Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is absolutely correct. The estimates are anywhere from $40 to $50 billion of shortfalls in States in terms of deficits. And, of course, an important impact of that $40 to $50 billion shortfall will be in areas of education, both higher education and also State support to K-12 education. We have, in this legislation, requirements that the States are not permitted to let the Federal money supplant the States' obligations. And now, when we have the situation that the Senator has outlined, how are we going to say to the States, no, you can't cut back--when we are already cutting back on them, when we are already undercutting what is happening in the States by denying the investment in these children in these areas which we have worked out in a bipartisan way, virtually unanimously, in both Houses, with the great support of parents, of educators, of school boards, superintendents? It was not completely unanimous, but about as close to it as you could have on a major kind of a policy issue. And I am just as troubled, as the Senator must be, that we are failing. I am troubled, as well, with what we saw just this past week. I ask the Senator whether he would agree that we have to ask ourselves, is this administration really committed to quality education, when they were about to eliminate the possibility of students consolidating their loans at the current lower interest rates and save students and families hundreds of millions of dollars? And they beat a quick retreat on this. But does it not suggest to the Senator that we are at least missing the note on investing in children and making good education more available and accessible?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. I think that is what is enormously important: Be strong at home. And there is no place we can be stronger at home than investing in the children of this country.

Mr. KENNEDY. It seems to me most Americans are agreeing, we have a new day in America as a result of the tragedies of September 11: enormous loss, incredible inspiration for the men in blue, who will be honored outside this Capitol today, and mindful of the 233 who were lost, and the incredible courage of those Americans. We have a new and different day. We have a different economy, different obligations in homeland security, in foreign policy. We have a responsibility here at home to meet the needs of our people. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is quite correct. As a matter of fact, the $1.3 billion the OMB had expected, if their proposal in terms of eliminating the consolidation of loans had taken place, would have effectively been used for the tax breaks. You would have had a transferring of resources from the sons and daughters of working families--and not just the sons and daughters because many now in these community colleges, I am sure in your State as well as mine, are mid- career people trying the upgrade their skills. So it is also mothers and fathers who are going for graduate degrees, as well as sons and daughters. But it effectively would have had those individuals paying more interest on their student loans so that the top 1 or 2 percent of the income-tax payers would have been able to get their additional kinds of tax relief. I think those are absolutely the wrong priorities. It seems to me we heard in the Senate not long ago that we can have it all, we can have the tax cut and the education and the defense--we can have it all. And there were many of us who did not believe you could have it all. There are still some trying to say you still can. But the Senator's question points out how the education for working families--in the K through 12, and also in college--is going to be limited because of the administration policy.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct, this is the smallest increase not only for K-12 education since 1988, but also the smallest proposed increase for education as a whole in seven years, as I am quickly reminded by my wonderful staffer Danica. As this chart says: ``The Bush Administration: Smallest Increase for Education in 7 Years.'' This represents the increase in education. As you can see, The increase for 1997 was 16 percent, for 1998, 12 percent, for 1999, 12 percent, for 2000, 6 percent, for 2001, 19 percent, for 2002, 16 percent and then for next year Bush proposes only 3 percent. This is total education. Sometimes there is a flyspecking in terms of education. We have not gotten into, for example, the IDEA and the retreat the Republicans had in making sure we are going to have the full funding for the IDEA, which the Senator fought for and is so important. But let me just mention one final item--going back to the consolidation issue. Only 3 percent of the graduate degrees conferred in this country are in law and in medicine. If you remember the rationale of the administration, they said: we do not need to provide for consolidation at a fixed rate because these young people are all going to be lawyers and doctors, and they will be able to pay it off. They represent only 3 percent of the graduate degrees conferred. The people I am concerned about are those childcare workers--who we are trying to help in terms of providing better quality childcare--who are trying to get their degrees and are going to have to borrow money. I am concerned about the nurses who are trying to get those advanced degrees so they can provide better care. And I am concerned about the teachers who are trying to get a better upgrading of their own kinds of skills who are going to have to go out and borrow. Those are the ones who would have been affected by denying these borrowers the lower interest rates. So that is why I am so glad the administration retreated on it. I thank the Senator for bringing up these important points.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator states the history entirely accurately. We were stalemated here on the floor of the Senate when we tried to visit the reauthorization of elementary and secondary education. President Bush made this an important item during the course of his campaign. All of us welcomed the opportunity to work with him. I do not question his own personal commitment to education reform. But if we are going to really be serious about trying to make a difference, after we have the reform, we have to fund it. The question of the Senator suggests a very important item with which we wrestled. If you have money without reform, you are not having an effective use of your money. If you have reform without resources, you are not going to achieve any goal. That was basically the dilemma we were facing. We put the reform together. The question is now whether we are going to give the help to those children, to those teachers, to those parents. Let me, since the Senator is on his feet, just mention one item in addition which is of enormous importance. I see my friend from Minnesota here as well. The Bush budget provides zero funding to support parental involvement. There is not a successful school district in this country that does not have the involvement of the parents, the representation of the parents--people who are involved whose interest is the interest of the child in the school. Not only that, the administration has failed to include parents in a meaningful way in the development of the rules and regulations for the No Child Left Behind Act. Of the 22 panelists presiding over the Title I rules, only 2 represented parents and the administration is now facing a law suit for leaving parents behind in this process. Now the parents organizations are challenging the Department of Education to say: ``Let us in the door.'' ``We thought we were included.'' We see parents being closed out here with no involvement and effectively being denied inclusion in the development of the rules and regulations. I will come back to them in just a few moments. But this must be a matter of concern as well.