigate and prevent terrorism. Protecting the security of our homeland is a high priority, and there is more that we should do to strengthen our defenses against hate that comes from abroad. There is no reason why Congress should not act to strengthen our defenses against hate that occurs here at home. Hate crimes are a form of domestic terrorism. They send the poisonous message that some Americans deserve to be victimized solely because of who they are. Like other acts of terrorism, hate crimes have an impact far greater than the impact on the individual victims. They are crimes against entire communities, against the whole Nation, and against the fundamental ideals on which America was founded. They are a violation of all our country stands for. Since the September 11 attacks, the Nation has been united in our effort to root out the cells of hatred around the world. We should not turn a blind eye to acts of hatred and terrorism here at home. Attorney General Ashcroft put it well when he said: Just as the United States will pursue, prosecute, and punish terrorists who attack America out of hatred for what we believe, we will pursue, prosecute and punish those who attack law-abiding Americans out of hatred for who they are. Hatred is the enemy of justice, regardless of its source. Now more than ever, we need to act against hate crimes and send a strong message here and around the world that we will not tolerate crimes fueled by hate. Hate is hate regardless of what nation it originates in. We can send a strong message about the need to eradicate hate crimes throughout the world by passing this hate crimes amendment to the Defense Department authorization bill. The hate crimes amendment we are offering today condemns the poisonous message that some human beings deserve to be victimized solely because of their race, religion, or sexual orientation and must not be ignored. This action is long overdue. When the Senate approves this amendment, we will send a message about freedom and equality that will resonate around the world. According to FBI statistics, nearly 25 people are victimized each and every day because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic background, or disability. Some argue that hate crimes are actually decreasing because the total number of hate crimes in 2005 was slightly lower than in 2004. But the FBI data reflects only a fraction of hate crimes, because so many of these crimes routinely go unreported. The Southern Poverty Law Center estimates the total number of hate crimes per year is close to 50,000. Every hate crime is one too many. We need to strengthen the ability of Federal, State and local governments to prevent, investigate and prosecute these vicious and senseless crimes. The existing Federal hate crime statute was passed in 1968, a few weeks after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It was an important step forward at the time, but it is now a generation out of date. The absence of effective legislation has undoubtedly resulted in the failure to solve many hate-motivated crimes. The recent action of the Justice Department in reopening forty civil-rights-era murders demonstrates the need for adequate laws. Many of the victims in these cases have been denied justice for decades, and for some, justice will never come. Our bill corrects two major deficiencies in current law. Excessive restrictions require proof that victims were attacked because they were engaged in certain ``federally protected activities.'' And the scope of the law is limited, covering hate crimes based on race, religion, or ethnic background alone. The federally protected activity requirement is outdated, unwise and unnecessary, particularly when we consider the unjust outcomes of this requirement. Hate crimes now occur in a variety of circumstances, and citizens are often targeted during routine activities that should be protected. For example, in June 2003, six Latino teenagers went to a family restaurant on Long Island. They knew one another from their involvement in community activities and had come together to celebrate one of their birthdays. As they entered the restaurant, three men who were leaving the bar assaulted them, pummeling one boy and severing a tendon in his hand with a sharp weapon. During the attack, the men yelled racial slurs and one identified himself as a skinhead. Two of the men were tried under the current Federal hate crimes law and were acquitted. The jurors said the Government failed to prove that the attack took place because the victims weren't engaged in a federally protected activity--using the restaurant did not qualify under current law. That case is only one example of the inadequate protection under the current status quo. Our bill will eliminate the federally protected activity requirement. Under this bill, the defendants who left the courtroom as free men would almost certainly have left in handcuffs through a different door. The bill also recognizes that some hate crimes are committed against people because of their sexual orientation, their gender, their gender identity, or their disability. It is up to Congress to make sure that tough Federal penalties apply to those who commit these types of hate crimes as well. Passing this bill will send a loud and clear message. All hate crimes will face Federal prosecution. Action is long overdue. There are too many stories and too many victims. In October 2002, two deaf girls in Somerville, MA, one of whom was in a wheelchair from cerebral palsy, were harassed and sexually assaulted by four suspected gang members in a local park. Although the alleged perpetrators were charged in the incident, the assaults could not be charged as hate crimes because there is no Federal protection for a hate crime against a disabled person. In 1999, four women in Yosemite National Park were attacked by a man who admitted to having fantasized about killing women for most of his life. The current law did not apply to this horrific crime, because enjoyment of a Federal park is not a Federally protected right. Current law must also be strengthened to deter horrific mass shootings where women are singled out as victims because of their gender. Crimes against individuals based on sexual orientation or gender identity also cause immense pain and suffering. In 1993, Brandon Teena was raped and beaten in Humboldt, NE, by two male friends. The local sheriff refused to arrest the offenders, and they later shot and stabbed Brandon to death. In 2001, Fred C. Martinez, Jr., a Navajo, openly gay, transgender youth, was murdered while walking home from a party in Cortez, CO. The killer, Shaun Murphy, had traveled from New Mexico to Colorado with a friend in order to sell illegal drugs. He met Fred at a carnival that night, and the next morning, while driving, he saw Fred walking down the street. Shaun and his friend offered Fred a ride and dropped him off close to home. Shortly thereafter, Shaun attacked Fred and beat him to death with a large rock. His body was discovered several days later. The attackers bragged about this vicious crime, describing the victim with vulgar epithets. The killer could not be charged with a hate crime, because no State or Federal law protecting gender identity existed. He received a 40 year sentence under a plea agreement, and