Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Adam Solander, an intern on my staff, be granted floor privileges during the debate on the Food and Drug Administration Revitalization Act.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, this week the Senate has the opportunity to set a new and better direction for the safety of the prescription drugs and medical devices that make such a profound difference in the lives of our people. Every day, families across America rely on the Food and Drug Administration in ways they barely realize. When they put dinner on the table, they are counting on the FDA to see that the food is free from contamination. They trust the FDA to make sure the drugs they take are safe and effective. From prescription drugs, to pacemakers, to chemotherapy, to the food we eat, the FDA protects the health of hundreds of millions of Americans and monitors products that account for a quarter of the Nation's economy. The FDA should be the ``gold standard'' for safety, but its luster has been tarnished in recent years for failure to protect the American people from unsafe drugs. The public was shocked that the arthritis drug Vioxx was able to stay on the market for 5 years, even though it nearly doubled the risk of heart attack and stroke. Antidepressants used by millions were found to increase the risk of suicide in adolescents. Millions of Americans have needlessly been put at risk, and they want action by Congress to reform and strengthen the agency. We are responding now with bipartisan legislation that is the product of months of work in our committee. I commend my colleague and friend in this effort, Senator Enzi, for his work on this proposal that will improve the way FDA oversees the safety of drugs. Almost half of all Americans take at least one pill a day, so this legislation will make a difference in the lives of every American family. Our proposals were strengthened by our colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg. Safety is at the core. Our legislation was guided by the recommendations of the impressive report by the Institute of Medicine on the ``Future of Drug Safety.'' Its major recommendations for reform are included in this legislation. This chart I have in the Chamber gives the major recommendations for the Food and Drug Administration: Build the internal epidemiology and informatics capacity in order to improve the postmarket assessment of drugs, have postclinical trial results in a public database, have regularly analyzed postmarket study results. This aspect about postmarketing surveillance is a key in terms of drug safety. We have included their recommendations. Another is: Give the FDA better enforcement tools. I am going to refer to that in a moment. Another is: Conduct regular evaluation of new drug safety profiles. We have included that. I will expand on that point in a few moments. Another is: Substantially increase drug safety resources available to the FDA. We have also included those. So those were recommendations from the Institute of Medicine. We have reviewed the same subject matter. We evaluated those very carefully and we have taken the major recommendations in terms of safety and included them in this legislation. A small number of health systems in America--now referring to postmarketing surveillance and the use of electronic records-- effectively links the surveillance of various kinds of prescription drugs to safety databases. These systems--Kaiser Permanente, Mayo Clinic, Veterans' Administration--have the means to examine whether Vioxx and other drugs were being used effectively. They found these drugs were being prescribed inappropriately, and they took steps to curb their overuse. As a result, they approved the use of these medications only for patients who had no other options. Overuse went down and safety improved. The use of these databases should not be limited to the few health systems that currently use them. FDA should make use of every aspect of modern health care technology to safeguard the public's health. Mark McClellan, the former FDA Commissioner, calls these kinds of systems health IT for drug safety. Our proposal includes his recommendations. Surveillance is essential, but effective action is needed when a safety problem is detected. Each drug has unique risks and benefits. There can be no one-size-fits-all approach to drug safety. That is why our legislation includes a flexible but effective program for safety. We call it a risk evaluation and management system. It can be tailored to the unique characteristics of each drug. It gives the FDA the authority to act when action is needed to protect public health, but it also contains safeguards to prevent such action from being imposed when there is no reason to do so. For some drugs, it is essential to require postmarket studies, yet FDA today lacks the basic authority to require such trials to be conducted. FDA can request them but it cannot require them, and has few ways to see they are completed. As a result, companies routinely promise to conduct studies that are never even started, much less completed. This chart I have in the Chamber shows how, under current law, postmarket studies are not completed. These are the studies that have been requested by the FDA because they are for sound safety reasons. Yet 71 percent of them were not even started. Our legislation says when they are required and recommended by the company, they must move ahead. In its recent report on drug safety, GAO pointed out the failure of the current system. Its report states: In the absence of specific authority, FDA often relies on drug sponsors voluntarily agreeing to conduct such postmarketing studies. But the postmarketing studies that drug sponsors agree to conduct have not consistently been completed. The FDA has little leverage to ensure that the studies are carried out by imposing administrative penalties. Our legislation solves this problem. It gives the FDA clear authority to require the conduct of the postmarketing studies when there is a public health need to do so, and it gives the FDA the ability to assess fines on those who ignore their responsibilities. Databases and postmarketing studies help detect problems, but the FDA needs the ability to take other action to protect the public health. Here, too, the current law is inadequate. FDA lacks clear authority to require measures to protect public health. When lives are on the line, doctors are making the critical decisions. But because FDA's authority is so unclear, it must first call the lawyers for their opinion as to whether the agency can act. The Institute of Medicine identified this major weakness of current law and called on Congress to give FDA the authority to require risk management programs when needed to protect health. These programs can be as simple as new information on a drug label or an advisory notice to doctors or as sophisticated as special monitoring of programs for patients who use a particular drug. The legislation does not make the decision about which measures should be taken for which drugs, but it does give the FDA the authority to make the right choice for the public health. This authority has been lacking in the past. For Vioxx, it took 14 months to change the drug's label to warn doctors and patients of the danger. Because FDA had weak authority, it had to ask the manufacturer to change the label voluntarily, and the manufacturer stalled and stalled. When patients are in danger, FDA should not have to wait to get legal opinions to decide how to protect health. It should be able to act immediately, and our bill gives them that authority. In many cases, companies have hidden evidence of safety problems. Our bill addresses this abuse by including a public database of all clinical trials and their results. Listen to that: all clinical trials and their results. We protect the trademark aspects of the particular item but require the publication of all clinical trials and their results. A company will no longer be able to hide the results if they do not show what the company wanted. Some would say any increase in drug safety will inevitably decrease access to needed drugs, but that is a false argument. Consider the situation now. When the FDA is confronted with a new drug that may impose safety risks, or where additional study may be required, with little expectations that those risks will be mitigated by a voluntary approach--and with no ability to ensure that the studies are going to be conducted--FDA might reasonably conclude the risks of approving the drug are too great and, therefore, not approve it. Under our legislation, the calculation is reversed. With this bill in place, FDA could allow patients to have access to the drug, secure in the knowledge that effective safety measures were in place. That is not my judgment; it is the judgment of a coalition of advocacy organizations representing over 30 million patients. This coalition, the Alliance for Drug Safety and Access, wrote Congress a letter saying: [T]his legislation gives the FDA the ability to continue to study the safety of drugs after approval, flexible enforcement tools necessary to ensure compliance with these new safety protections, and