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I appreciate the leadership giving me and others an opportunity to talk about an issue which is of central importance and consequence to families across this country. Families are thinking about education. Families are thinking about the coming days in May and early June when their children will be graduating. They are also thinking about the indebtedness they will face when their children graduate. Others are looking forward to the fall as their children are accepted to schools and colleges across the country. Families are very concerned about what is happening in the public schools across this Nation. Some 55 million of our children are going to public schools. As we know, over the period of the remaining part of this century, that population is virtually going to double. It will be virtually 98 million. It will be an enormous challenge to ensure we continue to lead the world as the premier economic and democratic power if we do not provide for the education of our young people. Education is a key component of democracy and is key to defending our vital interests. I remind this Senate where we are in terms of education funding. Money is not the answer to everything, but it is a pretty clear indication of what our Nation's priorities are. Last year we worked out strong bipartisan legislation with the President of the United States, Republicans, my friend Senator Gregg, Congressman Boehner, Congressman George Miller, and myself, the members of our Education Committee, Republicans and Democrats alike. I can see them all in my mind, their strong advocacy in terms of the children of this Nation. One of the great pleasures of serving in the Senate is working with our colleagues on education and investing in education as a priority for our country. But, today we are faced with an education budget proposed by the President that does not make the promise of the ``No Child Left Behind Act'' a reality. We are talking about a budget of some $2.3 trillion. In that budget, less than 2 cents out of every dollar is focused on education. Parents are surprised to hear that. Many Members believe we ought to reflect our priorities and their priorities in education by providing greater investment. It is appropriate I mention that because this last year we had a major restructuring, a reform. We put much greater requirements on our children, a greater expectation in terms of accountability. We are insisting that the parents be involved. We provide supplemental resources for children falling behind. We ensure any evaluation of children is based upon a good, well-thought-out curriculum and based upon State standards. All of the recommendations that have been made over the period of recent years have demonstrated positive results. The real issue now is whether we are going to fund that program or whether we are going to claim that we did something for the American people not back it up. I draw the attention of our colleagues to the statement of the President of the United States this last week in the Midwest where he was talking about the achievements of the No Child Left Behind. In his speech, on page 3, he said: We have responsibilities throughout our society. We have responsibilities. The Federal Government has responsibilities. Generally, that responsibility is to write a healthy check. We did so in 2002 budget--$22 billion for secondary and elementary schools, it's an increase of 25 percent. We have increased the money by 35 percent for teacher recruitment, teacher retention, teacher pay. That was done with the strong urging and the insistence of the Democrats. Now we have the administration on its own, and let us see what they are doing with education. Prior to last year, the Bush proposal for 2002 was an increase of 3.5 percent. What I have just referred to was the congressional ``final'' of fiscal year 2002 which was the 20- percent increase to which the President referred. After that marvelous admonition about all the things we are doing and the Federal responsibilities, we can ask ourselves, I wonder what they will do for the next fiscal year. Right out here is your answer. It is a 2.8-percent increase. It is basically an abdication of responsibility to the children of this country. Under the President's program, named ``No Child Left Behind,'' we saw in 2002, 6.3 million children who were not covered by Title I and were not being helped. Children who are qualified for this program. They are not being helped. What happens under the President's own program? In 2003, the number of students not being served by Title I grows by 250,000. It is not going down. The number is going up the number of children who are not being served. That is in contrast to our commitment in that legislation that shows a decline in the total number of children who would not be served so that by FY 07 we will have cut that number in half--from 6.3 million children to 2.9 million. We should fully fund Title I so that no child is left behind. We have, in Congress, taken a step in that direction. But what does the President propose? A step in the opposite direction. More Title I children left behind. What is the reason to say all these children are going to be left out or left behind? All you have to do is look at the President's budget for the out years and see it is effectively zero in each of those following years. Let's take a few of the essential elements of the No Child Left Behind Act. Teacher training--is there a family in this country who does not understand that you have to have a well-qualified teacher in every classroom? That is one of the prime elements of this legislation. We increase the funding for recruitment, retention, and professional development. Those elements are included in that legislation in a variety of different ways, including mentoring--to have experienced teachers mentor younger teachers, with a variety of different outreaches to get the best of America to work in the classrooms. This is what was committed to last year. Look at what is in the President's budget for fiscal year 2003--a zero increase in this fund to meet our responsibility for teachers. What was a second important element? There are many, and I will just mention some. What is the second important element? The second important element is after-school learning opportunities. Why is that important? It is pretty obvious. Parents understand that after-school programs can provide a variety of services. Many now are providing the academic help for children, either tied into schools or tied into voluntary organizations, and many, as in my own city of Boston, are tied into universities to assist the children in those programs. That is to make sure the supplementary services that are included in this legislation are going to be available to these children, either in school or, if it is not possible there, to do it in the after-school programs. These after-school programs are enormously important. I will not take the time today, but I will later on, to show, where children have had the opportunity for after-school programs, how that has enhanced their academic accomplishment. What does the administration have? Basically no increase whatsoever-- zero--for the after-school programs. I will draw the attention of our colleagues to after-school programs in terms of demand. There are a great number of applications from local school districts across this country that would qualify if the resources were there for after-school programs, but remain unfunded. We are only able to fund a very small portion. Mr. President, 2,783 applicants applied for federal after-school funds, and only 308 could be funded. There are enormous opportunities. If we are going to talk the talk, we ought to walk the walk, and walking the walk means investing in these children, investing in after-school programs and making sure they are going to have good teachers. Let's look at what is happening to many of the children coming into our schools for whom English is a second language. The challenges for those children are extraordinary. But there are a number of very exciting efforts, programs that are enhancing both the English and the native language of these children. We can get into that, and will at another time, but let me just give a couple of statistics. Today, as we are here, there are 180,000 children in Los Angeles County who do not have desks because there is not adequate funding. In Los Angeles County, they have cut back 17 days of school for many students because they do not have the resources. And we are cutting back in our participation, to reach out to these children who are qualified for help? Can somebody explain that? And they say it is a national priority? That just does not even pass the laugh test. This chart: ``Bush Budget Undermines School Safety.'' This is about safe and drug-free schools. Anyone who travels to any high school across this country will find the parents and teachers, others, will talk about these matters I mentioned: A well-qualified teacher, after-school programs, books--they talk about their libraries. And they talk about the safe and drug-free schools. They talk about safety in the schools. They talk about substance abuse in the schools. They talk about trying to make sure that you are going to have a safe atmosphere, where children can learn, inside the schools. That is a key element. And it is a key element of our legislation. But certainly not for this administration. This administration has cut back on any little marginal increase. Not only are we getting flat funding on a number of education priorities, we are actually seeing a decline in funding for safe and drug-free schools. That is after that program had been carefully worked out by two of our colleagues, Senator DeWine and Senator Dodd, who spent a great deal of time having special hearings on that program. This program was broadly endorsed across the country, and here we have the issue about having safe and drug-free schools as a key element to make sure our schools are going to measure up, and we have the administration effectively cutting funding for this program.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to yield.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand the last request, we have half an hour under my control; is that correct?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Is it appropriate to send my amendment to the desk?

