Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3442.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask consent the bill be read the third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, all with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2559, Calendar No. 235.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 234, S. 1271.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask consent the mandatory quorum be waived with respect to the cloture motion.

Mr. KENNEDY. I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. So, it is fair to conclude that pediatric research conducted by third parties, using a commercially available drug, and paid for by the Foundation of the National Institutes of Health or by NIH under your bill, will not infringe any patent on the drug and shall be considered to be an activity conducted for the purpose of development and submission of information to the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act?

Mr. KENNEDY. You bill has these studies being conducted by, for example, universities, hospitals, contract research organizations, and pediatric pharmacology units. The studies will happen after referral to the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health, which, if it has the money to do so, provides money to the NIH for it to fund the studies, or passes it on to the NIH to pay for the studies with money that the bill itself authorizes.

Mr. KENNEDY. I congratulate my friend from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, and my friend from Ohio, Senator DeWine, for bringing us the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act. Since 1977, we've had great success increasing the number of studies of drugs in children, and it's important that we reauthorize pediatric exclusivity to continue this success. One improvement in this reauthorization is that section 4 of your bill will see to it that, when a drug company declines an FDA request to study its patented drug for children, the drug will nonetheless be studied for children.

Mr. KENNEDY. And after the research is conducted, the results are submitted to the Secretary of Health of Human Services. Once the Secretary has received the results, the Secretary, through the FDA, analyzes the information from the studies and determines what is necessary to provide appropriate pediatric labeling of the drug. Mf. DODD. Yes, that is what we intend.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, mental illnesses inflicted by tragedies like the assault on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon are a serious problem. Every American family is at risk, whether a loved one worked at the World Trade Center or the Pentagon, or whether the family simply watched the attack on television from a continent away. Studies of other disasters teach us that the most vulnerable are those who are most directly affected, but even those less directly touched by these tragedies are vulnerable. The hearing on September 26 made it clear that Congress has an obligation to assure that these mental health needs are met and that we are better prepared for the mental health consequences of future tragedies. Our witnesses, as well as other experts in the field, identified four key needs: better advance planning and preparedness, training of mental health professionals to treat the specific mental health needs arising from disasters, resources to identify and treat those who will suffer long-term mental health problems as a result of the September 11 attack, research on how to improve our responses to the needs of disaster victims. The legislation passed through the Senate today by unanimous consent intended to meet all four of these needs. This help is essential for the individuals and families who were injured or lost a loved one, for the brave public safety officers who put their lives on the line trying to rescue or recover victims, and for the many other Americans of all ages in communities across the country who have suffered psychological trauma as the result of these attacks. The bill was developed in close collaboration with Senator Warner. Senator Frist, Senator Clinton, Senator Wellstone, and Senator Gregg made important contributions and I thank them for their efforts. It is my hope that it will be approved by the House, and that it will be followed by an adequate allocation of funds to help all those who need it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as we come to the conclusion of this debate, I draw to the Members' attention what those on the front lines of this battle have been saying about the need to dramatically increase our bioterrorism preparedness. It is important. They are the ones who have to deal with this challenge if we have a bioterrorist attack. They are the ones whose lives will be at risk. They are the ones who will detect and identify the threat. They are the ones who have to deal with it. From the Association of the Public Health Laboratory: ``Through the events of the past few months we have learned just how critical our public health laboratories are to the public health system and to the nation's well-being,'' said the president, Mary Gilchrist, the president of the Public Health Laboratory. ``While State and local lab have been effective so far, they are stretched. To respond adequately to future threats we must update our labs, staffing and technology and security.'' The Byrd proposal would add the resources necessary to make us effective in dealing with this