additional funding to support these new activities. Allowing the agency to act on clear safety signals could actually allow the FDA to approve drugs more quickly, knowing it will have the ability to respond on behalf of patients if safety concerns appear postmarket. That is support from the organization that has been put together that is protecting safety for the consumers. That is the balance our legislation strikes: greater safety, hand in hand with better access. As our debate continues, I will discuss additional aspects of the legislation, especially its new ideas for accelerating drug development, its renewal of our commitment to safe and effective drugs for children, and its provisions to improve drug science, and increase the transparency of the FDA. We are also working with our colleagues from Iowa and Kansas, Senator Harkin and Senator Roberts, on ways to refine our provisions on direct- to-consumer advertising, to make certain they are consistent with the Constitution. We are working with Senator Durbin and other colleagues on the committee on proposals for food safety on pet food. These bipartisan proposals are being readied for floor action shortly. I look forward to further discussions on them. Our committee will continue to work to improve the ways FDA can monitor and improve food safety. In this new era of life sciences, medical advances will continue to bring immense benefit for our citizens. To fulfil the potential of that bright future, we need not only brilliant researchers to develop the drugs of tomorrow but also strong and vigilant watchdogs for public health to guarantee that new drugs and medical devices are safe and beneficial, and that they actually reach the patients who urgently need them. Congress has ample power to restore the luster the FDA has lost in recent years. The legislation we are now considering represents a bipartisan consensus on the best way to get the job done. I want to mention a few additional items. I am quoting now from the FDA's report brief on 2006: The Food and Drug Administration's authorities must be clarified and strengthened to empower the agency to take rapid, decisive action when necessary and appropriate. FDA lacks the clear, unambiguous authority needed to enforce sponsor compliance with regulatory requirements and, instead, relies on the process of productive negotiations with the industry. We have taken that. That is their No. 1 statement. Included in that we have--this is the IOM committee. The committee recommends that the FDA ensure that the FDA has the ability to require postmarketing risk assessment and to monitor and ensure the safe use of drugs. We have done it. These conditions may be imposed both before and after approval of a new drug, a new indication or a new dosage. We have incorporated those concepts, as well as the identification of some new contraindications or patterns of adverse effects. It talks about the distribution, conditioned on compliance, with agency-initiated changes and drug labels. We have achieved that. Conditioned on specific warnings, proposal materials, distribution conditioned on a moratorium, on direct consumer advertising. We have at least addressed that. It also includes distribution of restrictions for special training, if need be, for pharmacists and physicians. It also has distribution conditions on the performance of specific medical procedures. It talks about clinical trials. FDA needs increased enforcement authority, better enforcement tools directed at drug sponsors which should include fines and injunctions and withdrawal of drug approval. We haven't taken every one of these recommendations--not every one precisely--but we have taken the essence of these recommendations, and we have included those that are as a result of our extensive hearings. I could go on with this, and will later on perhaps, but I won't today. I wish to mention, finally, the various groups. We mentioned the Alliance for Drug Safety and Access. I will include these letters of support. This is to Senators Kennedy and Enzi: On behalf of the Alliance for Drug Safety and Access, we write today to express our support for the goals of titles I and II of S. 1082, the Food and Drug Administration Revitalization Act. It will continue the timely access of patients to new therapies and will improve the ability of the Food and Drug Administration to ensure safety of drugs already on the market. S. 1082 takes a life-cycle approach to the risk-benefit assessment of drugs and biologics-- This is so, though we have not included biologics in this proposal with regard to drugs as endorsed by the Alliance and recommended by the Institute. We are pleased that this legislation gives the FDA the ability to continue to study the safety of drugs after approval, flexible enforcement tools necessary to ensure compliance with the new safety protections, and additional funding to support these new activities. It allows the FDA to approve drugs more quickly, knowing it will have the ability to respond to the patients if safety concerns appear afterwards. This represents a group of at least 30 different health organizations that have followed this most closely. We have a letter that has been sent to Senator Enzi and myself, Senator Dodd and Senator Clinton, talking about how this legislation impacts children and giving special recognition, as they should, to our colleagues and friends, Senator Dodd, who has been such a leader in this area, and Senator Clinton as well, who has been so thoughtful in this area. It points out the Pediatric Medical Device Safety Improvement Act of 2000 provides a comprehensive approach to ensure that children are not left behind in cutting-edge research and revolutionary technologies for medical devices. It talks about swift action and passage. The American Psychiatric Association talks about how the provisions of this bill will ensure the Food and Drug Administration is equipped with the necessary tools to enhance its consistency, transparency, and accountability in ensuring the safety of drugs postapproval. The American Psychiatric Association advocates for patient safety and supports further postmarket research of medications to ensure the safety and efficacy of medications used to treat mental illnesses. The letter says: We look forward to working with you to rebuild the Administration's reputation and creating a universal drug safety monitoring system that is reliable and dependable. They indicate their strong support for the legislation. Again, another letter of support from the American College of Pharmacy, and it talks about the particular emphasis we have placed on improving science knowledge, which improves their decisionmaking regulatory oversight. Science knowledge grows on a daily basis. We know we are in the life science century. We want that agency, the FDA, to have the best in terms of science and science knowledge, and we have included special provisions to enhance that particular effort, and this association has recognized that. We also have a letter from the Consumers Union, and they talk about their strong support for this legislation. They oppose any weakening amendments of this important legislation. It also has some reference to some of the recent polls which point out that 96 percent of Americans agree that Government should have the power to require warning labels if safety problems are identified, with 80 percent of those strongly agreeing to that authority. Right now the FDA has to negotiate safety warnings. It also talks about the strong support the American people have for the FDA, which doesn't have the authority to provide studies to be performed once the drug is on the market. The American people are way ahead of us. They also show strong support to make public the clinical trial studies. This bill does that. Sixty-eight percent of the American people strongly agree the drug studies should be made public. Eighty-four percent of the American people believe advertising for prescription drugs with safety concerns should be prohibited. Then it continues: Three-quarters of consumers agree that drug ads lead to overprescribing, with 38 percent strongly agreeing and 59 percent agreeing that the Government should restrict advertising by pharmaceutical companies altogether. We haven't gone that route, but we have taken safety considerations to heart. Then the other letters from the Cardiovascular Association that talk about the particular provisions dealing with children, the pediatric provisions in here which are enormously important, and other letters. I ask unanimous consent that the appropriate representative group of letters be printed in the Record and the references to some of the editorials from across the country--I am not going to ask that they all be printed, but I will ask that selected ones be printed in the Record and that other newspapers be referenced showing strong support.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we have very solid legislation that is going to make a very important difference--very important difference in protecting the American consumer. We now have in place leadership at the Food and Drug Administration; for 5 of the last 6 years that has not been so. We have in place leadership, and we are going to give that agency the kind of tools necessary for protection the American people are entitled to and to restore the kind of luster that should go with the Food and Drug Administration, which is so important to the health and well-being of American families.