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, sometimes Democrats and Republicans can stand shoulder to shoulder with health advocates and industry representatives, find common ground, and develop constructive ideas to address some of the world's most pressing problems. We can do this today by supporting the World Trade Organization's Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health, adopted at its Fourth Ministerial Conference last November in Doha. ``TRIPS'' stands for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property. The TRIPS Agreement is one of the agreements maintained by the World Trade Organization. TRIPS is the final word when it comes to international patent issues. In recent years, there has been some confusion over the TRIPS Agreement and the ability of poorer countries to gain access to affordable medicines to fight some of the worst plagues of our age-- including malaria, tuberculosis, and AIDS. Many health advocacy groups, including Doctors Without Borders and the World Health Organization, as well as faith-based and secular groups like Oxfam, expressed concern that dying people in impoverished nations could not receive medicines because their countries were not being afforded the flexibility in the TRIPS Agreement to acquire them cheaply. Developing nations facing health emergencies reported political pressure when they tried to employ compulsory licensing--that is, the temporary suspension of a drug's patent and an order to a manufacturer to produce that drug at a lower cost--or parallel importing, looking for the lowest price of a branded drug on the global market. The nations encountered threats of litigation through the WTO for trying to save the lives of their citizens. The poorest countries felt that our international trade agreements, written with the intent of lifting people out of poverty, were now being used against the poorest and most vulnerable when they needed them most. After the anthrax scare here in Washington and the East Coast the United States raised the possibility of issuing a compulsory license for Cipro--the drug proven to kill anthrax, to ensure that an adequate supply of the drug was available at a reasonable cost. HHS Secretary Thompson discussed publicly the steps that would be taken, pursuant to the TRIPS, to issue and implement such a license. Few people in the United States would question such a move to protect our nation's public health. Four people died from the recent anthrax outbreak in the United States. If an outbreak that results in four fatalities and another dozen infections is an emergency, what do we call a situation in which nearly 14,000 people will die every day from AIDS, tuberculosis, or malaria? If the TRIPS has the flexibility to accommodate the richest country in the world, it must be able to accommodate the poorest as well. The global health crisis we face today is unprecedented. The World Health Organization reports infectious diseases are the leading killer of young people in developing countries. These deaths occur primarily among the poorest people because they do not have access to the drugs and commodities necessary for prevention and cure. Approximately half of infectious disease mortality can be attributed to just three diseases--HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria. These diseases cause over 300 million illnesses and more than 5 million deaths each year. The WHO also reports that the economic burden is enormous. Africa's gross domestic product would be 32 percent greater if malaria had been eliminated 35 years ago. A nation can expect a decline in GDP of 1 percent annually when more than 20 percent of the adult population is infected with HIV. Of the nearly 40 million people infected with HIV worldwide, roughly 28 million of them live in Africa. If we are serious about promoting wealth across the globe, global health must be at the forefront. Many poorer countries have shown that effective disease fighting strategies can reduce tuberculosis deaths five-fold. HIV infection rates can be reduced by 80 percent. Malaria death rates can be halved. But when a country has a health care budget of less than $50 per capita, the costs of the tools--and the drugs--to fight these diseases is often beyond reach. As a result, many studies estimate that 90 to 95 percent of people infected with HIV in the developing world do not have access to the medicines they need for treatment or prevention. Recognizing the staggering global health crisis the world is now facing, the trade ministers of 142 countries decided to provide the clarity in the TRIPS Agreement that was so desperately needed. To ensure that all nations have access to lifesaving medicines, the WTO issued the Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health. Among other things, it said, ``We agree that the TRIPS Agreement does not and should not prevent Members from taking measures to protect public health. Accordingly, while reiterating our commitment to the TRIPS Agreement, we affirm that the Agreement can and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of all WTO Members' right to protect health, and in particular, to promote access to medicines for all.'' I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.

Mr. KENNEDY. The declaration was immediately heralded across the globe as a tremendous achievement. It struck an honest balance between the legitimate interests of intellectual property protection and the preservation of public health. US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick said immediately after Doha, ``The adoption of the landmark political declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and public health is a good example of developed and developing nations advancing common goals by working through issues together.'' He later added, ``We were pleased with this process . . . and we believe this declaration affirms that TRIPS and the global trading system can help countries address pressing public health concerns.'' Alan Holmer, the president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America also welcomed the declaration, saying, ``The Declaration recognizes that TRIPS and patents are part of the solution to better public health, not a barrier to access. Without altering the existing rights and obligations under TRIPS, the declaration provides assurances that countries may take all measures consistent with the agreement to protect the health of their citizens.'' I was very pleased with the adoption of this landmark declaration. Never before had the World Trade Organization taken such a bold stance that the protection of public health, particularly among the poorest in the world, was paramount. I want to commend U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick for the leadership he displayed in ensuring this declaration's adoption, and WTO Director General Michael Moore for his tireless efforts in communicating the message of the declaration across the globe. In order to ensure that the U.S. trade negotiators fully support the implementation of the Doha Declaration in future negotiations, this amendment adds a single sentence to the section on negotiating objectives for intellectual property issues--``respect the Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health, as adopted by the World Trade Organization at the Fourth Ministerial Conference at Doha, Qatar on November 14, 2001.'' This amendment directs our trade negotiations to support the declaration without reservation. This amendment, as critical as it is to the health of millions around the globe, is merely a small step in addressing this overwhelming issue. The United States must play a more active role in fighting these diseases in the developing world. We must contribute significantly more to the global AIDS fund at the United Nations. We must do more to help develop the health service infrastructure in poor countries so they can deliver and administer treatment and prevention programs. We must provide more resources to USAID and private organizations to enhance micro-enterprise efforts, build local economies, and empower individuals so they can take care of themselves. I'm pleased that this amendment can be accepted unanimously, because some issues are too important to be partisan. I want to extend special thanks to Senators Baucus and Grassley and their wonderful staffs for their leadership, and for their willingness to work so closely with me on this issue. They know we don't always see eye-to-eye on trade issues, but they recognize the importance of this issue and I know they share my concerns. I look forward to working closely with them in the future on this critical issue. Exhibit 1 World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference, Fourth Session, Doha, 9-14 November 2001 DECLARATION ON THE TRIPS AGREEMENT AND PUBLIC HEALTH--Adopted on 14 November 2001 1. We recognize the gravity of the public health problems afflicting many developing and least-developed countries, especially those resulting from HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other epidemics. 2. We stress the need for the WTO Agreement on Trade- Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) to be part of the wider national and international action to address these problems. 3. We recognize that intellectual property protection is important for the development of new medicines. We also recognize the concerns about its effects on prices. 4. We agree that the TRIPS Agreement does not and should not prevent Members from taking measures to protect public health. Accordingly, while reiterating our commitment to the TRIPS Agreement, we affirm that the Agreement can and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of WTO Members' right to protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all. In this connection, we reaffirm the right of WTO Members to use, to the full, the provisions in the TRIPS Agreement, which provide flexibility for this purpose. 