will be eligible for parole in 25 years. His victim did not live long enough to see his 20th birthday. These examples graphically illustrate the senseless brutality our fellow citizens face simply for being who they are. They also highlight the importance of passing this legislation. The vast majority of us in Congress have recognized the need for this legislation since it was first introduced--nearly 10 years ago. With the support of 31 cosponsors, Senator Smith and I urge your support of this bipartisan bill. The House has come through on their side and passed the bill. Now it is time for the Senate to do the same. This year, we can get it done. We came close twice before. In 2000 and 2002, a majority of Senators voted to pass this legislation. In 2004, we had 65 votes for the bill and it was adopted as part of the Defense authorization bill. But--that time--it was stripped out in conference. This year, we have an opportunity to pass it in both the Senate and the House, and enact it into law. We can't afford to lose this opportunity. We must do all we can to end these senseless crimes. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, over the course of this morning, this afternoon, and yesterday, we have had some excellent comments in support of our hate crimes amendment which we will be voting on in the morning. Also, we will be voting on the SCHIP program as well. Over the course of the afternoon, a number of people have spoken on these issues. I am enormously grateful to many of my colleagues who have taken a great interest in these issues and wanted to be able to speak on them. Many of them have. Others will continue through the afternoon, probably into the evening, to express their support for this legislation. I wish to take a couple of moments on the issue of hate crimes. We have heard during this discussion that hate crimes are alive and well in the United States, tragically. Over the last few days, we have spoken about many people who have been impacted by hate crimes and described in some detail the horrific circumstances so many of these individuals, fellow citizens, have undergone because of their religious, ethnic, racial, and sexual orientation. I was moved--and I am sure many were--by the Southern Poverty Law Center and their very important study on estimates of hate crimes. The Southern Poverty Law Center was focused on crimes of race in the South for many years and developed enormous amounts of information about those horrific crimes and was very responsible in bringing people to justice in a number of circumstances. Their focus on these issues of hatred got them to expand their research. As I mentioned in an earlier presentation, they recorded their best judgment that hate crimes reach 50,000 people per year every year, which is an extraordinary amount. I wish to respond to a point or two that have been raised in questioning our approach on this issue. In the hate crimes legislation we have introduced, our bill fully respects the primary role of State and local law enforcement in responding to violent crimes. 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. It authorizes Federal prosecution 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. We have responded to these issues and gone into them in very careful detail. There are those who say this legislation is going to make every crime of violence a hate crime. We have heard that statement in opposition. We have heard it for a number of years. We have addressed it, and we have spelled out in the legislation exactly what is the jurisdiction. The bill protects State interests with a strict certification procedure that requires the Federal Government to consult with local officials before bringing a Federal case. It offers Federal assistance to help State and local law enforcement to investigate and prosecute hate crimes in any of the categories. It offers training grants for local law enforcement. It amends the Federal Hate Crimes Statistics Act to add gender to the existing categories of race, religion, ethnic background, sexual orientation, and disability. So a strong Federal role in prosecuting hate crimes is essential for practical and symbolic reasons. In practical terms, the bill will have a real-world impact on actual criminal investigations and prosecutions by State and Federal officials. This legislation can send a strong message to the perpetrators of such crimes and to all others who think we are going to sit back and watch our fellow citizens being attacked so brutally. What we are basically saying on the issue of hate crimes is we are going to fight it with both hands. Now the Federal Government has one arm tied behind its back, unable to deal with the problems of hate crimes. Now we are saying: Yes, we are going to work with the locals; yes, we are going to work with the State; but, yes, we are going to insist that all of the resources at the Federal level can be utilized when called upon in these horrific crimes of hate. These are some of the points that have been raised. I wanted to respond to them this afternoon.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for an observation?

Mr. KENNEDY. The $35 billion will not be paid for by the taxpayers.

Mr. KENNEDY. Which is really extraordinary. We have done the education program, where we took some $20 billion from the lenders. This $35 billion is going to be paid for with the increase in the cigarette tax, which in and of itself will have an extraordinarily positive impact in the quality of health for children in this country and to the whole problem and challenge of childhood addiction to nicotine. So I think it is important. We hear a great deal about: Well, the figures the Senator mentioned are dramatic in terms of the choice which is before the Members tomorrow in terms of priorities. But you even add to that the fact that the taxpayer is going to be spared that kind of additional burden, and it is difficult for many of us to understand the strong opposition of the administration. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand we are in a period for morning business.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, sometimes the American people demand that Congress and the administration enact initiatives to address fundamental national needs. During the Depression, we enacted Social Security to see that seniors lived their later years with dignity. In the 1940s, we opened the doors to education for returning veterans through the GI bill. In the 1960s, we took action to see that seniors had quality health care, and the result was Medicare. In the 1990s, Democrats and Republicans, Congress and the administration, States and the Federal Government all worked together to help alleviate the crisis in children's health by enacting CHIP. The success of each of these programs has echoed through the decades in the lives of millions of Americans. Today, we stand at a crossroads, faced with a choice with a path that will continue and strengthen the promise of good health and a strong start in life that CHIP brings to millions of children or whether we will turn away from that promise and curtail the help and the hope CHIP brings. Many of the best ideas in public policy are the simplest. The Children's Health Insurance Program is based on one simple and