crisis. From the National Association of County and City Health Officials-- they are the first ones to detect this challenge: ``[the association] believes that every community deserves the protection of a fully prepared public health system.'' That is one of the great assets of the Byrd proposal. It will cover the whole country, not just some areas. The Byrd proposal provides the ``resources needed to build the local public health infrastructure that the country lacks.'' We urge the ``Congress to recognize the great urgency and magnitude of this task'' and support the Byrd proposal. This is the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists: ``A number of the State organizations, including the Association of Territorial Health Officials, and the National Governors Association, have written to the President requesting'' the funds that are included in the Byrd amendment. Members could say those organizations want it because they have a particular interest. The fact is, they have the responsibility. They know what is needed. We have statements from the American Medical Association supporting the need for increased bioterrorism preparedness: We strongly support [this initiative] that would improve the public health, the hospital communications, the laboratory, emergency respond preparedness focusing at the State and local levels. American Academy of Family Physicians, the family physicians who will deal with this crisis: By bolstering the role [in this instance] of CDC, in improving both the Federal and laboratory capacity and surveillance systems, the legislation provides the tools for early warning and quick response. And by enhancing the nation's stockpile of vaccines and by supporting the FDA's food inspection systems, the legislation builds a strong bioterrorism prevention. Finally, the Association of American Universities: As you well know, this research [involving hazardous pathogens and toxic agents] is a crucial component of an effort to protect the public from terrorism and disease, through the development of vaccines, diagnostics, and cures. This amendment moves us down the road. These are all the front line organizations. They are the ones that know what the need is. Each and every one of them rise in total and complete and wholehearted support for increasing the nation's ability to respond to bioterrorism. I thank Senator Byrd for yielding.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend my colleagues, Senator Byrd, Senator Stevens, and Senator Inouye, for their leadership on this important proposal. In particular, their proposal provides the resources that are urgently needed to begin to address the challenge of bioterrorism. Our public health and medical professionals at the State and local levels will be on the joint lines in any bioterrorist attack. The legislation that Senator Frist and I introduced recognizes the importance of strengthening preparedness at the State and local levels. The Byrd-Stevens-Inouye proposal provides over $1 billion to begin to prepare our health defenses against bioterrorism. The proposal provides the resources needed to enhance the ability of CDC to respond effectively to bioterrorism. By investing $165 million in new laboratories at CDC, the proposal will allow the disease detectives at CDC to identify dangerous pathogens accurately and rapidly. The proposal will expand stockpiles of pharmaceuticals and medical supplies that will be needed to protect Americans in a bioterrorist attack. It will allow work to begin immediately on production of new smallpox vaccine. The bipartisan proposal will enhance the safety of the food supply by providing the resources needed to train more food inspectors and conduct research on biological threats against American agriculture. The Byrd-Stevens-Inouye proposal takes the first important steps in preparing the nation for bioterrorism. We should support this proposal and do all we can to see that our national investment in bioterrorism preparedness is sustained in the years to come.

Mr. KENNEDY. Five minutes, I say to the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, today is Pearl Harbor Day. Just a short time ago, we had an enormously moving moment in the Senate. We do not have many emotional moments in this institution; certainly few as important and emotional as we had earlier today when our good friend, the Senator from Alaska, paid tribute to our beloved friend, genuine patriot, and hero, Senator Inouye, for his service in World War II. Americans are thinking about today December 7, a day when America was caught unprepared in World War II. We came together as a nation, and we were victorious, with a great deal of courage and a great deal of bravery, but also a great deal of suffering, certainly, at Pearl Harbor. We are also mindful of what happened on September 11 when we saw the failure of our intelligence system and the failure of our security systems at our airports--two massive failures. We saw Americans suffer loss of life, and families who have lost loved ones are feeling it more now than ever at the holiday season. I am sure everyone in this body has talked in their States with those families who have lost loved ones. This all because we were unprepared to deal with the terrorist attacks: during World War II on December 7 and again this year on September 11. The amendment that is offered by the Senator from West Virginia says: Enough is enough. We are facing a new world, a new time. This Defense appropriations bill says we will give all