5. Accordingly and in the light of paragraph 4 above, while maintaining our commitments in the TRIPS Agreement, we recognize that these flexibilities include: (a) In applying the customary rules of interpretation of public international law, each provision of the TRIPS Agreement shall be read in the light of the object and purpose of the Agreement as expressed, in particular, in its objectives and principles. (b) Each Member has the right to grant compulsory licenses and the freedom to determine the grounds upon which such licenses are granted. (c) Each Member has the right to determine what constitutes a national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency, it being understood that public health crises, including those relating to HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other epidemics, can represent a national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency. (d) The effect of the provisions in the TRIPS Agreement that are relevant to the exhaustion of intellectual property rights is to leave each Member free to establish its own regime for such exhaustion without challenge, subject to the MFN and national treatment provisions of Articles 3 and 4. 6. We recognize that WTO Members with insufficient or no manufacturing capacities in the pharmaceutical sector could face difficulties in making effective use of compulsory licensing under the TRIPS Agreement. We instruct the Council for TRIPS to find an expeditious solution to this problem and to report to the General Council before the end of 2002. 7. We reaffirm the commitment of developed-country Members to provide incentives to their enterprises and institutions to promote and encourage technology transfer to least- developed country Members pursuant to Article 66.2. We also agree that the least-developed country Members will not be obliged, with respect to pharmaceutical products, to implement or apply Sections 5 and 7 of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement or to enforce rights provided for under these Sections until 1 January 2016, without prejudice to the right of least-developed country Members to seek other extensions of the transition periods as provided for in Article 66.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. We instruct the Council for TRIPS to take the necessary action to give effect to this pursuant to Article 66.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, one of the greatest public health challenges we are facing in the world today is the pandemic of AIDS in Africa, increasingly in India and the subcontinent, spreading as well into China, and also the Soviet Union. It is most dramatically expressed in the neediest and the poorest countries of the world. I think Africa has been on the minds of many of us in the Senate about how we were going to respond and how we were really going to provide international leadership. The United States has been a country that has developed a variety of different medications over the period of recent years, as well as treatment for a wide variety of different kinds of AIDS cases, particularly in the area of pediatric AIDS and other types of challenges that have affected those with HIV. We are now involved in responding to the real challenge of Kofi Annan and the world community in providing world leadership, in providing funding, and being replicated by other countries. We still have a long way to go, but I think many of us who have watched this develop in terms of the breadth of the support from our Members have been impressed that we are finally beginning to measure up, although I think we do have a long way to go. Having said that, one of the great challenges that these countries have is acquiring the various kinds of prescription drugs they need. One of the issues that will be presented, should this legislation be passed and signed into law, still will be what is the availability of some of these generic drugs, which might provide a lifesaving circumstance to millions of people around the world if they are able to be produced, in these countries that do not have the resources to buy the brand name drugs. The question has been whether these countries that are facing this kind of extraordinary crisis would be able to issue what is called a compulsory license that would permit them to buy generic drugs that are being either produced or can be produced in their own country or in another country, and that has been very much an issue. This amendment, which I would offer myself with a number of our colleagues, would make it very clear that if the country itself issued what is called a compulsory license, based upon the critical need and public health disaster they are facing, it could not be considered to be in violation of the trade laws, and they would be able to either develop that capability within the country or, for example, if we were talking about Botswana, which has a high incidence of HIV and AIDS, be able to make contracts with other countries and purchase a generic, which they would be interested in doing, as I understand, with Brazil or other nations. It is perhaps, in many respects, one of the most important clarifications in terms of the health care crisis of HIV and of AIDS. This provision will make a very substantial difference. The cloudiness that currently surrounds this issue will be eliminated with this amendment. The amendment is very simple. It ensures those countries hit hardest by the AIDS crisis and other public health emergencies will have access to the affordable medicines to address these crises. It does this by expressing support for the Doha declaration on TRIPS and the public health as adopted by the World Trade Organization last November. The Doha declaration was supported by Ambassador Zoellick, the pharmaceutical industry, and thousands of public health advocates and religious leaders. It is one of the most important global health issues we face today, and I am pleased we could address it in a bipartisan manner. I will submit a more complete statement for the Record, but I acknowledge and thank the chairman, Senator Baucus, and Senator Grassley and their staffs for their willingness to consider this amendment. I am not going to ask that the current amendment be temporarily set aside, but I had the opportunity to talk with the chairman earlier--the ranking member was not present--with his staff, and so at an appropriate time--and I will leave it up to the managers to work out what is the appropriate time--I hope this amendment might be considered favorably. As I say, this is a matter of enormous importance and incredible consequence. It really will result in the savings of hundreds of thousands of lives. It needs to be clarified in an important way. I welcome the strong bipartisan support of my colleagues who are supportive of this proposal on both sides of the aisle. It will be enormously welcomed by the neediest countries in the world. amendment no. 3408

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will vote against the nomination of Professor Paul G. Cassell to be a Federal district judge in Utah. Mr. Cassell's nomination is the first of President Bush's judicial nominations that I have voted against on the Senate floor. Although Professor Cassell is a highly intelligent and forceful advocate of his views on criminal justice, he clearly lacks the temperament and moderation required for a life-tenured Federal judgeship. Professor Cassell is perhaps best known for his longstanding criticism of and campaign to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona. Miranda held that police must provide certain warnings to suspects held in custody if their statements are to be later admitted into evidence. As the Supreme Court recently observed, Miranda ``has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture.'' Across the Nation, law enforcement agencies have concluded that Miranda generally does not hinder their ability to investigate and prosecute crime. Professor Cassell believes otherwise. He has written numerous law review articles arguing that Miranda was ``an undeniable tragedy''-- ``the most damaging blow inflicted on law enforcement in the last half- century.'' Cassell's scholarship, however, has received withering criticism from his colleagues. For example, Professor Stephen Schulhofer has described Cassell's methodology as ``inconsistent and highly partisan'' and ``junk science of the silliest sort.'' Professor Charles Weisselberg stated that his conclusions were based on ``foolhardy assumptions'' and ``flawed methodologies.'' Professors Richard Leo and Richard Ofshe criticized Cassell for advancing ``logically flawed and empirically erroneous propositions'' that ``appear to stem from his ideological commitments.'' In addition to publishing law review articles, Professor Cassell filed amicus curiae briefs around the country seeking to convince courts that a Federal statute passed in 1968 effectively overruled Miranda and made voluntariness the sole test for the admissibility of confessions in Federal criminal cases. At the time of this statute's enactment, I stated that it was ``so squarely in conflict with the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Miranda that it will almost certainly be declared unconstitutional as soon as it is tested in the courts.'' Fully aware of this infirmity, the Justice Department, from the Johnson administration onward, Democratic and Republican administrations alike, made no serious effort to test the statute's constitutionality in court. Nevertheless, in the 1990's, Professor Cassell singled out the Clinton Justice Department for vigorous attack, the same Department that saw the overall crime rate in the United States decline for 8 out of 8 years, and violent crime drop to its lowest point in two decades. Because the Clinton Justice Department failed to endorse his flawed scholarship, Cassell accused it of ``a clear constitutional abdication.'' He declared that Attorney General Janet Reno had ``team[ed] up with defense lawyers to let armed felons and other criminals escape prosecution.'' Imagine that, stating that about an Attorney General. At his nomination hearing before the Judiciary Committee, Cassell declined to express any regret for these outrageous and unfounded statements. In June 2000, in Dickerson v. United States, the