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I was necessarily absent from the Senate at the conclusion of Senator Enzi's remarks. I again thank him for an excellent presentation, with the emphasis on the safety aspects of this legislation. I think all of us are reassured we are on the right track, not only as a result of the extensive hearings we held but the very extensive review the Institute of Medicine gave, a highly regarded, highly respected agency. During the course of the hearings, we had very good attendance and exchange of the representatives of the Institute of Medicine, and we have worked with them subsequently in terms of the language and refinements. As we said, we didn't just copy everything, but the essential aspect of the safety provisions in our legislation is, quite frankly, preferable. I look forward to working closely with Senator Enzi as well on the other areas of public policy in terms of food safety and the follow-on biologics which we are very much involved in as well. I thank the Senator from Ohio for his comments. We know him for being someone who has spent a great deal of time making sure safe drugs are going to get to people who need them. There are many dimensions to this debate. He has certainly been one whom, over the course of time, on the Health Committee in the House of Representatives, I have had an opportunity to work with on a number of health issues. He has been very active and involved with this issue on our committee and also on making sure we are going to have not only safe drugs but also have access to them. I will take a moment, because I think it is probably worthwhile in the opening presentation, to go through one of the real safety crises we had with prescription drugs and look at what existing authority was there and then how that could have been handled under that legislation. People will look through this legislation--it is not all that long, but it is complex. The results are enormously important and very basic and very fundamental. I use Vioxx as a point of illustration, which I think most Americans remember the circumstances where hundreds of thousands of Americans with heart needs were put at risk. This was really the question--this is the FDA Reauthorization Act-- how we could have averted the Vioxx disaster. I think people are beginning to study this legislation, and also our colleagues who are reviewing the record ask about how this legislation can make a difference on a particular drug. This chart is very useful in understanding that point. Can the FDA quickly detect safety problems with a drug? Vioxx, no. Under our legislation, the answer is yes. Senator Enzi gave an excellent presentation about how that can be done using the most modern technology, using the greatest availability of public and private collections of adverse reactions, and bringing those together within the agency. We know all of that is going to gradually expand in the future, so that agency will have the best of science. They will be able to protect safety. The answer with this legislation is yes. Can the FDA require label changes to warn of safety problems? The answer with Vioxx was no. They spent 14 months trying to negotiate the issue of the labels. Under our legislation, they would be able to do that. I mention that as one of the things they will be able to do. They can either take the drug off the market--they have the power to do it. It is not done because you don't want to take the chance that there may be some people in the public, given the health risks, who are justified in taking that particular medication, but for the great mass of people, it might not be. Can we put label changes on? They would be able to do it very quickly. Are companies stopped from hiding safety problems? This comes back to what both Senator Enzi and I referenced in making public clinical trials. That is enormously important. Senator Mikulski has been very involved in the transparency parts of this legislation. I hope those in the Senate who are interested and concerned about the issues of transparency might take a moment and talk with Senator Mikulski. Hopefully, she will speak on these issues because she has made a very important contribution. Part of this transparency is that these clinical trials will be available, to understand the significance of any safety problems, which hasn't been the case, but they will also be available to people who may want to enroll in a clinical trial, who have a particular illness, a particular disease and know there is a particular trial that is going to take place and say: I think I want to enroll in that particular trial because it is taking place. People don't know that now. That is enormously important and valuable to people. Whoever becomes part of a clinical trial and finds out a particular drug can be lifesaving, it is of enormous importance and consequence. We have the knowledge of the clinical trial in terms of safety but also in terms of the opportunities that are coming up, particularly in this period of life sciences, with these extraordinary breakthroughs we are seeing now--the mapping of the human genome, sequencing of the gene, and I think before long in stem cell research we are going to see incredible possibilities, and people are going to want to become part of clinical trials. But with regard to responding to this--are companies stopped from hiding safety problems, yes; does FDA have flexible tools to enforce safety decisions--it was expressed very well by Senator Enzi. He was talking about the big toolbox. That is the way we should look at it. There is a variety of tools in that toolbox. He explained that. There are a number of different ways that those who are committed to safety can titrate these different availabilities to ensure safety. Some may require a heavier hand than others. What we want, obviously, is to do enough to provide protection but not enough to discourage use where it is necessary. Finally, is FDA the gold standard for protecting public health and assuring access? We are strongly committed to making sure it is. We believe that with the safety protections we have put in the bill and also the inclusions, working with the pharmaceutical industry in terms of PDUFA and MDUFA to try to always find ways of expediting the consideration of these lifesaving drugs--that was one of the very important purposes, giving emphasis for research of many of the areas of health that are of such concern to the American people: cancer, cardiovascular issues, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, juvenile diabetes disease, the AIDS virus, and many others--we can try to move toward a better relationship between the companies and FDA, in the sense that we can move this process, move more quickly, but do it more safely. That is what we are attempting to do, to ensure, in this life science century, that these breakthrough opportunities are going to be available and also do it in a way that will be safe. This is an example of one of the challenges the country has been facing recently, between the old and the new. We have tried this afternoon to describe in greater detail the various provisions of the legislation. We have not spent a great deal of time on the provisions which were supported by the Senator from Wyoming and myself with regard to children. Our committee has recognized, through the good work of Senator Dodd and Senator Clinton, the fact that children are not just little grownups; they are children. Many of these substances have different reactions, different impacts in terms of their development. It has taken special kinds of focus and attention to try to be more responsive to those needs. Our committee has done that. As a result, we see strong support from the American Pediatric Society and others for the way we have addressed those issues and modernized provisions to encourage greater research but also to protect the interests of children. We have strong support from the various groups that have spent their lifetime speaking for children. We will probably have an opportunity to get into some greater detail in discussion of those provisions. As I mentioned briefly in our comments, we have recognized the importance of developing and upgrading the science function in this agency. We think the FDA--at a time we are having breakthroughs in knowledge, in science, in so many areas, we want to make sure the FDA is out there on the cutting edge with respect to these breakthroughs and know where they are going. We have paid particular attention to those as well. Then the Udall-Reagan Foundation is to try to look longer term at ways in which the agency functions and take a longer look to make recommendations to the private sector and to the public sector about how it can be more effective generally. That kind of idea has not been included in the past. It can very well be enormously valuable and helpful to legislators in the future. We have tried to get legislation that will provide the protection presently, help and assist breakthrough technologies, and provide a faster track for the American people in the future, but to do it with greater safety protections for all families, and to recognize we are at a time of breakthrough science, which that agency has to have, and there are going to be breakthroughs in different modalities in that agency working in the future. We have tried to build into this an agency that can give us advice so we can be more effective in the future. I hope we will be able to move ahead. I know we have gone through, in careful detail, the administration's positions over the weekend. We certainly respect those. We have had a good exchange with the administration. For those who are interested, if they read through the letter they sent to Senator Enzi and myself, and then if they look at the recommendation of the Institute of Medicine, they will find we are much closer to the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine. We may face some amendments in those areas. We look forward to having a good discussion and debate and the opportunity to expand some of the points we have made this evening.