powerful idea: that all children--all children--deserve a healthy start in life and that no parents should have to worry about whether they can afford to take their children to the doctor when they are sick. CHIP can make the difference between a child starting life burdened with disease or a child who is healthy and ready to learn and grow. That is why CHIP has always enjoyed bipartisan support. This support goes back to 1996 when Massachusetts enacted a State program that became one of the models of CHIP. The Massachusetts Legislature passed a bill to expand coverage for children and paid for it by increasing the tobacco tax in the State. When that program was vetoed by Governor Bill Weld, a majority of the Republicans in the State senate stood with the Democrats to override the veto. I was proud to work closely with Senator Hatch to create the national Children's Health Insurance Program, and when CHIP went into effect across the country, among its greatest champions were Republican Governors who understood the importance of expanding health insurance for children in their States. Governor Leavitt in Utah and Governor Cellucci in Massachusetts were both champions of CHIP when they were Governors. The question for President Bush today is why he would even consider rejecting a program that has long brought Republicans and Democrats together to help children. CHIP allows parents to choose insurance for their son or daughter from a private insurance company. That is one of the reasons Republicans have long supported the CHIP program. Indeed, CHIP used the same private insurance model President Bush supported in creating the Medicare prescription drug benefit. If Members of Congress and the administration really feel strongly that it is wrong for the Federal Government to support health care coverage, maybe they should start by giving up their own taxpayer- subsidized health care through the Federal employees program. If Members can take their children to the Attending Physician of the Senate, with all the benefits that affords, shouldn't all American children have access to quality health care too? President Bush has argued that CHIP costs too much, but I will tell you what costs more: treating children in emergency rooms after their conditions have become severe. CHIP saves money and untold suffering by getting health care to our Nation's children before they are seriously ill. CHIP is paid for by an increased tax on cigarettes, not by raiding the Treasury. That tax will itself save us countless dollars and lives by discouraging smoking. We have had extensive hearings in our human resources committee, the HELP Committee, about what happens when the cost of cigarettes escalates, and when the cost of cigarettes escalates, as included in this CHIP program, it has a dramatic impact on lessening the demand among teenagers and smoking. What has happened for years is that the industry itself has increased its advertising in order to try to hook these children back in. But this has a dramatic positive impact from a preventive point of view in helping children not become addicted to nicotine and cigarette smoking, so it is a win-win situation. It is using the private insurance companies' own model that was initially suggested by the President of the United States in the Medicare prescription drug program, and it is being paid not by the taxpayers but by the cigarette users. That will discourage smoking and will have a positive impact on children. The case for CHIP is stronger than ever. Today, 6 million children are enrolled in the program, children who otherwise would be without health care. But there are another 9 million children in America who still have no health insurance at all. Once again, Democrats and Republicans in Congress have come together for the common good. CHIP's success is impressive. Since CHIP began, the percentage of uninsured children has gone down even as more and more adults are losing their own insurance coverage because employers reduce it or drop it entirely. This chart reflects where it is in terms of the adults and the uninsured, now 47 million Americans who are uninsured. Look at what has happened to children. It has gradually been going down. There is no reason not to expect, with this legislation, that it will again go down somewhat. If we had accepted the more extensive House bill, it would have gone down even further. But this is a very significant achievement in reducing the number of children who do not have health care coverage. In the past decade, the percentage of uninsured children has dropped from 23 percent in 1997 to 14 percent in 2005. That reduction is significant, but it is obviously far from enough. This chart indicates the same. If you look at 1997, 22 percent of all children were uninsured. Now we are down to 13 percent and going down further. This is for children. Yet this President wants to veto this legislation. Recently, the Census Bureau reported in the past year that 600,000 more children have become uninsured. The struggling economy is causing employers to drop family coverage, and even the robust and successful CHIP program hasn't been able to stave off decreasing coverage for children. CHIP helps to improve children's school performance. When children are receiving the health care they need, they do better academically, emotionally, physically, and socially. Look at this chart. We have demonstrated that when children are healthier, it increases their ability to learn their lessons. Learning in school is increased significantly. Look at the before and after in this chart. Before, 34 percent paid attention in class; after, 57 percent. Keeping up with school activities: before, 36 percent; after, 61 percent. It is very simple: If a child can't see the blackboard, can't hear the teacher, can't understand what is happening in the classroom, they will lose attention and lose their ability to learn. If they have been able to have the kind of preventive health care included in the CHIP program, they are going to be healthier, more interested in learning, and their learning will be enhanced. We just passed education legislation where we went over the disparities that are out there. I will come to that in the next chart, but this is a very clear indication. If you are interested in children learning, CHIP is a program you have to support. Also, CHIP all but eliminates the distressing racial and ethnic health disparities for minority children who are disproportionately dependent upon it for their coverage. Look at this: White, Black, and Hispanic. This is before CHIP. Look at the numbers--27, 38, and 29. With CHIP, it is 20, 19, and 19. When we have outreach, we see a reduction in the disparities. We ought to have this as a goal, our national goal. We want all children to have health care coverage. This chart, which is from the Kaiser Family Foundation, indicates that we reduce the disparity for children with this CHIP program, which is enormously important. They are going to learn more and be healthier. When we put all of that together over a long period of time, it will save the country money because this is going to be a healthier population. It will cost less over a longer period of time. And we are paying for it by an increase in the cigarette tax, not by the taxpayer. So this