Supreme Court vindicated the Justice Department's longstanding position. In an opinion written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, seven justices of the Supreme Court held that Miranda was a ``constitutional rule'' that may not be overruled by a statute. Professor Cassell described the Court's ruling as a ``remarkable example of the imperial judiciary.'' He proceeded to argue, in both a law review article and a Federalist Society newsletter, that the ruling lacked precedential value. He described as ``a silver lining'' in the ``dark cloud of the decision'' the extraordinary statement by Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas, in dissent, that they would continue to apply the unconstitutional statute in all future cases. Cassell wrote, ``Perhaps the view of the Dickerson dissenters will become a majority. Truth, after all, is hard to keep buried forever. . . .'' Thus, in his scholarship and in his public statements on Miranda, Professor Cassell has shown himself to be intemperate and one-sided. He refuses to admit that his opponents might have a case even after their position has been vindicated by seven justices of the Supreme Court. Furthermore, his criticism of the Court calls into question his commitment to the principle of stare decisis and his ability to separate his view of the ``truth'' from settled law. Is this the kind of person we want to serve as a Federal judge? I am equally troubled by Professor Cassell's views on the death penalty. Reasonable minds can disagree about the death penalty, and we have confirmed and continue to confirm many nominees who believe that capital punishment is an appropriate response to crime. My opposition to Professor Cassell's nomination is based not on his support for the death penalty, but instead on his refusal to even acknowledge the evidence showing that serious problems exist in its implementation. Since 1973, 100 people have been released from death row in the United States because of innocence. In many cases, fatal mistakes were avoided only because of discoveries made by students or journalists, not the courts. This high number of exonerations has led many observers, both liberal and conservative, to express concern about the fairness of the death penalty's administration. For example, Justice O'Connor has observed that ``if statistics are any indication, the system may well be allowing some innocent defendants to be executed.'' There are now death penalty moratoriums in two States, Illinois and Maryland, imposed after leaders in each state recognized serious concerns about racial disparities and the possibility that an innocent person might be executed. Professor Cassell has spent his academic career minimizing and dismissing such concerns. In spite of the 100 death-row exonerations, Cassell has described the chance that an innocent might be put to death as an ``urban legend.'' He has asserted again and again that there is no definitive evidence that any innocent person has been executed in the last 30 years: ``Thus,'' he has argued, ``the most important error rate--the rate of mistaken executions--is zero.'' Elsewhere, Cassell has trivialized the danger of fatal error in the Government's administration of the death penalty by comparing it to the risk involved in driving on a highway, stating that even though innocents may die in traffic accidents, ``we all agree that our highways should remain open because of the social benefits they produce.'' In 1993, Professor Cassell testified in opposition to a bill that would allow death-row inmates to raise new claims of actual innocence in habeas corpus proceedings, arguing that ``[i]f a defendant is truly innocent, he will be fully aware of the circumstances surrounding his innocence and can present them at trial.'' Evidence discovered after trial, he stated, is ``almost invariably unreliable.'' As a district judge, Cassell will be charged with the duty of reviewing post-trial petitions by State and Federal prisoners, many of which raise claims of innocence. His unorthodox view of the reliability of newly discovered evidence is inconsistent with that fundamental duty. Regardless of how we feel about the death penalty generally, there is one thing that we can all agree on. People on trial for their lives must have effective assistance of counsel, not lawyers who sleep through the trial. Professor Cassell, however, has expressed a different view. In October 2000, a divided panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the death sentence in one such case, in which the defense lawyer had repeatedly slept through the trial for substantial periods of time. Professor Cassell defended this decision in an interview on National Public Radio, emphasizing that there was ``no real suggestion'' that the defendant was innocent. The en banc fifth circuit later reversed the panel's decision and reinstated the district court's grant of habeas corpus relief. It held that ``when a state court finds on the basis of credible evidence that defense counsel repeatedly slept as evidence was being introduced against a defendant, that defendant has been denied counsel at a critical stage of his trial.'' Cassell's willingness to affirm a death sentence in a case where the defense lawyer slept through the trial raises fundamental questions about his suitability to serve as a Federal judge. A number of lawyers from Utah have written letters to the Judiciary Committee regarding Professor Cassell's nomination. They have expressed concern about his lack of ties to Utah and limited courtroom experience. Ronald J. Yengich wrote that Cassell has not been ``intellectually honest in his assessment of the problems of crime in our society and the response that the Courts should take to them,'' and that he has shown ``an unwillingness to view both sides of any legal argument.'' L. Clark Donaldson wrote that Cassell's legal scholarship has elevated ``partisan considerations over careful and deliberate analysis of data.'' Kristine M. Rogers stated that his comments have led her ``to conclude that he views our justice system as a mechanism with which he can manipulate our Government with an agenda for ever increasing governmental power and ever decreasing individual rights.'' Stephen M. Enderton, a self-described Republican, believes that Cassell ``would use his position to push his personal ultra conservative agenda to the detriment of all of those who appear before his court.'' I hope that my concerns and the concerns of these Utah lawyers are misplaced, and that as a judge Professor Cassell will be able to set aside ideology and apply the law fairly and impartially. His record, however, indicates otherwise. I therefore oppose this nomination, and I urge my colleagues not to approve it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I join my distinguished colleagues, Senator Jack Reed and Senator Jeff Bingaman, in introducing ``The Preservation of Antibiotics for Human Treatment Act of 2002.'' This important legislation will protect the health of millions of Americans by preserving the effectiveness of antibiotics. We rely on antibiotics to protect our health from deadly infections and to help safeguard the nation's security from the threat of bioterrorism. Yet we are squandering the effectiveness of these precious medications by using them indiscriminately as additives to animal feed. Study after study has shown that the practice of using antibiotics to promote growth and fatten livestock erodes the effectiveness of these important pharmaceuticals. Mounting scientific evidence shows that this nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in agricultural animals can lead to development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria that can be transferred to people, making it harder to treat dangerous infections. In July 1998, the National Academy of Sciences, in a report prepared at the request of the United States Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration, concluded ``there is a link between the use of antibiotics in food animals, the development of bacterial resistance to these drugs, and human disease.'' In 1997 and again in 2000, the World Health Organization recommended that antibiotics used to treat humans should not also be used to promote animal growth, although such antibiotics could still be used to treat sick animals. In January 2001, a Federal interagency task force on antibiotic resistance concluded that ``drug-resistant pathogens are a growing menace to all people, regardless of age, gender, or socio-economic background. If we do not act to address the problem . . . [d]rug choices for the treatment of common infections will become increasingly limited and expensive--and, in some cases, nonexistent.'' Major medical associations have taken a stand against antibiotic use in animal agriculture. In June 2001, the American Medical Association adopted a resolution opposing nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in animal agriculture. Medical professional organizations that have taken a similar position include the American College of Preventive Medicine, the American Public Health Association, and the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. I ask for unanimous consent to include a letter of endorsement for our legislation from the American Public Health Association in the Record. Most developed countries in the world, with the exception of the United States and Canada, restrict the use of antibiotics for growth promotion in raising livestock. In July 1999, the European Union banned the use for animal growth promotion of remaining human-use antibiotics still in use to promote animal growth. Prior to that action, individual European countries, including the United Kingdom, Denmark, Finland, and Sweden, had banned the use in animal feed of specific antibiotics. The Preservation of Antibiotics for Human Treatment Act of 2002 will protect the health of Americans by phasing out the non-therapeutic use in livestock of medically important antibiotics, unless their manufacturers can show that they pose no danger to the public health. The Act requires this same tough standard of