the support our service men and women need who are fighting overseas in Afghanistan and across the world preserving peace and preserving our liberties. We are prepared to do that. But we have been exposed in recent times to another kind of threat and danger. That threat and danger, even though it cost the lives of only 5 Americans, has touched those families. But more importantly, it has put a sense of concern and perhaps even anxiety in the hearts and souls of all Americans in every part of the Nation. It is the threat of the unknown, and that is the dangers of bioterrorism. This is a real problem in a real time. The amendment of the Senator from West Virginia is in response to that challenge. It is the first opportunity to do something. His proposal is a modest program compared to what the experts have recommended. It is a proposal that ought to be supported now. Yesterday we heard from former Governor Ridge saying next year the administration is going to propose hundreds of millions of dollars, perhaps even billions of dollars, for homeland security to help the Public Health Service, to build the laboratories, support the personnel, support the hospitals, develop the communications systems, do what is necessary in early detection, containment, and treatment of bioterrorism. Why are we waiting for next year when the danger is here today--Friday--when we will have a chance to vote on this measure? The sad fact is that every day we delay is another day's head start for the terrorists. While we debate, they plan. While we defer, they prepare. Even now the terrorists may be preparing fresh batches of anthrax for wider and more deadly attacks. We cannot wait until next year to fulfill our constitutional duty to protect the American people from this threat. Every day we delay means that States cannot buy the equipment necessary to upgrade their laboratories; they cannot buy the computers and fax machines to communicate the information crucial to identifying and containing an attack; they cannot hire the personnel they need to do the work. It means another day in which hospitals cannot purchase the reserve stocks of antibiotics; cannot add emergency room capacity; and cannot improve their ability to treat infected patients. This is the issue. The Byrd amendment responds to this in a responsible way, in a way that is consistent with all those who know the nature of this threat. We know there is a potential danger of Ebola. We have no possible cure for Ebola. Why are we waiting to get our best scientists and researchers into the laboratories to work on this issue? That is what the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia is all about. It is responsible, it is responsive, it is thoughtful, and it is an essential step forward in protecting American families across this country. This amendment deserves the support of all the Members. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his leadership in this area, as in so many other areas.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, which reauthorizes the pediatric drug exclusivity provision enacted as part of the FDA Modernization Act in 1997. I commend Senator Dodd and Senator DeWine for their effective leadership on this provision as well as Senator Clinton for her important contributions to this legislation, and I also commend their staffs for their long and skilled work on this bill. Combined with FDA's Rule that requires pediatric testing for drugs and biological products, this legislation is intended to do more to see that medicines are adequately tested for safety and effectiveness in children. The 1997 provision has been a major success in encouraging essential studies of pharmaceutical products in children. Dozens of such drugs have been studied in children, and many of the products have now been relabeled or even reformulated for use in children. But the 1997 provision has not been an unqualified success. Although many products have been studied, others have not. For every label changed, others remain incomplete. This reauthorization provides that every pharmaceutical product that is needed to treat children will, in fact, be studied in children. In a few years, there will be far fewer of these products that lack adequate information about pediatric use. The Food and Drug Administration will be able to act more quickly and successfully to see that drug companies label their products for such use. The bill also gives needed new priority to the appropriate use of cancer drugs for children. In addition to extending and improving this program which has been so important in improving therapies for children, the bill closes technical loopholes which might have improperly barred generic drugs from the market or limited the incentives for generic drug development. This is a bill that will make a major contribution to the health of American children and I urge its prompt passage by the Senate and the House.