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we have the legislation before us. We hope those who have an interest and have some ideas, have some amendments, will be in touch with Senator Enzi and ourselves through this late afternoon, early evening, or first thing in the morning. We want to try to address those amendments early in the day, as early as we can. We understand both parties have their lunches and have important matters to discuss, and I am sure this will be among them. But we are ready for any of the amendments, as I underline what Senator Enzi has said. We had great participation in our markup with the members of our committee. As he mentioned as well, we have had enormous involvement of our committee members and many others over the period since the legislation was reported out of our committee until now. We are still in the process of trying to do business because we think this legislation is so important. We hope those who do have amendments will be in touch with us at the earliest possible time.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent we now go into a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that the following members of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the debate on the Food and Drug Administration Revitalization Act of 2007: Nicky Bassford, David Dorsey, David Noll--and Nancy Hardt, with Senator Bingaman.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand that H.R. 1332, has been received from the House and is at the desk, and I would ask for its first reading.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I now ask for a second reading, and I object to my own request.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 10 a.m., Tuesday, May 1; that on Tuesday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day; that there be a period of morning business for 60 minutes, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the first half controlled by the Republicans and the final portion under the control of the majority; that at the close of morning business, the Senate then resume consideration of S. 1082; that the Senate stand in recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m., for the regularly scheduled conference periods.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. If there is no further business today, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Chair notify me when I have 15 seconds remaining?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, I wish to congratulate our Democratic leader for his bold and decisive leadership and his determination to bring our troops home from Iraq in an orderly, responsible, and safe way. Those who are disparaging him are engaged in nothing more than a ploy to change the focus of the debate. Harry Reid is an effective and capable leader. What the American people and our soldiers in Iraq need is new leadership from the White House and a new policy in Iraq that requires the Iraqis to take responsibilities and our troops to begin to come home. A timeline for the withdrawal of combat troops is the only realistic way to encourage the Iraqis to take responsibility for their future. The Bush administration supported deadlines for three Iraqi elections and for writing of the Constitution as part of its strategy to ensure that Iraqis would make essential decisions. Yet the administration remains emphatically opposed to any timeline for the withdrawal of our military. The administration should follow the logic of its past action and embrace, rather than reject, a timeline. It should stop defying the will of the American people who want to bring our troops home to the heroes' welcome they have earned. The President is wrong to threaten to veto this legislation, he was wrong to get us into this war, wrong to conduct it so poorly, wrong to ignore the views of the American people, and wrong to accuse those of us who are working to change course as harming our troops. Now he is wrong to threaten to veto this bill, delaying funds and keeping our troops in a civil war with no end in sight to our commitment. Instead, President Bush should be listening to the American people and working with Congress to bring this tragic war to an end. Instead of continuing to defy the will of the American people and Congress by threatening to veto the legislation, he should be putting the Iraqis on notice. He must make it clear to the Iraqi Government that it is time for them to take responsibility for their country and resolve their political differences. The American military will not police Iraq's civil war indefinitely. It is time to end the loss of American lives and to begin to bring our soldiers home. For the sake of our troops, we cannot repeat the mistakes of Vietnam and allow this to drag on long after the American people know it is a mistake. We have Presidents who make mistakes. President Johnson was wrong in escalating in Vietnam. President Nixon was wrong to continue that escalation, and we saw the loss of 58,000 American lives. Presidents make mistakes. This President has made this mistake. The American people were right in Vietnam and brought that war to an end, and the American people are right now. No one in the administration can tell the American people in good faith and in good conscience that we are making progress in Iraq. Iraq is sliding deeper into civil war, and our military cannot solve their problems. It is time the President listen to the Iraq Study Group, the Congress, and the American people and work with us to bring our troops home. Mr. President, yesterday the United Nations issued a progress report on the progress of violence in Iraq. I ask unanimous consent that sections of that report be printed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am very pleased that this conference report includes the minimum wage bill. After 10 long years, we will finally be able to send a minimum wage increase to the President. It's long overdue, and it's yet another reason why the President should sign this important bill. The minimum wage bill passed the House and Senate by overwhelming margins in January and February of this year. Under it, minimum wage workers will get a raise of $2.10 per hour. Those who work full time will earn an additional $4,400 a year. That's enough to pay for utilities that might otherwise be shut off, to put gas in the car so you can get to work, or to pay for after- school care for a son or daughter who might otherwise be left home alone. In many ways, including the minimum wage increase in this bill on Iraq couldn't be more appropriate. The minimum wage represents the values our troops are fighting for--basic fairness. It's about what we stand for as a Nation. Americans believe that hard work should help you build a better life for your family. They believe that a job should keep you out of poverty, not force you to live in poverty. Our troops are away fighting to provide a better future for the people of Iraq. We'd like to think that our men and women in uniform don't have to worry about the economic security of their families here at home. But many of our fighting forces have husbands or wives back at home who are struggling to make ends meet. Ten percent of military spouses earn between $5.15 and $7.25 per hour. 50,000 military families will benefit from an increase in the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour. Our troops are overseas putting their lives on the line for their country, and we should provide fair opportunities for their spouses who are working hard here at home. I hope we can provide these families--and all other struggling families across the country--with the fair wages they deserve as soon as possible. I hope the President will do the right thing for our troops and for America's minimum wage workers by signing this important bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, when we enacted the Children's Health Insurance Program a decade ago, we made a promise to low-income working families to assist