is enormously important. That is why organizations representing children and health care professionals who serve them agree that preserving and strengthening CHIP is essential to children's health. The Bible tells us to ``open your hand wide to the poor and the needy in your land.'' Congregations across the country act on that command every day by providing needed help to those with medical needs in their communities. They are turning faith into works, but they know they can't do the job alone. That is why religious leaders from all faiths have called upon Congress and the administration to assist in this mission by renewing and improving CHIP. Today, we renew our bipartisan commitment to the job begun by Congress 10 years ago and to make sure the lifeline of CHIP is strengthened and extended to many more children. Only the Bush administration seems content with the inadequate status quo. First, the President proposed a plan for CHIP that doesn't provide what is needed to cover the children who are eligible but unenrolled. In fact, the President's proposal is $8 billion less than what is needed simply to keep the children now enrolled in CHIP from losing their current coverage--$8 billion short. Then, as Congress was negotiating the CHIP bill, the administration issued new guidance that would make it virtually impossible for States to extend coverage for children in their States with household incomes above 250 percent of the Federal poverty level. This would cause 18 States and the District of Columbia to drop children from coverage. It doesn't indicate that if the States permit those--that 250 percent of the poverty level--to be able to participate in the program, they can adjust premiums, the copays, and the deductibles in order to make it fair. Just a blanket ``no.'' Just a blanket ``no.'' What is most baffling is that the President has consistently threatened this veto. This chart shows what the costs are. This is really an issue of priorities. A 5-year CHIP reauthorization, $35 billion; 1 year of Bush's tax cut for the wealthiest 1 percent, $72 billion; and this is 1 year in Iraq, $120 billion. So $35 billion for 5 years for children; 1 year in Iraq, $120 billion. Here is another way of putting it. Around here, we express our views on priorities, and these are the priorities we have a chance to effect. A matter of priorities: the cost of Iraq, $333 million a day; the cost of CHIP, $19 million--$19 million to $333 million. We believe this is a bargain and something which is absolutely essential if we are going to look down the road at a younger generation that is going to be healthy and prosperous and learning. That is going to be key to the United States in terms of our ability to compete worldwide in this knowledge economy. We have to have young people who are gifted, talented, smart, and able, with a knowledge of the economy. It is essential if we are to preserve our national security and it is essential if we are going to preserve the institutions our Founding Fathers bequeathed to us, that our young people are able to function and work in order to guarantee the real rights and liberties which we cherish. All of this starts with having healthy children--healthy children built on the program which the President himself endorsed. I was there at the time the President strongly supported the way we were going to have the Medicare prescription drug program, and he fought for that. He was able to successfully gain it. Now he says it is unacceptable. Now he says it is unacceptable. He complains about the cost. But this doesn't cost the taxpayer a nickel; it will cost in terms of an increase in the cost of cigarettes. Finally, these children will be healthier, and therefore the savings over the period of years is going to be important and significant. The children of America should not become the latest casualties of this administration. The CHIP bill before us is a genuine bipartisan agreement that will help children in communities across the Nation and provide coverage to about 4 million children who would otherwise be uninsured. The bill moves us forward together, Republicans and Democrats alike. The support this legislation has from Republican Governors as well as Republican members here--particularly my colleague and friend, Senator Hatch from Utah, Senator Grassley, and others--is commendable. They understand exactly the reasons and the justification for this legislation. Quality health care for children isn't just an interesting option or a nice idea. It is not just something we wish we could do. It is an obligation. It is something we have to do, and it is something we can do today. So I will urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. This legislation will be before the House of Representatives this afternoon. Hopefully, we will have a strong vote over there and we will get that legislation at the earliest possible time. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I would like to speak for a moment regarding the Hate Crimes Amendment. At a time when our ideals are under attack by terrorists in other lands, it is more important than ever to demonstrate that we practice what we preach, and that we are doing all we can to root out the bigotry and prejudice in our own country that leads to violence here at home. Now more than ever, we need to act against hate crimes and send a strong message here at home and around the world that we will not tolerate crimes fueled by hate. Since the September 11 attacks, we have seen a shameful increase in the number of hate crimes committed against Muslims, Sikhs, and Americans of Middle Eastern descent. Congress has done much to respond to the vicious attacks of September 11. We are doing all that we can to strengthen our defenses against hate that comes from abroad. We have spent billions of dollars in the war on terrorism to ensure that international terrorist organizations such as al-Qaida are not able to carry out attacks within the United States. There is no reason why Congress should not act to strengthen our defenses against hate that occurs here at home. In Iraq and Afghanistan, our soldiers are fighting for freedom and liberty--they are on the front line fighting against evil and hate. We owe it to our troops to uphold those same principles here at home. Hate crimes are a form of domestic terrorism. They send the poisonous message that some Americans deserve to be victimized solely because of who they are. Like other acts of terrorism, hate crimes have an impact far greater than the impact on the individual victims. They are crimes against entire communities, against the whole nation, and against the fundamental ideals on which America was founded. They are a violation of all our country stands for. We are united in our effort to root out the cells of hatred around the world. We should not turn a blind eye to acts of hatred and terrorism here at home. We should not shrink now from our role as the beacon of liberty to the rest of the world. The national interest in condemning bias-motivated violence in the United States is strong, and so is our interest in condemning bias-motivated violence occurring world-wide. When the Senate approves this amendment, we will send a message about freedom and equality that will resonate around the world. Hate crimes