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator for his remarks. I pay tribute to my colleague, Senator Frist. Senator Frist and I had hearings going back to 1998, 1999, and then passed legislation dealing with bioterrorism and also drug-resistant bacteria. The kinds of problems we were facing, healthwise, were similar to problems with many of these pathogens. But I want to raise another question to the Senator. I have before me the review of the States by the Public Health Service. This is after the anthrax attacks that have infected 17 and killed 5 of our fellow citizens. What we have seen in the wake of these attacks is that our capacity to deal with this was right at the edge of being overwhelmed. And not just in the particular regions where these incidents took place but all across the country, all across the Nation. I will just read about a few of the States. I will include in the Record a few examples from the States that illustrate this. Let me mention these incidents and ask the Senator whether this is something to which he believes his particular measures will respond. Here is the State of Iowa after the anthrax attack. This report is very recent--just a few weeks old. They are talking about the public health situation of Iowa. The State and local public health systems have been overwhelmed trying to meet the needs of State and local law enforcement agencies in evaluating testing threats. We have been working 10-hour days and all weekends, just to try to keep our heads above water. We need help. That is Iowa. Ohio: We have processed 722 samples related to the anthrax threats in the laboratory. The signs of stress are showing in a number of staff as a result. This is Ohio. There is not enough staff to respond to all the tentacles that are out there with the public in terms of these false attacks that were taking place. Tennessee: Our communicable disease control in our 13 regions has been working night and day to respond to white powder exposures. The State laboratory has been overwhelmed with volume testing, 450 testings in 3 weeks. We have had to pull resources from other areas, leaving us vulnerable to food- borne outbreaks. In Wisconsin: We have processed more than 400 anthrax related specimens since October 10. The staffs are overwhelmed and overstretched. This is true in just about every State of the country. These examples are just a result of these past weeks. The Senator is asking why should we take a chance with the health and the lives of the American people in not putting in place the kind of mechanisms we have had recommended to us in order to protect the lives of American people. Senator, earlier today in the Judiciary Committee we heard from Attorney General Ashcroft. He spoke of all the emergency steps that are being taken in order to deal with the problem of terrorism here at home. We are supportive of so many of those. We heard of the extent to which we are going in order to protect the lives of American people, and all the times we might have to bend the civil liberties of the American people in order to protect them. We are here to make sure we are going to try to get it right--that those steps are going to be effective and they are going to be able to do their job and while also protecting our rights. Now we come over here this afternoon, and the Senator from West Virginia has an eminently reasonable, responsible amendment. His amendment responds to the findings, the recommendations, and suggestions of people who know this business, and we are told, well, we don't have to deal with this. I commend the Senator for his thoughtfulness in bringing this together. I will just make a final, quick point and ask the Senator whether he might agree with me. We have a strategic oil reserve. We have this strategic oil reserve in order to protect the American industry and American families if we run short of oil or if oil is going to run excessively high in cost. I wonder why we should not have a strategic pharmaceutical supply, so we are able to guarantee to every child, every elderly citizen, in this country that if we face the challenge of smallpox--that they will be adequately protected. If we can do it in terms of oil, it seems to me we ought to be able to do it in terms of smallpox. The amendment of the Senator from West Virginia moves us down that path. Any Senator who supports that amendment will be able to go back home, and in any town meeting they have with parents around this country, they will be able to say: We voted to make sure we are going to be able to provide smallpox vaccine if it becomes necessary to protect your child. How does anyone believe that is somehow a failure of investing in the security of this country? The bioterrorism amendment of the Senator is a few billion dollars. We are spending billions of dollars overseas--and I support that. Why is it we are willing to spend billions of dollars overseas to try to dislodge al-Qaida that may kill some Americans in the future, and fail to support the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia, which is a few billion dollars in order to protect American citizens? I just don't understand it. I don't know whether the Senator can help me to try to understand the rationale and reason for that because it seems to me he has made eminently good sense. The amendment is based upon the solid record of those who have studied this particular issue and is in response to the needs we are facing. I know the Senator has other matters to which he wishes to speak. But I remember when we had the Office of Technology Assessment. They did a study about the potential impact of an anthrax attack on the United States. It was going to cost, for 100,000 Americans who were exposed-- it was going to cost $26 billion, for each 100,000 Americans who were exposed. We are talking about all different kinds of possibilities. The Senator has in his homeland security proposal a very important downpayment to make sure we are going to meet those threats. He has other very important measures to which I know other Members want to speak. But the evidence