new applications for approval of animal antibiotics. The Act does not restrict use of antibiotics to treat sick animals or to treat pets and other animals not used for food. In October 2000, FDA found that one class of antibiotics posed such a grave danger to the public health that they issued an order to withdraw these drugs from animal use. Yet, over 18 months later, tons of these drugs are still being used, because their manufacturer has refused to comply with FDA's order. The Act takes immediate action to implement the decision of FDA to withdraw these drugs from our food supply. The National Academy of Sciences has found that eliminating the use of antibiotics as feed additives would cost each American consumer not more than $5 to $10 per year. Nonetheless, the legislation recognizes that there may be economic costs to farmers in making the transition to antibiotics-free farming practices. For this reason, the Act provides for Federal payments to farmers to defray their costs in switching to antibiotic-free husbandry practices, with a preference given to family farms. Antibiotics are one of the crown jewels of modern medicine. If we squander their effectiveness, the health of millions of Americans will be put at risk. The most vulnerable among us, children, the elderly, persons with HIV/AIDS, are particularly endangered by resistant infections. I urge my colleagues to support this needed legislation to protect the health of all Americans and preserve the effectiveness of antibiotics. I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support and an analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I join my distinguished colleagues, Senator Jack Reed and Senator Jeff Bingaman, in introducing ``The Preservation of Antibiotics for Human Treatment Act of 2002.'' This important legislation will protect the health of millions of Americans by preserving the effectiveness of antibiotics. We rely on antibiotics to protect our health from deadly infections and to help safeguard the nation's security from the threat of bioterrorism. Yet we are squandering the effectiveness of these precious medications by using them indiscriminately as additives to animal feed. Study after study has shown that the practice of using antibiotics to promote growth and fatten livestock erodes the effectiveness of these important pharmaceuticals. Mounting scientific evidence shows that this nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in agricultural animals can lead to development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria that can be transferred to people, making it harder to treat dangerous infections. In July 1998, the National Academy of Sciences, in a report prepared at the request of the United States Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration, concluded ``there is a link between the use of antibiotics in food animals, the development of bacterial resistance to these drugs, and human disease.'' In 1997 and again in 2000, the World Health Organization recommended that antibiotics used to treat humans should not also be used to promote animal growth, although such antibiotics could still be used to treat sick animals. In January 2001, a Federal interagency task force on antibiotic resistance concluded that ``drug-resistant pathogens are a growing menace to all people, regardless of age, gender, or socio-economic background. If we do not act to address the problem . . . [d]rug choices for the treatment of common infections will become increasingly limited and expensive--and, in some cases, nonexistent.'' Major medical associations have taken a stand against antibiotic use in animal agriculture. In June 2001, the American Medical Association adopted a resolution opposing nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in animal agriculture. Medical professional organizations that have taken a similar position include the American College of Preventive Medicine, the American Public Health Association, and the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. I ask for unanimous consent to include a letter of endorsement for our legislation from the American Public Health Association in the Record. Most developed countries in the world, with the exception of the United States and Canada, restrict the use of antibiotics for growth promotion in raising livestock. In July 1999, the European Union banned the use for animal growth promotion of remaining human-use antibiotics still in use to promote animal growth. Prior to that action, individual European countries, including the United Kingdom, Denmark, Finland, and Sweden, had banned the use in animal feed of specific antibiotics. The Preservation of Antibiotics for Human Treatment Act of 2002 will protect the health of Americans by phasing out the non-therapeutic use in livestock of medically important antibiotics, unless their manufacturers can show that they pose no danger to the public health. The Act requires this same tough standard of new applications for approval of animal antibiotics. The Act does not restrict use of antibiotics to treat sick animals or to treat pets and other animals not used for food. In October 2000, FDA found that one class of antibiotics posed such a grave danger to the public health that they issued an order to withdraw these drugs from animal use. Yet, over 18 months later, tons of these drugs are still being used, because their manufacturer has refused to comply with FDA's order. The Act takes immediate action to implement the decision of FDA to withdraw these drugs from our food supply. The National Academy of Sciences has found that eliminating the use of antibiotics as feed additives would cost each American consumer not more than $5 to $10 per year. Nonetheless, the legislation recognizes that there may be economic costs to farmers in making the transition to antibiotics-free farming practices. For this reason, the Act provides for Federal payments to farmers to defray their costs in switching to antibiotic-free husbandry practices, with a preference given to family farms. Antibiotics are one of the crown jewels of modern medicine. If we squander their effectiveness, the health of millions of Americans will be put at risk. The most vulnerable among us, children, the elderly, persons with HIV/AIDS, are particularly endangered by resistant infections. I urge my colleagues to support this needed legislation to protect the health of all Americans and preserve the effectiveness of antibiotics. I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support and an analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, Senators Lugar, Leahy, Chafee, Dodd, Hagel, Gordon Smith, Cochran, Brownback, Jeffords, Durbin, Feingold and I are introducing legislation to increase the level of student and other exchanges between Americans and visitors from the Islamic world. Our legislation, the Cultural Bridges Act, would authorize $75 million above current appropriations in fiscal years 2003 through 2007 to expand the activities of the State Department's existing educational and cultural programs in the Islamic world. It would also authorize $20 million in fiscal years 2003 through 2007 for the Department of State to establish a new high school student exchange program to enable a small number of competitively selected students from the Islamic world to study in the United States at a public high school for an academic year. There are no better ambassadors for American values than Americans themselves, and student exchange programs have proven to be an effective tool in reaching out to the next generation of leaders. As Secretary Powell said in his August 2001 Statement on International Education Week, ``I can think of no more valuable asset to our country than the friendship of future world leaders who have been educated here.'' One of the clear lessons of September 11 is that our government needs to do more to ensure that future generations in the Islamic world understand more about American values and culture. A recent Gallup poll in nine predominantly Muslim countries revealed strong anti-American attitudes. Nearly 1.5 billion people live in the Islamic world, and if we ignore these sentiments, we do so at our own peril. If we try to address the problem directly, by teaching American values to students from the Islamic world, we have a chance, in the long run, of changing negative attitudes. It's a long process, which September 11 has taught us we must begin now. The State Department currently manages outstanding international student educational and cultural exchange programs that have helped foster mutual respect and understanding in many countries worldwide. These programs, which enable approximately 5,000 Americans to travel abroad and 20,000 foreign visitors to travel to the United States annually to study, teach, engage in people-to-people programs, have been enormously successful in promoting American values and cultural tolerance. Unfortunately, visitors and students from the Islamic world are significantly underrepresented in many of these programs. Individuals in the Islamic world represent approximately 25 percent of the world's 6.2 billion people. However, in fiscal year 2000, less than 10 percent of the participants in State Department cultural and educational exchange programs were from the Islamic countries covered under our legislation, and less than 12 percent of the budget was spent on these countries. Additionally, according to the State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, direct appropriated funding for exchanges has fallen by almost a third since 1993 which adjusted for inflation. The additional $75 million our legislation authorizes for existing programs to be expanded in the Islamic world is essential to our nation's objective of promoting greater understanding of American values and ideals. Existing programs provide the essential building blocks our nation needs for an expanded and sustained effort to reach more broadly into these societies, to foster mutual respect, and to counter the ignorance and hatred that can lead to acts of terrorism. In October of last year, President Bush spoke eloquently