violate everything our country stands for. These are crimes committed against entire communities, against the Nation as a whole and the very ideals on which our country was founded. The time has come to stand up for the victims of these senseless acts of violence--victims like Matthew Shepard, for whom this bill is named, and who died a horrible death in 1998 at the hands of two men who singled him out because of his sexual orientation. Nine years after Matthew's death--9 years--we still haven't gotten it done. How long are we going to wait? Senator Smith and I urge your support of this bipartisan bill. The House has come through on their side and passed the bill. Now it is time for the Senate to do the same. This year, we can get it done. We came close twice before. In 2000 and 2002, a majority of Senators voted to pass this legislation. In 2004, we had 65 votes for the bill and it was adopted as part of the Defense authorization bill. But--that time-- it was stripped out in conference. The President has threatened to veto this legislation, but we can't let that threat stop us from doing the right thing. Let's display the same kind of courage that came from David Ritcheson, a victim of a brutal hate crime that scarred him both physically and emotionally. This spring, David testified before the House Judiciary Committee. He courageously described the horrific attack against him the year before--after what had been an enjoyable evening with other high school students near his home in Spring, TX. Later in the evening however, two persons attacked him and one attempted to carve a swastika into his chest. He was viciously beaten and burned with cigarettes, while his attackers screamed terrible epithets at him. He lay unconscious on the ground for 9 hours and remained in a coma for several weeks. After a very difficult recovery, David became a courageous and determined advocate. Tragically, though, this life-changing experience exacted its toll on David and recently he took his own life. He had tried so hard to look forward, but he was still haunted by this brutal experience. My deepest sympathy and condolences go out to David's family and friends coping with this tragic loss. David's death shows us that these crimes have a profound psychological impact. We must do all we can to let victims know they are not to blame for this brutality, that their lives are equally valued. We can't wait any longer to act. Our amendment is supported by a broad coalition of 210 law enforcement, civic, disability, religious and civil rights groups, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Anti- Defamation League, the Interfaith Alliance, the National Sheriff's Association, the Human Rights Campaign, the National District Attorneys Association and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. All these diverse groups have come together to say now is the time for us to take action to protect our fellow citizens from the brutality of hate- motivated violence. They support this legislation, because they know it is a balanced and sensible approach that will bring greater protection to our citizens along with much needed resources to improve local and State law enforcement. Our bill corrects two major deficiencies in current law. Excessive restrictions require proof that victims were attacked because they were engaged in certain ``federally protected activities.'' And the scope of the law is limited, covering hate crimes based on race, religion, or ethnic background alone. The federally protected activity requirement is outdated, unwise and unnecessary, particularly when we consider the unjust outcomes of this requirement. Hate crimes now occur in a variety of circumstances, and citizens are often targeted during routine activities that should be protected. All victims should be protected--and it is simply wrong that a hate crime--like the one against David Ritcheson--can't be prosecuted federally because it happened in a private home. The bill also recognizes that some hate crimes are committed against people because of their sexual orientation, their gender, their gender identity, or their disability. Passing this bill will send a loud and clear message. All hate crimes will face Federal prosecution. Action is long overdue. There are too many stories and too many victims. We must do all we can to end these senseless crimes, and I urge my colleagues to support cloture on this amendment and to support its passage as an amendment to the DOD authorization bill. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today the Nation celebrates the 50th anniversary of the court order requiring desegregation of Little Rock Central High School. It was a case that shocked the Nation with its graphic illustration of the horrors of Jim Crow and the very real limits it placed on the educational opportunities of millions of American children. On September 25, 1957, the Little Rock Nine were finally allowed to enter their classrooms, but only with the aid of Federal troops. Although the students were enrolled that day, the actual process of desegregating Little Rock High School took far longer. These courageous young students had to endure taunts and abuse from their White classmates, and late night phone calls threatening violence against their families. They realized they carried the weight of their communities' futures on their young shoulders. The effort to fully integrate the Nation's schools continued long after these first African-American students graduated, and it was not until this year that a court declared the school district fully integrated. This process of racially integrating America's public schools was repeated, if in less dramatic ways, throughout the Nation in the 1960s and 1970s. The 50th anniversary is a reminder that the Nation has sacrificed a great deal to achieve integration, and with great success. Since the historic decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, the march of progress has brought the Nation closer to its high ideals of liberty and justice for all. The struggle for equal educational opportunity has been at the heart of that march of progress, because education is the key to achieving true opportunity in all areas of American society. Education is a powerful force for increasing economic opportunity, combating residential segregation, exercising the right to vote, and fully integrating all our people into the fabric of American life. When Robert Kennedy served as Attorney General, the effort to desegregate schools was one of his most important priorities, because he understood so well that in the context of segregation, justice delayed is justice denied. In the past half century, we have come far, but hardly far enough. Civil rights is still the unfinished business of America. In many schools, formal integration has not brought full equality in the classroom. The troubling reports of racial violence and discriminatory discipline in Jena, LA, are an appalling current example, in which White students hung nooses in a schoolyard tree set off months of racial tension. But integration has been incomplete in less dramatic ways as well. Too often, for example, the tracking of students into advanced courses has tended to reflect racial stereotypes and preserve racial divisions. From the 1980s to the present, we have also seen a new movement that has sought to undermine civil rights progress. Some have adopted the rhetoric of the civil rights movement to undermine its progress, often using the same strategies developed by civil rights leaders in the battle against Jim Crow. We see that result in efforts to have the courts undo landmark civil rights decisions. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has declined recent invitations to turn back the clock on educational diversity and integration. Although the Court has found fault with some school integration plans such as in Seattle and Jefferson County, KY, its decision made clear that schools can continue to strive for racially inclusive classrooms, and that the door is still open for continued progress. As a practical matter, it is up to individual educators, parents, school districts to make the promise of equal educational opportunity a reality. Achieving genuine integration and full equality in education takes more than a court decision. It takes good will, vision, creativity, common sense, and a firm commitment to the goal of educating all children, regardless of race. Above all, it takes a realistic assessment in each local community to determine what will work to bring students together. That challenge is difficult to meet, but the benefits are enormous. Diversity in education benefits all students, and the Nation too. In our diverse society, it is vitally important for children to develop interactions and understanding across racial and cultural lines. Our economic future depends on our ability to educate all children to become productive members of society. That view is widely shared. Leaders of the military community and the business community have made clear that a diverse and highly educated workforce is important to their success, too. The court order to integrate Little Rock High School helped lay the foundation for subsequent civil rights decisions and gave an immense boost to the civil rights movement. We have come a long way since that historic decision. But the struggle to fulfill Brown's promise continues today. This anniversary is an important reminder of the work still to be done to achieve true equality in education for the Nation's children.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Virginia. I see the Senator from Indiana on his feet, as well as my friend and colleague from Wyoming. I know the Senator from Indiana is eager to continue the discussion on the substance that has been raised this morning. I was wondering if we might have a very brief period of time, Senator Enzi and myself, to describe an extremely important piece of legislation that passed last evening, on a voice vote. It is very important in terms of the health of the country. We want to be able to speak briefly on that issue. I am wondering if the Senator from Indiana would yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming and myself.

Mr. KENNEDY. First of all, Madam President, I thank my friend from Indiana, who is so typically gracious and understanding to his colleagues. We will be very brief. If the matter was not of such importance, we would not trespass on the Senator's time. Madam President, I ask the Chair to let me know when I have 1 minute left.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, every day, families across America rely on the Food and Drug Administration in ways they barely realize. When they put dinner on the table, they are counting on FDA to see that it is free from contamination. When they care for a sick child, they are trusting FDA to make sure the drugs prescribed are safe and effective. From pacemakers to treatments for cancer to the foods we eat, FDA protects the health of millions of Americans, and oversees products that account for a quarter of the U.S. economy. The agency does all this on a budget that amounts to less than two cents a day for each citizen. An agency that does so much so well deserves to be supported and strengthened. Yet too often, the opposite has been true. FDA's vital mission has been jeopardized by inadequate resources, occasionally insufficient legal authority, and absent leadership. Americans are worried about the safety of the products they use--from food to toys to drugs--and they are right to be worried. Dangerous lapses in safety oversight have exposed American families to intolerable risks from lead paint in toys, to bacteria in foods, to drugs that cause unreported and lethal side effects. The right response is comprehensive, considered and bipartisan legislation--and that is what the Senate has approved. The prestigious New England Journal of Medicine editorialized earlier this year that the bill was ``the most important drug-safety legislation in a century.'' Earlier this week, the House of Representatives approved this bipartisan measure by a broad bipartisan margin of 405 to 7. Our House colleagues from all parts of the political spectrum united to send that bill to the Senate with a resounding bipartisan endorsement. I am pleased that the Senate did the same, sending that bill to the President with a unanimous voice of approval. The stakes could not be higher. Funding for the FDA's vital safety mission has reached the breaking point. If we had not acted, the FDA Commissioner would have sent a letter today to over 2,000 employees informing them that their jobs were slated for termination. Each of those individuals is a trained and experienced professional with many career options in academia or industry--yet each of them has made the decision to devote themselves to public service. If those talented public servants had left the agency, the consequences would have been with us for years--in terms of slower access to medicines for patients, weaker safety oversight and loss of America's competitive edge in the life sciences. FDA has an urgent need for these funds. Its workload has increased massively in recent years but its resources have not kept pace. Since 1990, the number of adverse events submitted to the FDA has increased by over 1,300 percent, but the agency's resources have increased only 130 percent. The legislation provides over $400 million this year for the review of drugs and medical devices at FDA, and over $50 million for needed safety reforms to give these talented professionals the tools they need to do the job we are counting on them to do. The bill before us is not just about resources--far from it. It is a strong and comprehensive measure to improve the safety of the medicines we rely on, and it takes important steps toward a safer food supply and less expensive prescription drugs. At the heart of our proposal is a new way to oversee drug safety that is flexible enough to be tailored the characteristics of particular drugs, yet strong enough to allow decisive action when problems are discovered. For drugs that pose little risk, these actions might be as simple as a program to report side effects and a label with safety information--items that are currently required for all drugs. Drugs that raise major potential safety concerns might require additional clinical trials, a program to train physicians in using the drug safely, or a requirement that the prescribing physician have special skills. A second major element of our legislation is a public registry of