is there. I mention finally on the bill the Senator referenced--the bill Senator Frist and I introduced--there are now 74 cosponsors of that bill. Yours is a slight degree above the Frist-Kennedy bill, but there are 74 cosponsors for our bill. I, again, thank my friend and chairman of that committee for his foresight in this area, and for all the good work he is doing to protect families on the issues of bioterrorism. I know that later on we are going to have an amendment by the Senator from Indiana with regard to the Nunn-Lugar proposal which will help deal with the problem and dangers of nuclear proliferation. Also, we are concerned about the dangers of proliferation of bioterrorist material that exists in the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union at one time was able to produce 24 tons of anthrax a day. They have stored that in various areas. Even Mr. Chernov, who was a member of their national security council, was warning that he was not satisfied that they had adequate protections. We are interested in trying to work cooperatively with the Soviet Union to contain it. We are interested--as this amendment will do--in building the early warning systems through the public health systems. We want to build and support the treatment which is necessary in terms of helping and assisting the hospitals, and we want containment so that it will not expand. The Senator from West Virginia has an amendment that deals with all of those measures as a downpayment for every family to make sure they are going to be protected from a bioterrorist attack. I commend him and look forward to supporting his amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you very much, Senator. In reviewing the content of your proposal, I would like to ask a question. We believe as a Congress and as the Senate of the American people in giving the full support we can possibly give to the men and women fighting in Afghanistan--supporting their efforts with the best equipment, the best technology, the best leadership, and the best training. We have had good discussions and debates over a period of time as to how that can and should be done. I don't know if the Senator was there when we had the Secretary of Defense briefing Members of the Senate. He was asked specifically: Was there more to do? His response was: We will have a chance after the first of the year. As someone who listened to that briefing, I certainly felt, as a Senator from Massachusetts having supported the past Defense appropriations bills, we had done what was necessary to secure the defense and to carry forward America's interest in the battle against terrorists. Now I ask this question: It appears to me we have followed our experts in assuring that those who are going to be on the front lines of the military will have the best resources. Shouldn't we follow the experts who are similarly engaged in trying to advise us as Americans what we can do and must do in order to battle against bioterrorism? It seems to me in reading through the thoughtful, compelling rationale for the Senator's amendment, that is just what this amendment does. I ask further if the Senator would not agree. We have just heard in the past few weeks the head of homeland security, former Governor Ridge, say: Next year, we are going to have to spend billions and billions of dollars to build up our public health systems so we will be able to have an early warning system in this country. That is what has been recommended by the public health system that has studied the program. He is talking about billions and billions of dollars next year. We have had the work group on bioterrorism preparedness, a conference of leading experts in bioterrorism and public health. It is probably the most distinguished group of individuals that have studied this problem--long before September 11. Many have been involved in the elimination of smallpox, as has Dr. Henderson. And having worked in the former Soviet Union, he recommended we needed at least $835 million just to begin to meet the public health needs to fight bioterrorists. That recommendation was made prior to the anthrax incident. We have had the National Governors Association discussing their estimate in terms of the needs they face in public health. We have had the American Hospital Association discussing $11 billion so hospitals can be prepared. We have had Johns Hopkins University, which houses probably the most thoughtful bioterrorist center in the country, which Dr. Henderson headed. They said just to make the hospitals ready in the major cities is another $750 million. This is billions and billions of dollars. I am impressed by the fact that the Senator's amendment is a modest amendment. It is targeted to current needs and can be expended immediately in order to make sure there would be safety and security for our fellow Americans. I have difficulty understanding why the administration wants to wait until next year to start this process when we know if we wait, we are putting at risk the lives and the well-being of our fellow citizens. I am interested in asking the Senator, if we are listening to the best in terms of our military advice, shouldn't we listen to those experts in the area of bioterrorism who are advising and giving us notice. Shouldn't we listen to those experts who have an awareness of the countries needs, and try the best we can to follow their recommendations? Is not the Senator's amendment a reflection of the best in terms of those who have studied this problem?