about the need to reach out in friendship to children and the Islamic world. In a speech to students at Thurgood Marshall Extended Elementary School, the President said that America is ``determined to build ties of trust and friendship with people all around the world, particularly with children and people in the Islamic world. To facilitate the President's goal of reaching children, our legislation would create a new program for high school students from the United States. No Federal program currently exists to facilitate such student exchanges with ever-increasing numbers of youth in the Islamic world. There are many benefits to reaching out to students while they are young and open-minded to enhance mutual cultural understanding and tolerance. Today's high school students are tomorrow's leaders, and we need to begin working with them now to inform their attitudes about our country. In a January 20, 2002 op-ed in the Washington Post, a former Fulbright scholarship recipient from Egypt expressed concern that his university in Egypt was and continues to be fertile ground for recruiters from terrorist or extremist organizations. Our challenge is to provide young students with the opportunity to learn about America, participate in all aspects of American family life, and understand our values before they reach that stage. The high school student exchange program authorized in our legislation is modeled on the State Department's highly successful Future Leaders Exchange Program, FLEX, which brings approximately 1,000 students ages 15-17 from the Newly Independent States to the United States each year to attend an American high school for a year and live with an American family. The FLEX program has been extremely effective in shaping attitudes among the students selected to participate from the Newly Independent States. A 1998 U.S. government study, which compared Russian FLEX alumni with other Russian youth of the same age, indicated that the FLEX alumni are more open to and accepting of Western values and democratic ideals. They are more likely to want to become leaders in and to make a contribution to their society. They tend to be more optimistic about the future of their country, especially its evolution to a more democratic, rule-of-law society, than other Russian youths. Importantly, the FLEX program has been successful in the six predominantly Islamic countries from the Newly Independent States, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. More than 1,500 students from those Muslim countries have studied and lived in the United States since the program began. FLEX alumni in Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan are teaching English in their home countries, and alumni in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have been involved in activities to develop democratic practices. Given the track record in these countries, there is every reason to believe that a high school student exchange program would succeed throughout the Islamic world. Like the existing student exchange program for the Newly Independent States, our legislation requires participating students in high school exchanges form the Islamic world to be selected competitively and in a manner that ensures geographic, gender, and socio-economic diversity. To quality, students must be tested extensively and interviewed under State Department guidelines. As with the FLEX program, the State Department will work with experienced American non-governmental organizations to recruit, select, and place students and will remain in close contact with the public high school, American host family, and American non-governmental organizations while the students are in the United States. Importantly, all students and visitors participating in programs authorized in this legislation must be admissible under all immigration laws and procedures. Furthermore, legislation recently passed by the Senate would improve our ability to screen foreign students by requiring increased communication among the State Department, the INS, and the schools enrolling foreign students and closing gaps in the existing foreign student monitoring program. Our legislation has been endorsed by the Alliance for International Education and Cultural Exchange, AMIDEAST, AFS, the Academy for Educational Development, the American Councils for International Education, the American Institute for Foreign Study, the Institute of International Education, the National Council for International Visitors, Sister Cities International, World Learning, and World Study Group. About the Cultural Bridges Act, the Director of the Alliance for International Educational and Cultural Exchange, a coalition of 65 organizations with chapters in all 50 states, former Ambassador Kenton Keith, wrote: ``Winning the war on terrorism will demand more than just our military prowess. It will require us to engage the peoples of the Islamic world about our society and values if we are to forge the mutual understanding and respect that will be the basis of peaceful productive relationships. The exchanges authorized in your bill are the most cost-effective way to encourage the positive personal and institutional relationships that will enhance our long-term national security.'' I ask unanimous consent that copies of this and other endorsement letters be included in the Congressional Record at the end of my statement along with the text of the legislation. America must respond to the terrorist threat on many levels. We need to ensure that our defenses are strong, our borders are secure, and our relationships with allies are vibrant. We also need to do more in the area of public diplomacy. It is clearly in America's national security interest to promote more people-to-people contacts throughout the Muslim world. Indeed, in a May 3rd speech to the World Affairs Council in California, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz spoke about the need to reach out and strengthen voices of moderation in the Islamic world and to bridge the ``dangerous gap'' between the West and the Muslim world. He said America must ``begin now . . . the gap is wide and there is no time for delay.'' After September 11, many of the Muslim countries condemned those acts and pledged to help the United States fight terrorism. As we have seen in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere in the Muslim world, some individuals and factions within a country can support terrorists and terrorist organizations, while others seek to resolve issues peacefully. America must reach out in friendship to all individuals in the Islamic world who share our worldview. The Koran says, ``O Mankind! We created you from a single pair of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other.'' These words speak eloquently of the need for this legislation. Building bridges of understanding and tolerance across cultures will help ensure that Americans and people of the Islamic world will truly understand and know each other. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, Senators Lugar, Leahy, Chafee, Dodd, Hagel, Gordon Smith, Cochran, Brownback, Jeffords, Durbin, Feingold and I are introducing legislation to increase the level of student and other exchanges between Americans and visitors from the Islamic world. Our legislation, the Cultural Bridges Act, would authorize $75 million above current appropriations in fiscal years 2003 through 2007 to expand the activities of the State Department's existing educational and cultural programs in the Islamic world. It would also authorize $20 million in fiscal years 2003 through 2007 for the Department of State to establish a new high school student exchange program to enable a small number of competitively selected students from the Islamic world to study in the United States at a public high school for an academic year. There are no better ambassadors for American values than Americans themselves, and student exchange programs have proven to be an effective tool in reaching out to the next generation of leaders. As Secretary Powell said in his August 2001 Statement on International Education Week, ``I can think of no more valuable asset to our country than the friendship of future world leaders who have been educated here.'' One of the clear lessons of September 11 is that our government needs to do more to ensure that future generations in the Islamic world understand more about American values and culture. A recent Gallup poll in nine predominantly Muslim countries revealed strong anti-American attitudes. Nearly 1.5 billion people live in the Islamic world, and if we ignore these sentiments, we do so at our own peril. If we try to address the problem directly, by teaching American values to students from the Islamic world, we have a chance, in the long run, of changing negative attitudes. It's a long process, which September 11 has taught us we must begin now. The State Department currently manages outstanding international student educational and cultural exchange programs that have helped foster mutual respect and understanding in many countries worldwide. These programs, which enable approximately 5,000 Americans to travel abroad and 20,000 foreign visitors to travel to the United States annually to study, teach, engage in people-to-people programs, have been enormously successful in promoting American values and cultural tolerance. Unfortunately, visitors and students from the Islamic world are significantly underrepresented in many of these programs. Individuals in the Islamic world represent approximately 25 percent of the world's 6.2 billion people. However, in fiscal year 2000, less than 10 percent of the participants in State Department cultural and educational exchange programs were from the Islamic countries covered under our legislation, and less than 12 percent of the budget was spent on these countries. Additionally, according to the State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, direct appropriated funding for exchanges has fallen by almost a third since 1993 which adjusted for inflation. The additional $75 million our legislation authorizes for existing programs