them in obtaining health insurance coverage for their children, and we must continue to keep that promise. Today, with Senators Rockefeller and Snowe, I am pleased to introduce The Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007. CHIP has been a significant success, and has made a real difference in many children's lives. Over the past decade, the percentage of uninsured children has dropped dramatically, even though more and more of their parents have been losing coverage because employers decide to reduce it or drop it entirely. In its first year, the program enrolled nearly a million children, and enrollment has grown ever since. Average monthly enrollment is now 4 million, and over 6 million have been enrolled for at least part of the year. We know CHIP has made a difference in the lives of millions of children, but we also know that this is no time to rest on past success. We can and must do more to enroll the 6 million uninsured children who are eligible but not enrolled for CHIP and Medicaid, and to expand coverage so that all children can obtain the health care they need. The bill we are introducing today reauthorizes the program and it will make sure that states have enough funds to provide health care to all children who need this assistance. No parents should be faced with the impossible decision of whether they can afford to take their sick child to the doctor. The bill establishes a strong, reliable financing structure for CHIP. It more than doubles the Federal resources currently available over the next 5 years for covering children through CHIP. It ensures that all states will have the Federal matching funds needed both to sustain their existing programs and to move forward to cover the millions of children who are eligible for CHIP and Medicaid but remain unenrolled. Millions of uninsured children in America isn't just wrong. It's unacceptable. We need to act now in getting to guarantee them the health coverage they need. This bill adopts a variety of approaches to help states increase their enrollment. It strengthens CHIP by expanding the current program, improving its outreach, and making sure that all children have access to dental care and mental health services, so that good health care can be a reality for every child in America. Quality health care for children isn't just a good option or a nice idea. It's not merely something we wish we could do. It's something we have to do. It's an obligation. We started earlier this year by pledging what is needed in the budget, but we also need a CHIP reauthorization that gives children the coverage we've promised them for the healthy future they deserve. The bill we're introducing today does that. There's a reason the CHIP program has always enjoyed bipartisan support. It's because all of us know how important it is that all children have the chance to get a healthy start in life. I look forward to working to make sure all children get the health care they need, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Protecting America's Workers Act. This week, on Workers' Memorial Day, we remember those who have been killed or injured on the job, and we reaffirm our commitment to workers and their families to do all we can to end these senseless tragedies. We've made progress in protecting worker safety since we passed the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970. But too many workers still are not safe. In 2005 alone, over 5,700 workers were killed on the job. Over 4 million became ill or were injured. That's nearly 16 deaths and 12,000 workplace injuries or illnesses each and every day. Last year, the tragic deaths of miners at Sago and Alma mines showed us the gaps and shortcomings in mine safety. Across the country, America saw the senseless deaths of workers and the suffering of their families and friends. Every day, workers in other industries are facing equally dangerous conditions. Those dangers may not make headlines, but they continue to threaten workers' health, their lives, and their families' security. One of the most obvious problems is that literally millions of employees today are not covered by our safety laws. Too many other firms blatantly ignore the law and refuse to do what is necessary to keep their employees safe. Too often, as well, we find that those responsible for administering our safety laws aren't doing their job--not issuing new safety standards, not vigorously enforcing the law, and not even going after the worst offenders. Many companies are doing too little to deal with this challenge. Some employers blatantly ignore the law, but are rarely held accountable, even when their actions or neglect kill a loyal employee who works for them. Criminal penalties are so low that prosecutors don't pursue these cases. And employers who repeatedly violate the law--time and time again--pay only minimal fines, which they treat as just another cost of doing business. American workers and their families are paying the price. This includes people like Mike Morrison, who was killed while installing pipes at a construction site in Florida, when the nine-foot-deep trench he was working in collapsed. An OSHA investigation found that the trench had not been secured properly before workers were sent into it. The employer whose failures had killed Mike was fined a mere $21,000, a slap on the wrist. Two years earlier, the company had been cited and fined for other safety violations. As Mike's step-daughter Michelle says, ``If the penalties had been more substantial two years ago, maybe Mike's company would have complied with the law and protected him properly, and maybe he'd still be with us today.'' Or Eleazar Torres-Gomez, who was killed working at a laundry facility in Tulsa, OK, where he had been employed for seven years. Eleazar was dragged into an industrial dryer, where the temperatures were near 300 degrees. The company he worked for had been previously fined for not installing protective guards on a similar dryer and belt at one of its other plants. Eleazar's eldest son Emanuel said, ``If the company had added the guards, which it knew were required by OSHA, my father would be alive today. The sorrow we feel is overwhelming.'' And they include workers like Tracee Binion, a science teacher in Pinson, AL. Tracee became ill after renovations on her school exposed her to chemicals in unventilated classrooms. She developed chemical pneumonitis and chemically-induced asthma, lost weeks of school and to this day must manage her asthma with medication. In Alabama, Tracee and thousands of teachers like her are not covered by our safety laws. They have no one to call when they need protection from workplace hazards. We need to do everything we can to see that other workers and their families don't have to suffer the same grief. Congress can take concrete steps to address many of these failures. That's why today we are reintroducing the Protecting America's Workers Act. This legislation will do several key things: It expands the coverage of our safety laws to protect 8.6 million public employees and transportation workers. It requires OSHA to investigate every case where a worker is killed or seriously injured. And it gives family members greater rights to be part of accident investigations. It also protects workers who speak up about unsafe conditions on the job, by bringing OSHA whistleblower laws in line with protections in other areas. It puts real teeth in our safety laws by increasing penalties. These penalties have not been raised since 1990. This bill sets a minimum penalty of $50,000 for a worker's death caused by a willful safety violation. And it increases the maximum criminal penalty for killing or seriously injuring a worker to ten years of prison, instead of six months. Beyond this legislation, we must also find new and smarter ways of keeping workers safe. We must shine a light on OSHA to ensure that our safety laws are implemented the way they were intended--to protect workers by preventing hazards on the job. The administration needs to put workers first and get the job done. It's time to send a message to those who put their employees in harm's way that life and health must be valued above profit and greed. It's time to redouble our efforts and make our commitment a reality. It's time for Congress to act, so that the hardworking men and women of our country get what they deserve at last--the security of a safe and healthy workplace. I urge my colleagues to join me in fighting for safe workplaces for all of America's workers. The best way for Congress to honor the Nation's hardworking men and women on this Worker's Memorial Day is to end our complacency and see that the full promise of OSHA becomes a genuine reality for every working family in every community in America.