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question now or sometime later in his presentation, whatever would be agreeable? There are some questions in particular on Nunn-Lugar I am interested in addressing to the Senator as it applies to the whole issue of bioterrorism. But I am glad to wait, if he desires, to inquire of him after he has some additional time for his presentation.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. To keep it that way, nuclear power companies and the NRC recognize the need to reassure the public that their plants are secure--not only secure in the sense of the pre-September 11 world, but also impervious in the post-September 11 world. That may be one tough job. Nuclear plants, though built to tough standards, were not designed to withstand the impact of a commercial jetliner. But what is really disturbing may be that, even though the plants have been designed with a goal of stopping an assault on land--something along the lines of well-armed intruders in heavy trucks or SUVs storming the plant--their tested security performance is surprisingly poor. In fact, according to another recent article in The Washington Post though the plants are always warned in advance about the NRC's tests, which involve mock assaults by actor-intruders, 47 percent have revealed ``significant weaknesses'' in their security forces-- significant being something in the realm of an American Chernobyl. There are, however, other less well-publicized security problems at our nuclear facilities that need attention now. Questions about just who is employed in our nuclear program in this country are begging to be addressed. The Los Alamos Laboratory scandal provided a mere glimpse of the security challenges confronting a field whose payrolls are thick with foreign-born employees, and a nation that has long provided educations to foreign students seeking to build careers in such fields as nuclear physics. Moreover, in response to concerns about ``dirty'' bombs, many industry critics are currently looking with renewed concern at the 40,000 tons of spent fuel stored at operating and shut down plants in our own country. These radioactive pools, housed in standard concrete or corrugated buildings, have never been the focus of NRC security tests. The Union of Concerned Scientists reportedly refers to these buildings as ``Kmarts without neon.'' To a determined terrorist, they are thrift stores of bomb-making material. NRC Chairman Richard A. Meserve, conservatively referring to the events of September 11 as ``a wake-up call,'' conceded that the terrorist acts have changed the agency's attitude about ``reasonably foreseeable'' threats, and ordered a ``top to bottom'' review of security rules. But whatever the outcome of the review, action is needed sooner rather than later. The plants have already been placed on high-alert. Defenses have been bolstered on land, in the air, and on nearby waterways. Patrols of local police, as well as private security businesses and even some National Guardsmen, have been stepped up. All of these measures are costly. And a new review of our nuclear plants under the lens of terrorism potential is sure to identify additional security risks and recommend additional security measures. Make no mistake about it, our over-dependence on foreign fuels, particularly from lands where political tensions run high, is a vulnerability waiting to be exploited. If our energy grid is dismantled, if our power plants are attacked, if our nuclear advances are pirated and turned against us, America will feel the shockwaves. Moreover, if our nuclear plants are assaulted, if they can be made into weapons in our own backyard, the confidence of the public so carefully nurtured by the nuclear industry in recent years would be destroyed. It would be a heavy blow to our Nation's energy security. I am happy to yield to the distinguished senior Senator from the State of Massachusetts, if he so desires.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join Senator McCain in introducing the American Field Service Recognition Act to correct the long-standing injustice suffered by these courageous World War II veterans who saved the lives of so many American and Allied service members, but who have long been denied the veterans benefits that they need and deserve. The American Field Service was a corps of nearly 2200 Americans, who drove ambulances into combat zones where American and Allied troops fought between 1939 and 1945. Twenty-seven were killed, seventy-one were wounded, and at least twenty-three were captured during that time. The AFS members were volunteers who wanted to contribute to the war effort, but many were ineligible for service in the U.S. Armed Forces because of their age or their physical disability. The AFS received substantial support from the American government and its personnel were assigned in the theaters of North Africa, Western Europe, and India- Burma. During the war, the AFS evacuated approximately 700,000 wounded