clinical trials and their results. A complete central clearinghouse for this information will help patients, providers and researchers learn more and make better health care decisions. Now, the public will know about each trial underway, and will be able to review its results. Our bill recognizes that innovation is the key to medical progress by establishing a new center, the Reagan-Udall Foundation, to develop new research methods to accelerate the search for medical breakthroughs. During the discussions that led to consideration of this bill, we heard time and again that there was a major need for better research tools to aid FDA in evaluating the safety of drugs and devices and help researchers move through the long process of developing these products more effectively. If new research tools and better ways to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs could be developed, patients will benefit from quicker drug development. If current procedures can be made more effective, then the cost of developing new drugs will drop. The Reagan-Udall Foundation sets up a way to develop these new tools--not so they can help just one researcher or one company, but so they can help the entire research enterprise. The bill helps preserve the integrity of scientific review by improving FDA's safeguards against conflicts of interest on its scientific advisory committees--not through a rigid policy that could deny FDA needed expertise, but though a flexible approach that will reduce the number of waivers given for conflicts of interest at FDA overall. The bill also takes action on the abuse of citizens petitions. FDA has a commonsense policy to allow ordinary citizens or medical experts to submit petitions to the agency about drugs that it is considering approving. This procedure should be used to protect public health--but too often, it is subverted by those who seek only to delay the entry onto the market of generic drugs. Even if the petitions are found to be meritless, they will have accomplished their mission--delaying access for consumers to safe and lower cost medicines. Some petitions do present legitimate public health concerns, and FDA should not ignore them. The critical test of any proposal on citizen petitions is that it strike a balance so that the abuse of citizens petitions is prohibited, but those petitions that have genuine safety information are reviewed. The proposal the Senate approved strikes that balance. It rightly states that the mere filing of a citizen petition should not be cause for delay, but allows FDA to delay the approval of a generic application if it determines that doing so is necessary to protect public health. This is the right approach. It prevents abuse protects health. The legislation also includes important reforms of direct to consumer, or DTC, advertising. I want to thank Senator Roberts and Senator Harkin for working with Senator Enzi and me and with many members of the committee on this important provision. Instead of the moratorium included in our original bill, the current proposal puts in place strong safety disclosures for DTC ads, coupled with effective enforcement. Under current law, safety disclosures can be an afterthought--a rushed disclaimer read by an announcer at the conclusion of a TV ad while distracting images help gloss over the important information provided. Our proposal requires safety announcements to be presented in a manner that is clear, conspicuous and neutral, without distracting imagery. We also give FDA the authority to require safety disclosures in DTC ads if the risk profile of the drug requires them. Our legislation also takes important first steps toward a safer food supply. These are only first steps, and our committee will work on a comprehensive package of food safety legislation later in the fall--but they are important steps. Consumers and FDA have too little information about contaminated food. Our bill creates a registry and a requirement to report food safety problems. Consumers will have information about recalls at their fingertips, and FDA's response will not be slowed by antiquated and inefficient reporting systems. Our bill also establishes strong, enforceable quality standards for the food we give our pets, to guard against the problems of tainted pet food that we have seen in recent months. In this new era of the life sciences, medical advances will continue to bring immense benefits for our citizens. To fulfill the potential of that bright future, we need not only brilliant researchers to develop the drugs of tomorrow, but also strong and vigilant watchdogs for public health to guarantee that new drugs and medical devices are safe and beneficial, and that they actually reach the patients who urgently need them. Congress has ample power to restore the luster the FDA has lost in recent years, and this bipartisan consensus bill can do the job. I congratulate my colleagues on approving this legislation, and look forward to working with them on its effective implementation. The comprehensive legislation approved by the Senate is over 400 pages long, and it reflects important contributions from many, many of our colleagues. My partner in this effort from Day One has been my friend and colleague from Wyoming, Senator Mike Enzi. Our work on drug safety began when he chaired our committee and I was Ranking Member--and our work didn't miss a beat when our roles were reversed after last year's election. I also commend Senator Dodd, Senator Clinton, and Senator Alexander for the important contributions they made to bring new drugs to children. I regret that several of these important provisions were not included in the bill, but I will work with them to see if those worthwhile proposals can be included in other legislation. Senator Gregg contributed important proposals on using health information technology to improve FDA's ability to detect drug safety problems. No drug is free from risk, and FDA needs the best possible methods to detect unexpected risks as quickly as possible. No Senator is more justly proud of the good work that FDA does than Senator Mikulski. Her state of Maryland has two of the great jewels of the federal government--the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration, and her proposals to increase the transparency of FDA operations were included in the bill. Senator Hatch and I have worked together on the life sciences for many years. Whether the issue is stem cells or biologics or the FDA itself, Senator Hatch is always at the forefront of the debate--and the bill includes important provisions he offered to accelerate the development of new cutting-edge drugs. The proposal on citizens petitions in this legislation is a true bipartisan effort--uniting Senators Stabenow, Brown, Lott, Hatch and Thune. These Senators were deeply committed to this proposal, and they participated actively in the final negotiations on the bill. Senator Roberts and Senator Harkin collaborated productively to develop an effective and workable proposal on direct-to-consumer advertising that both protects consumers and respects the Constitution. A number of other colleagues also made major contributions to this bipartisan achievement. Senator Obama offered provisions on genetic testing. Senator Reed contributed a proposal on the safety of