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Protecting America's Workers Act. This week, on Workers' Memorial Day, we remember those who have been killed or injured on the job, and we reaffirm our commitment to workers and their families to do all we can to end these senseless tragedies. We've made progress in protecting worker safety since we passed the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970. But too many workers still are not safe. In 2005 alone, over 5,700 workers were killed on the job. Over 4 million became ill or were injured. That's nearly 16 deaths and 12,000 workplace injuries or illnesses each and every day. Last year, the tragic deaths of miners at Sago and Alma mines showed us the gaps and shortcomings in mine safety. Across the country, America saw the senseless deaths of workers and the suffering of their families and friends. Every day, workers in other industries are facing equally dangerous conditions. Those dangers may not make headlines, but they continue to threaten workers' health, their lives, and their families' security. One of the most obvious problems is that literally millions of employees today are not covered by our safety laws. Too many other firms blatantly ignore the law and refuse to do what is necessary to keep their employees safe. Too often, as well, we find that those responsible for administering our safety laws aren't doing their job--not issuing new safety standards, not vigorously enforcing the law, and not even going after the worst offenders. Many companies are doing too little to deal with this challenge. Some employers blatantly ignore the law, but are rarely held accountable, even when their actions or neglect kill a loyal employee who works for them. Criminal penalties are so low that prosecutors don't pursue these cases. And employers who repeatedly violate the law--time and time again--pay only minimal fines, which they treat as just another cost of doing business. American workers and their families are paying the price. This includes people like Mike Morrison, who was killed while installing pipes at a construction site in Florida, when the nine-foot-deep trench he was working in collapsed. An OSHA investigation found that the trench had not been secured properly before workers were sent into it. The employer whose failures had killed Mike was fined a mere $21,000, a slap on the wrist. Two years earlier, the company had been cited and fined for other safety violations. As Mike's step-daughter Michelle says, ``If the penalties had been more substantial two years ago, maybe Mike's company would have complied with the law and protected him properly, and maybe he'd still be with us today.'' Or Eleazar Torres-Gomez, who was killed working at a laundry facility in Tulsa, OK, where he had been employed for seven years. Eleazar was dragged into an industrial dryer, where the temperatures were near 300 degrees. The company he worked for had been previously fined for not installing protective guards on a similar dryer and belt at one of its other plants. Eleazar's eldest son Emanuel said, ``If the company had added the guards, which it knew were required by OSHA, my father would be alive today. The sorrow we feel is overwhelming.'' And they include workers like Tracee Binion, a science teacher in Pinson, AL. Tracee became ill after renovations on her school exposed her to chemicals in unventilated classrooms. She developed chemical pneumonitis and chemically-induced asthma, lost weeks of school and to this day must manage her asthma with medication. In Alabama, Tracee and thousands of teachers like her are not covered by our safety laws. They have no one to call when they need protection from workplace hazards. We need to do everything we can to see that other workers and their families don't have to suffer the same grief. Congress can take concrete steps to address many of these failures. That's why today we are reintroducing the Protecting America's Workers Act. This legislation will do several key things: It expands the coverage of our safety laws to protect 8.6 million public employees and transportation workers. It requires OSHA to investigate every case where a worker is killed or seriously injured. And it gives family members greater rights to be part of accident investigations. It also protects workers who speak up about unsafe conditions on the job, by bringing OSHA whistleblower laws in line with protections in other areas. It puts real teeth in our safety laws by increasing penalties. These penalties have not been raised since 1990. This bill sets a minimum penalty of $50,000 for a worker's death caused by a willful safety violation. And it increases the maximum criminal penalty for killing or seriously injuring a worker to ten years of prison, instead of six months. Beyond this legislation, we must also find new and smarter ways of keeping workers safe. We must shine a light on OSHA to ensure that our safety laws are implemented the way they were intended--to protect workers by preventing hazards on the job. The administration needs to put workers first and get the job done. It's time to send a message to those who put their employees in harm's way that life and health must be valued above profit and greed. It's time to redouble our efforts and make our commitment a reality. It's time for Congress to act, so that the hardworking men and women of our country get what they deserve at last--the security of a safe and healthy workplace. I urge my colleagues to join me in fighting for safe workplaces for all of America's workers. The best way for Congress to honor the Nation's hardworking men and women on this Worker's Memorial Day is to end our complacency and see that the full promise of OSHA becomes a genuine reality for every working family in every community in America.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, a column by Joe Nocera from last Saturday's New York Times contains an excellent analysis of the student loan industry and the recent sale of Sallie Mae. We often hear about the rising cost of college and the debt that so many students shoulder to attend college. As this article emphasizes, the industry reaps enormous profits by forcing students to burden themselves with excessive debt. The recent sale of Sallie Mae illustrates the problem. The company, the largest player in the industry, was purchased earlier this month by private equity firms and banks for an incredible $25 billion, 50 percent premium over Sallie Mae's stock price. Financial specialists know how profitable lenders such as Sallie Mae are because of the large Government subsidies these companies receive subsidies of more than a billion dollars last year. As Congress moves forward with reauthorizing the Higher Education Act, we must look closely at this industry and its practices to ensure that America's students are the ones being served, not just the bottom lines of America's lenders. Mr. Nocera, a Times' business columnist and former editorial director of Fortune magazine, is widely respected and has won numerous awards for excellence in business journalism. I believe his column will be of interest to all of us in Congress, as we consider the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, and I ask unanimous consent that his article, ``Sallie Mae Offers a Lesson in Cashing In,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, a recent op-ed article in the Boston Globe emphasizes the severity of the employment problems facing today's youth and its relationship to the increase in gang and gun-related violence in the Nation's cities. Easy access to guns and other dangerous weapons and the shameful prevalence of drugs are major contributors to this problem, but so too is the lack of job opportunities available for our youth. We have failed to develop job programs that will help these youths build a future without guns and gangs. In the Globe piece, William Spring, the distinguished former vice president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and a senior member of the domestic policy staff in the Carter administration, and Andrew Sum of Northeastern's Center for Labor Market Studies, argue that although we face a very real problem with youth unemployment, we can do something constructive about it. The only question is whether we have the will and the wisdom to make the investments necessary to enable our youth to seek, find, and take advantage of the job opportunities that can transform their lives and make our communities safer and stronger. I believe the article will be of interest to all of us in Congress, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record. [From the Boston Globe, Apr. 5, 2007] Combatting Violence With Jobs for Youths (By William Spring and Andrew Sum) During the past few weeks, attention has been focused on the rise in fatal shootings and gang-related activities in Boston. Governor Deval Patrick and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino recently announced joint efforts to combat gang violence, including an expansion in youth summer jobs. Renewed public policy attention to youth labor market problems in Boston and the state is clearly warranted. While the overall number of jobs has increased over the past few years, the labor market for teenagers in both the nation and state has remained extraordinarily weak. Employment rates for the nation's and state's teens (age 16-19) in 2005 and 2006 were the lowest in the past 50 years. Male high school students and dropouts across the state have found it particularly difficult to find work over the past six years, often increasing their involvement in gang and criminal