on these fronts. Their application under a 1970's law for veterans' benefits was finally, but only partially, approved in 1990. The request for eligibility was that each AFS driver must have served under direct U.S. Army command during prescribed periods of time. The result was to exclude AFS drivers who served in France and North Africa before January 1943, half of the drivers who served in Italy, and all who served in the India-Burma Theater. Overall, because of this narrow interpretation of the law, fifty percent of the drivers who served under fire were denied benefits given to other drivers who served in other combat regions. Sadly, AFS drivers are passing away at an increasingly rapid rate. There are currently 631 living drivers from World War II on the AFS roster, and 198 of them are still ineligible for benefits, including six who have recently passed away without access to VA medical care. Clearly, these courageous veterans, such as Clifford Bissler of Stuart, FL, who lost a leg and received two Purple Hearts for his service in the India-Burma Theater, deserve the help and recognition that this legislation will bring. In 1943, President Roosevelt wrote to the leader of AFS and said of the drivers, ``In serving our allies, they serve America.'' It is long, long past time for Congress to finally recognize the contributions of all of these dedicated Americans who served during World War II, granting them the veteran's benefits and assistance that they very much need and deserve. If you would like to cosponsor this bill, please contact us or have your staff contact Duane Seward at 224-2008.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join Senator McCain in introducing the American Field Service Recognition Act to correct the long-standing injustice suffered by these courageous World War II veterans who saved the lives of so many American and Allied service members, but who have long been denied the veterans benefits that they need and deserve. The American Field Service was a corps of nearly 2200 Americans, who drove ambulances into combat zones where American and Allied troops fought between 1939 and 1945. Twenty-seven were killed, seventy-one were wounded, and at least twenty-three were captured during that time. The AFS members were volunteers who wanted to contribute to the war effort, but many were ineligible for service in the U.S. Armed Forces because of their age or their physical disability. The AFS received substantial support from the American government and its personnel were assigned in the theaters of North Africa, Western Europe, and India- Burma. During the war, the AFS evacuated approximately 700,000 wounded on these fronts. Their application under a 1970's law for veterans' benefits was finally, but only partially, approved in 1990. The request for eligibility was that each AFS driver must have served under direct U.S. Army command during prescribed periods of time. The result was to exclude AFS drivers who served in France and North Africa before January 1943, half of the drivers who served in Italy, and all who served in the India-Burma Theater. Overall, because of this narrow interpretation of the law, fifty percent of the drivers who served under fire were denied benefits given to other drivers who served in other combat regions. Sadly, AFS drivers are passing away at an increasingly rapid rate. There are currently 631 living drivers from World War II on the AFS roster, and 198 of them are still ineligible for benefits, including six who have recently passed away without access to VA medical care. Clearly, these courageous veterans, such as Clifford Bissler of Stuart, FL, who lost a leg and received two Purple Hearts for his service in the India-Burma Theater, deserve the help and recognition that this legislation will bring. In 1943, President Roosevelt wrote to the leader of AFS and said of the drivers, ``In serving our allies, they serve America.'' It is long, long past time for Congress to finally recognize the contributions of all of these dedicated Americans who served during World War II, granting them the veteran's benefits and assistance that they very much need and deserve. If you would like to cosponsor this bill, please contact us or have your staff contact Duane Seward at 224-2008.