to be expanded in the Islamic world is essential to our nation's objective of promoting greater understanding of American values and ideals. Existing programs provide the essential building blocks our nation needs for an expanded and sustained effort to reach more broadly into these societies, to foster mutual respect, and to counter the ignorance and hatred that can lead to acts of terrorism. In October of last year, President Bush spoke eloquently about the need to reach out in friendship to children and the Islamic world. In a speech to students at Thurgood Marshall Extended Elementary School, the President said that America is ``determined to build ties of trust and friendship with people all around the world, particularly with children and people in the Islamic world. To facilitate the President's goal of reaching children, our legislation would create a new program for high school students from the United States. No Federal program currently exists to facilitate such student exchanges with ever-increasing numbers of youth in the Islamic world. There are many benefits to reaching out to students while they are young and open-minded to enhance mutual cultural understanding and tolerance. Today's high school students are tomorrow's leaders, and we need to begin working with them now to inform their attitudes about our country. In a January 20, 2002 op-ed in the Washington Post, a former Fulbright scholarship recipient from Egypt expressed concern that his university in Egypt was and continues to be fertile ground for recruiters from terrorist or extremist organizations. Our challenge is to provide young students with the opportunity to learn about America, participate in all aspects of American family life, and understand our values before they reach that stage. The high school student exchange program authorized in our legislation is modeled on the State Department's highly successful Future Leaders Exchange Program, FLEX, which brings approximately 1,000 students ages 15-17 from the Newly Independent States to the United States each year to attend an American high school for a year and live with an American family. The FLEX program has been extremely effective in shaping attitudes among the students selected to participate from the Newly Independent States. A 1998 U.S. government study, which compared Russian FLEX alumni with other Russian youth of the same age, indicated that the FLEX alumni are more open to and accepting of Western values and democratic ideals. They are more likely to want to become leaders in and to make a contribution to their society. They tend to be more optimistic about the future of their country, especially its evolution to a more democratic, rule-of-law society, than other Russian youths. Importantly, the FLEX program has been successful in the six predominantly Islamic countries from the Newly Independent States, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. More than 1,500 students from those Muslim countries have studied and lived in the United States since the program began. FLEX alumni in Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan are teaching English in their home countries, and alumni in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have been involved in activities to develop democratic practices. Given the track record in these countries, there is every reason to believe that a high school student exchange program would succeed throughout the Islamic world. Like the existing student exchange program for the Newly Independent States, our legislation requires participating students in high school exchanges form the Islamic world to be selected competitively and in a manner that ensures geographic, gender, and socio-economic diversity. To quality, students must be tested extensively and interviewed under State Department guidelines. As with the FLEX program, the State Department will work with experienced American non-governmental organizations to recruit, select, and place students and will remain in close contact with the public high school, American host family, and American non-governmental organizations while the students are in the United States. Importantly, all students and visitors participating in programs authorized in this legislation must be admissible under all immigration laws and procedures. Furthermore, legislation recently passed by the Senate would improve our ability to screen foreign students by requiring increased communication among the State Department, the INS, and the schools enrolling foreign students and closing gaps in the existing foreign student monitoring program. Our legislation has been endorsed by the Alliance for International Education and Cultural Exchange, AMIDEAST, AFS, the Academy for Educational Development, the American Councils for International Education, the American Institute for Foreign Study, the Institute of International Education, the National Council for International Visitors, Sister Cities International, World Learning, and World Study Group. About the Cultural Bridges Act, the Director of the Alliance for International Educational and Cultural Exchange, a coalition of 65 organizations with chapters in all 50 states, former Ambassador Kenton Keith, wrote: ``Winning the war on terrorism will demand more than just our military prowess. It will require us to engage the peoples of the Islamic world about our society and values if we are to forge the mutual understanding and respect that will be the basis of peaceful productive relationships. The exchanges authorized in your bill are the most cost-effective way to encourage the positive personal and institutional relationships that will enhance our long-term national security.'' I ask unanimous consent that copies of this and other endorsement letters be included in the Congressional Record at the end of my statement along with the text of the legislation. America must respond to the terrorist threat on many levels. We need to ensure that our defenses are strong, our borders are secure, and our relationships with allies are vibrant. We also need to do more in the area of public diplomacy. It is clearly in America's national security interest to promote more people-to-people contacts throughout the Muslim world. Indeed, in a May 3rd speech to the World Affairs Council in California, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz spoke about the need to reach out and strengthen voices of moderation in the Islamic world and to bridge the ``dangerous gap'' between the West and the Muslim world. He said America must ``begin now . . . the gap is wide and there is no time for delay.'' After September 11, many of the Muslim countries condemned those acts and pledged to help the United States fight terrorism. As we have seen in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere in the Muslim world, some individuals and factions within a country can support terrorists and terrorist organizations, while others seek to resolve issues peacefully. America must reach out in friendship to all individuals in the Islamic world who share our worldview. The Koran says, ``O Mankind! We created you from a single pair of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other.'' These words speak eloquently of the need for this legislation. Building bridges of understanding and tolerance across cultures will help ensure that Americans and people of the Islamic world will truly understand and know each other. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, since September 11, Congress has taken significant steps to strengthen the security of our borders and improve our immigration system. Last month, the Senate passed important legislation to strengthen border security, improve our ability to screen foreign nationals, and enhance our ability to deter potential terrorists. In addition, Senator Brownback and I recently introduced legislation to restructure the Immigration and Naturalization Service so that the agency is better prepared to address security concerns. As we work to respond to the security issues before us, we can't lose sight of the other immigration issues that are still a priority. I'm pleased to join Senator Daschle in moving forward with one of those issues today by introducing the Uniting Families Act of 2002. This legislation extends section 245(i), a vital provision of U.S. immigration law which allows individuals who already legally qualify for permanent residency to process their applications in the United States, without returning to their homes countries. Without 245(i), immigrants are forced to leave their families here in the U.S. and risk separation from them for up to 10 years. Seventy-five percent of the people who have used 245(i) are the spouses and children of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. Extending this critical provision will help keep families together and help businesses retain critical workers. In addition, the INS will receive millions of dollars in additional revenues, at no cost to taxpayers. Extending 245(i) does not provide any loopholes for potential terrorists. Instead, it will improve the monitoring of immigrants already residing in this country. Individuals who qualify for permanent residency and process their applications in the U.S. are subject to rigorous background checks and interviews. This process provides the government a good opportunity to investigate individuals who are in this country and determine whether they should be allowed to remain here. Section 245(i) does not provide amnesty to immigrants or any benefits to anyone suspected of marriage fraud. The provision provides no protection from deportation if someone is here illegally and no right to surpass other immigrants waiting for visas. The House passed legislation recently to extend section 245(i), but it was too restrictive to provide any meaningful assistance. The Uniting Families Act will extend the filing deadline to April 30, 2003, and provide needed and well-deserved relief to members of our immigrant communities. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this needed extension.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?