tanning beds. Senator Brown and Senator Brownback came up with new and thoughtful incentives for new treatments for neglected tropical diseases. Senator Dorgan contributed provisions on counterfeit drugs. Senator Rockefeller added provisions to increase reporting on authorized generics, and Senator Coburn contributed provisions to allow FDA to restrict the use of approved medicines only when the drug cannot otherwise be prescribed safely. I especially commend Senator Richard Burr. No Senator is more committed to the search for innovations in the life sciences than he is. Senator Burr and his staff were skillful and tireless in their support for strong measures in the bill to see that FDA has the resources it needs to review new drugs quickly and effectively. No Senator worked harder to see that our deliberations on this bill were successful. Finally, I thank our colleagues from the House of Representatives. Chairman John Dingell of the Energy and Commerce Committee and Chairman Frank Pallone of the Health Subcommittee steered this legislation through the House. They worked in close partnership with the Ranking Members, Representative Joe Barton and Representative Nathan Deal. Other House members made major contributions to the bill, as well, and I particularly commend Representatives Henry Waxman and Ed Markey for their leadership Finally, I thank the dedicated staff members who worked so long and hard and well on this legislation: Shana Christrup, Amy Muhlberg, Keith Flanagan, and Dave Schmickel from Senator Enzi's office; Liz Wroe with Senator Gregg; Jenny Ware with Senator Burr; Tamar Magarik and Jeremy Sharp with Senator Dodd; Ann Gavaghan with Senator Clinton; John Ford, Bobby Clark, Ryan Long and John Little of the House Energy and Commerce Committee; and my own staff: David Dorsey, David Bowen and Michael Myers. They all spent long hours over many months on the many complex provisions in this bill. Our efforts could not have been successful without them, and millions of Americans will benefit from their ability and dedication in the years ahead. I thank the Chair and thank the Senator from Indiana for his courtesies.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support this amendment. As we continue debating how best to support America's brave military forces in Iraq, we must be clear where we stand on the war. I strongly support our troops, but I strongly oppose the war. The best way to protect our troops and our national security is to put the Iraqis on notice that they need to take responsibility for their future so we can bring troops back home to America. The administration's policy has put our troops in an untenable and unwinnable situation. They are being held hostage to Iraqi politics in which sectarian leaders are unable or unwilling to make the tough judgments needed to lift Iraq out of its downward spiral. We are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a failed policy that is making America more vulnerable and putting our troops at greater risk. We have lost our focus on apprehending terrorists and on capturing those who seek to destroy America. Osama bin Laden remains at large. The war in Iraq has enabled al-Qaida to recruit terrorists more effectively to work against America. Our policy in Iraq continues to exact a devastating toll. Nearly 4,000 American troops have died--80 in my State of Massachusetts--and 30,000 have been injured. We need to have a policy that is worthy of the valor of the brave men and women who have been fighting there for the last 4\1/2\ years. The toll on Iraqis is immense. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed or injured, and more than 4 million Iraqis have been forced to flee their homes. If that were in American terms, it would be 45 million Americans who would have lost their homes, effectively 20 Katrinas would have taken place here in the United States--when we look at what has happened to the Iraqi families during this period of time. Nearly a half trillion dollars has been spent fighting this war. Our generals have acknowledged over and over again that a military solution alone is not the answer to Iraq's problems. After four bloody years, political reconciliation remains illusive, and Iraqi politicians are not being held accountable to any standard of progress or success. Yet the President unacceptably continues to impose the enormous burden of Iraq's sectarian violence on the backs of American troops, with an open-ended commitment--with an open-ended commitment. Our military is stretched to its limits; it is nearing its breaking point. The American public has lost confidence in the current direction of the war. They are tired of a war based upon a failed policy that has made America no safer and that is subjecting our military to Iraq's intractable civil war. They are tired of the administration's promises that success is just around the corner. They want to know when the nightmare of Iraq will end. How much longer will President Bush insist that our troops be held hostage to the abysmal failure of the Iraqi Government to make the political compromises essential to end violence, especially when there is no indication--no indication--that they will do so any time soon? How many more brave Americans must die? How many more billions of taxpayers' dollars must we spend? How much more of a burden must we place on our military? We all know what is going on. President Bush's strategy is delay and delay. We never should have gone to war in the first place, and his misguided war has now gone on for more than 4 years. The situation is not improving; it is worsening. It is not showing signs of meaningful progress. Year after year, it has failed to deliver political reconciliation. The President finally admitted to Congress and the American people last week that his successor, the next American President, will inherit the war in Iraq. He calls himself a decider, but he refuses to make the decision to end the war. President Harry Truman said: ``The buck stops here.'' The last thing President Bush wants is for the buck to stop on his desk. He is desperately trying to buy time in order to pass the buck to his successor in the White House. The first President Bush went to war with Iraq after 52 Senators voted in favor of a resolution of approval. Now, 53 Senators have voted for a timetable to end the war. But this President vetoed the bill because he refuses to accept responsibility to end a war he never should have started. It is time to stop this madness. This amendment does that. It requires our combat troops to begin to come home in 90 days. It requires a change in mission for our military. It requires the vast majority of our combat troops to come home in 9 months. It is up to us to end the open-ended commitment of our troops that the President has been making year after year. The Iraqis need to take responsibility for their own future, resolve their own political differences, and enable our troops to come home. We need to tell the Iraqis now that we are going to leave, and leave soon. Only such a step can add the urgency that is so clearly necessary to end their differences. We can't allow the President to drag this process out any longer, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Levin and my colleague and friend, Senator Kerry.