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I oppose this nomination. We have a real opportunity to strengthen the nation's efforts against substance abuse, and we ought to take advantage of it. We rely heavily today on police, prosecutors, and prisons to handle this problem. There's too little emphasis on prevention and treatment. Spending for prevention and treatment has never exceeded one-third of the federal drug-control budget. This unacceptable situation continues, in spite of overwhelming evidence that drug treatment works. In 1994, a landmark study, the California Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment, found that every dollar spent on treatment saves taxpayers $7 in future costs for crime and health care. A 1997 study by the Rand Corporation found that treatment for heavy cocaine users is three times more effective at reducing cocaine consumption than mandatory minimum sentences, and 11 times more effective than interdiction. A study by the Institute of Medicine showed that treatment was effective in reducing criminal activity and emergency-room visits, and in increasing rates of employment. In 1997, the Department of Justice reported that offenders who complete drug-court programs are only one-third as likely to be arrested for new drug offenses or felonies compared to other offenders, and only one-fourth as likely to violate probation or parole. Now more than ever, Americans support prevention and treatment. They understand that we cannot stop substance abuse without reducing the demand for drugs. In the nation's efforts against substance abuse, prevention and treatment must become equal partners with incarceration and interdiction. To his credit, President Bush has called for closing the treatment gap. He has stated that ``the most effective way to reduce the supply of drugs in America is to reduce the demand for drugs in America.'' Thanks to the leadership of Senator Leahy, Senator Hatch, and Senator Biden, the Judiciary Committee passed a bill last week to increase federal funding for drug education, prevention, and treatment. there is much more, however, that we must do to see that all Americans understand that drug use is harmful, and that effective treatment is available to every addict who wants it. The nomination of John Walters sends exactly the opposite signal. As a longtime critic of drug treatment, he's the wrong man for the job. In 1996, he ridiculed President Clinton's proposal to provide drug treatment to chronic users as ``the latest manifestation of the liberals' commitment to a `therapeutic state' in which government serves as the agent of personal rehabilitation.'' Last March, Mr. Walters described the view that addiction is a disease of the brain as an ``ideology'' promulgated by the ``therapy-only lobby.'' Mr. Walters has emphasized punishment and prisons as the primary solution to the problem of drugs. He has criticized attempts to reform mandatory-minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenses. The United States now has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world. Yet Mr. Walters recently declared that ``[t]he war on crime and drugs is rapidly losing ground to the war on punishment and prisons.'' In his response to the Judiciary Committee's questionnaire, Mr. Walters said that during the first Bush administration, he was ``a principal author of a new drug strategy and federal spending plan that targeted more resources for treatment than any administration before or after.'' But as Mr. Walters has admitted, the Clinton administration spent substantially more--not less--on drug treatment. As for the increases that did occur during the Bush administration, Mr. Walters fought them all the way. At his nomination hearing on October 10, I pressed Mr. Walters on whether he would try to balance federal spending for demand-reduction and supply-control efforts. Saying only that he was not ``notionally'' opposed to equal spending, he refused to give an answer. Before the hearing, the president of the Betty Ford Center wrote that he and Mrs. Ford questioned whether Mr. Walters has ``the confidence in the treatment and prevention strategies that . . . are necessary for the creation and implementation of a balanced and thoughtful approach to U.S. drug policy.'' Mr. Walters' comments on race are also troubling. In 1997, he criticized General Barry McCaffrey for sending ``the wrong message'' when he expressed concern about the high percentage of African-Americans being imprisoned for drug offenses. Earlier this year, he categorically dismissed the view that the criminal justice system unjustly punishes African-American men as one of ``the great urban myths of our time.'' Racial discrimination is offensive and unacceptable in all its aspects. The need to eliminate it continues to be one of the nation's important challenges. It is undisputed that even though blacks and whites use illegal drugs at the same rate, blacks are incarcerated for drug offenses at a much higher rate. Mr. Walters was asked to justify his ``urban myth'' statement, but he only cited unrelated statistics on murder rates. We need a Drug Czar who has, at the very least, an open mind about the possibility of racial bias in drug sentencing. Mr. Walters' supporters contend that despite his longstanding opposition to increased treatment funding, and his very recent criticism of drug therapy, he is the right choice to revitalize our drug-control efforts and close the country's treatment gap. I hope that they are right, and that those of us who oppose him are wrong. I am concerned, however, that by approving this nomination today, we are losing our best opportunity to develop a more balanced and more effective national strategy on drug abuse.