activities. To make matters worse, job opportunities for high school youths are distributed unevenly across key demographic and socioeconomic groups. In 2005, white high school youths were twice as likely to work as black youths and 40 percent more likely than Hispanic youths. The need for a concerted set of public policy responses both short-term and long-term is needed. A variety of favorable educational, social, and labor market outcomes can be generated from an expansion of in- school work opportunities for high school students, especially those from race-ethnic minority and low-income groups. National research has shown that minority and low-income youths who work in high school are less likely to drop out than their peers who do not work. Students with jobs that offer work-based learning opportunities are more likely to see the relevance of school curriculum to future job performance and remain more committed to their school work. Teenage women who live in local areas that provide more job opportunities to them are less likely to become pregnant, and male teens are less likely to become involved with the criminal justice system. National, state, and local research also consistently reveals that work in high school facilitates the transition to the labor market upon graduation and increases the annual earnings of youth in their late teens and early 20s. There are a variety of workforce development strategies that can be pursued to boost employment opportunities for high school students during the regular school year and the summer. First, the hiring of professional staff to work with students and employers to create work-based learning opportunities, paid internships, and regular job opportunities is important, especially for youth from low- income families and those whose parents do not work. Job brokering services of these career specialists also can broaden the range of jobs by industry and occupation to which high school students can be exposed. At a minimum, maintaining last year's increased funding for the existing Connecting Activities Program at $7 million can help local Workforce Investment Boards increase the hiring of staff to work with students and employers to improve teen job prospects. The governor and Legislature should jointly support an increase in funding for such connecting activities and demand strong accountability for performance. Second, employers who provide work-based learning opportunities and wages for students in school-to-career programs should receive tax credits for their hiring and training of high school students. Many employers provide important staff support and in-kind contributions to such programs and should be rewarded for their efforts. Third, the governor should encourage all state agencies to promote the hiring of high school students during the summer months, and more of the state's mayors and town managers should follow the lead of Menino in promoting the hiring of their high school students by the private sector. Fourth, the state should adopt a youth apprenticeship program similar to that of the state of Wisconsin's and more aggressively promote apprenticeship training under the existing system in our state. Young workers in Wisconsin can receive youth apprenticeship training in up to 21 occupational fields under the state's system, thereby providing employers with access to young skilled workers in a structured work/training system. Massachusetts should aim to become a national leader in both the employment and training of its high school students and out-of-school youth. A more successful youth employment and training system can help promote the future growth and quality of our state's resident labor force and help stem high levels of out-migration.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand it, we are operating under a time agreement that has been proposed by the Senate leaders.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, first of all, I commend my friend and colleague, Senator Bingaman, as well as Senator Alexander and the group that came together in support of this idea of competitiveness legislation. I think it is one of the most important issues we will consider on the floor of the Senate, and it is something that commands the kind of broad support that it is getting. What underlines this legislation is a recognition that the United States is competing in a global economy. If we are going to compete in a global economy, we have to make a decision as a nation to the prepare each and every individual American to stand with the winds in a global economy. This legislation says that we are going to equip every man, woman, and child in the United States to be able to deal with the challenges of a global economy, and I think that is a very important national purpose. Throughout history, this country, when it saw that it was challenged, turned to education to stay competitive. After the Second World War, we needed to build a new, peacetime economy. We passed the G.I. Bill to enable those who served in battle to rebuild their lives at home. For every dollar we invested, the Greatest Generation returned $7 to our economic growth. In 1957, we were challenged again. The launch of Sputnik sparked the Space Age, and we rose to the challenge by passing the National Defense Education Act and inspiring the nation to ensure that the first footprint on the moon was left by an American. We doubled the Federal investment in education. When individuals have their skills uplifted and when they have their skills enhanced, they find out their participation in the economy works a great deal better. They are more productive, they are more useful, they are more creative and more imaginative and able to compete more effectively. This bill is enormously important for all Americans and very important for our country in terms of the whole challenge of globalization. Secondly, it is enormously important in terms of our national security. This legislation ensures that we are going to encourage those forces that enhance our capability in the areas of math, science and research--all of which are enormously important to make sure we are going to have the best technology for those who are going to serve in the Armed Forces. In the Armed Forces we want the best trained and best led men and women, but we also want the best in technology. This is a competitiveness bill and a national security bill. I believe it is going to be enormously helpful and valuable in terms of our democratic institutions, in making sure we are going to have men and women in this country who have the ability and commitment to ensure that our democratic institutions are going to function, and function very well, and that we will be able to maintain our leadership in the world. I, for one, agree with those who believe in each generation, and in each decade, the United States has to fight for its leadership in the world. It is not just going to come automatically. We should no longer think we are going to coast in terms of national and world leadership. We have to win it, and we have to win it every single day. The way to win it is with the kinds of investments that are included in this legislation. So I commend all those who have been a part of this process, and particularly our friends and colleagues, Senator Bingaman and Senator Alexander. To go through very quickly now, after those general comments about why this legislation is so important, if we look at where the United States is: America's 15-year-olds scored below the average in math compared to the youth of other developed nations on a recent international assessment. On the Programme for International Student Assessment, you will see that the U.S. ranks 24th. This chart indicates that since 1975, the U.S. has dropped from 3rd to 15th place in the production of scientists and engineers. We are also losing ground in overall high school and college graduation rates. The U.S. has dropped below that average graduation rate for OECD countries. Out of 24 nations, the U.S. ranks 14th, just ahead of Portugal. We are going to go to the underlying educational needs when we reauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act and higher education legislation. We are going to deal with middle schools and high schools. We are going to try to tie it in and have a seamless web, from the Head Start education programs through the K-12 and then universities into the academic world or into the business world. We need to be able to bring those elements together. Having said all of that, this legislation is enormously important in terms of making sure we reach that goal. This is a chart of research and development investment as a share of the U.S. economy. It demonstrates we are stagnant. This has to change. We know we need to invest in research and development. If you look at some of the countries with which we are going to compete, India and China in particular, and look at the number of graduates they have in math and science, you will find that China awards more than 300,000 bachelor's degrees in engineering and computer science. We award a little over 100,000. This is about research and development, but the investments in our people, investments in our research and development are two sides of the same coin. They are both essential. What this demonstrates is we have to do better if we expect to compete. Fast-growing economies such as China, Ireland, and South Korea are realizing the potential for economic growth that comes with investing in innovation. China's investment in research and development rose by an average of 18 percent from 2000 through 2003. Over the same period, the increase in U.S. investment averaged only 2 to 3 percent annually. In the last decade, China has nearly doubled the share of their economy they spend on research and development, and they have replicated our National Science Foundation. This bill puts us on a path to double the basic research funding at NSF in 5 years, double the basic research funding at the Department of Energy over the next 10 years, and double the funding at NIST, the National Institute for Standards and Technology. The bill also creates a President's Council on Innovation and Competitiveness, to bring together the heads of Federal agencies with leaders in business and universities to develop a comprehensive agenda to promote innovation. If you look at where we are, to give some further illustrations, math and science classes in high-poverty schools are much more likely to be taught by teachers who do not have a degree in their field. Fifty-six percent of science classes in high-poverty schools are taught by teachers without a relevant degree, compared to just 22 percent of classes in low-poverty schools. More than a third of math classes in high-poverty schools are taught by an out-of-field teacher, compared to just 18 percent of classes in schools with a low-poverty rate. I was interested the other day in the testimony of Mr. Gates, who commented on a lot of subjects. He was talking about school dropouts. There are some who think that school dropouts are children who are unable to comprehend the curriculum. He said, Oh, no, I am worried about the dropouts, the minds we are losing--able, gifted minds that are unchallenged because they had an inferior teacher, no books, or challenging conditions at home, such as missing meals because they are poor. We cannot afford to lose any of those. What we are looking for is high quality teachers. The bill recognizes and responds to the shortage of high quality math, science, technology and engineering teachers, particularly in high poverty schools. The bill expands scholarships and stipends, and creates a new NSDF teaching fellow program to bring high quality math, science, technology, and engineering teachers into high-need schools. It also expands the Teacher Institutes for the 21st Century Program of the NSF to provide cutting-edge professional development programs for teachers who teach in high-need schools. These programs are peer reviewed and have demonstrated to be successful. The bill creates a summer institute at the Department of Energy to help math and science teachers, to enable them to go to a number of areas that deal with energy because that is an agency so focused in terms of these issues in math and science. There is a high cost to failing to address our education concerns. The nation loses over $3.7 billion a year in the cost of remedial education and lost earning potential, because students are not adequately prepared to enter college when they leave high school. The bill provides grants to states to align elementary and secondary school standards, curricula, and assessments with the demands of college, the 21st century workforce and the Armed Forces. The grants support state P-16 councils to bring together leaders in the early education, K-12, and higher education communities, in the business sector, and in the military. It is also increasingly important for students to be exposed to and immersed in foreign languages and cultures. Only one-third of students in grades 7-12 and a mere 5 percent of elementary school students study a foreign language. If we are going to talk about our ability to be involved in a world economy, we are fortunate because we have so many who have come from such different cultures and traditions. I was reminded a few days ago in our Education Committee, of the number of languages they speak in St. Paul, Minnesota. Thirty-seven languages are spoken in Everett, MA. If we are going to compete in the world economy, we are going to have to do a lot better than we are doing in terms of communication and language. This is a balanced program. It has been reviewed by the Academy of Science, at the Institute of Engineers. It has been recommended by a wonderful American patriot, Norm Augustine, one of the great American leaders, corporate leaders, but also someone enormously knowledgeable on American defense interests and also international competition. This legislation has been tailored to try to take the very best ideas out there. We are going to have to fill in the underlying work that needs to be done. This is primarily focused on what we are going to need to be able to compete internationally. We have to be sure the schools at every level are providing students with a high quality education. We want to be sure those graduating from our universities will have the skills and talents and education to move them into the American economy and the larger economy they will face in the future. This bill represents the beginning of a strong commitment that we must sustain and build on if America is to remain competitive in the years ahead. The legislation has strong support for a renewed commitment to help the current generation meet and master the global challenges we now face. I welcome the opportunity to join with my colleagues and friends, the principal cosponsors, to commend this legislation, and hopefully we will be able to complete it. I know there are other amendments. I have had an opportunity to review them briefly. A good many of them deal with other issues we ought to be dealing with at another time. I hope the membership will recognize this is special legislation. There is a special need. This is a result of an extraordinary effort on the part of the principal sponsors of this bill. It deserves to pass and get through. I am very hopeful it will be done expeditiously. Amendment No. 940 Mr. President, I send a HELP Committee amendment to the bill which I think further strengthens the math and science programs. We have gone over this in considerable detail with our colleagues, since they are members of the committee. I thank them for their attention. I am grateful for their support of these particular provisions. Again, I commend them for the legislation. Hopefully this amendment will be accepted.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I know my friend from Oklahoma is prepared to speak. I ask unanimous consent to continue for 3 or 4 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, just a few minutes ago, Vice President Cheney attacked the Senate majority leader on Iraq. He accused him of making ``uninformed and misleading'' statements, of defeatism, and of playing politics with the war. Senator Reid's interest is in protecting our troops and our national security and bringing the war to an end. He is rightly responding to the American people by demanding a change in our failed policy in Iraq. He is right to insist that the Iraqis take responsibility for their own security and their own future and that our troops need begin to withdraw from Iraq. It is Vice President Cheney who has been wrong--and deadly wrong-- about Iraq. Even more, Vice President Cheney is the last person in the administration who should accuse anyone of making uninformed and misleading statements. The Vice President misled the American people in August 2002, when he insisted that we ``know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons'' and that ``many . . . are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon.'' The Vice President misled the American people in March 2003, when he said that Saddam Hussein ``has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization.'' The Vice President misled the American people when he insisted that our troops would ``be greeted as liberators.'' The Vice President misled the American people when he insisted that the insurgency is ``in the last throes.'' He and the entire administration continue to mislead the American people when they insist that progress is being made in Iraq. The facts speak for themselves. Iraq is sliding deeper and deeper into the abyss of civil war. Violence and casualties are increasing. Already 3,335 American soldiers have been killed, and more than 320 of them have been killed since the surge began. Civilians continue to flee the violence in Baghdad as the violence there continues unabated. Senator Reid is right to insist that we change the mission for our troops in Iraq and set a target date to bring them home. The American people agree. America never should have gone to war when we did, the way we did, and for the false reasons we were given. It is the Vice President who has been playing politics with the war in Iraq for more than 4 years. The American people understand this and will rightly reject the Vice President's fingerpointing. I yield the floor.