Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on April 27-29, more than 800 of the foremost scientists, humanists and leaders in business and public affairs will gather here in Washington when the Nation's two oldest learned societies--the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Philosophical Society--meet jointly for the first time. Both organizations predate the birth of the Nation, and among their founders were Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Bowdoin, and John Hancock. The two organizations were established to help advance ``useful knowledge'' in the colonies by promoting enlightened leaders and an engaged citizenry, and they have remained faithful to their original missions to the present day. Their current membership includes more than 170 Nobel laureates and more than 50 Pulitzer Prize winners. This joint meeting, entitled ``The Public Good: Knowledge as the Foundation for a Democratic Society'' will bring together academics and practitioners for a series of panel discussions, conversations and dinner programs on many of the most pressing issues facing the Nation. Joining them for the unprecedented 2\1/2\-day meeting will be members of these congressionally chartered National Academies--the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. At the opening of their meeting next week, the presidents of all five organizations will issue a joint statement affirming the importance of knowledge as the foundation for sound policymaking for the public good, and I ask unanimous consent that their unprecedented joint statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, while many measures are being taken at the Federal, State and local levels to improve student achievement in America, our high school students are still being left behind. High school students continue to lag in both math and reading. In 12th grade, less than a quarter of students scored proficient or better on the math assessment, and only 35 percent were proficient or better on the reading assessment. Furthermore, Federal funding is not currently going to the high schools that are in the most need. The main source of Federal funds is through the title I program. Yet only 8 percent of students who benefit from these funds are in high school. Ninety percent of high schools with very low graduation rates have many low-income students. The statistics on high school graduation rates are staggering. About 1,000 high schools across the country only graduate half their students, and only about 70 percent of high school students graduate on time. Among African Americans and Latinos, only 55 percent graduate on time. It is clear that high schools need more assistance in supporting and retaining students. The continued partnership between local, State and the Federal Government is essential in improving secondary education in America. That is why the Graduation Promise Act provides the necessary funding to improve the capacity of low-performing high schools, decrease dropout rates and increase student achievement. The act speaks directly to the root of the problem, providing support to high schools and middle schools to both assist and retain students who may have fallen between the cracks. The Graduation Promise Act would make great strides in helping high school students achieve to their fullest potential. The act would provide $2.5 billion to build capacity for secondary school improvement, and at the same time provide States and local school districts with the resources to ensure high schools with the greatest challenges receive the support they need to implement research-based interventions. Research shows that we can identify students who are most at-risk for not completing high school as early as sixth grade. With early intervention, quality teachers, small classes, and data-driven instruction we can ensure that these students make progress, stay in school and succeed. The act assists these efforts by supporting the development and dissemination of highly effective secondary school models for students most at risk of being left behind. It would also strengthen state improvement systems to identify, differentiate among, and target the level of reform and resources necessary to improve low-performing high schools, while ensuring transparency and accountability. Finally, the act would support states' continuing efforts to align State policies and systems to meet the goal of college and career-ready graduation for all students. Bringing our schools into the 21st century is the ultimate goal of this important piece of legislation. Local schools, States and the Federal Government must continue to work together to modernize the practices and models that are being used to ensure success from all of our high school students. Updating the system for the current times is a difficult process, but with the assistance of the Graduation Promise Act, all high school students can be given the tools necessary to succeed both in school and beyond. I thank my colleagues, Senator Bingaman and Senator Burr, for their good work on this initiative and their leadership on this issue. I look forward to working with them on this and many other important issues as we move forward with the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Act. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, while many measures are being taken at the Federal, State and local levels to improve student achievement in America, our high school students are still being left behind. High school students continue to lag in both math and reading. In 12th grade, less than a quarter of students scored proficient or better on the math assessment, and only 35 percent were proficient or better on the reading assessment. Furthermore, Federal funding is not currently going to the high schools that are in the most need. The main source of Federal funds is through the title I program. Yet only 8 percent of students who benefit from these funds are in high school. Ninety percent of high schools with very low graduation rates have many low-income students. The statistics on high school graduation rates are staggering. About 1,000 high schools across the country only graduate half their students, and only about 70 percent of high school students graduate on time. Among African Americans and Latinos, only 55 percent graduate on time. It is clear that high schools need more assistance in supporting and retaining students. The continued partnership between local, State and the Federal Government is essential in improving secondary education in America. That is why the Graduation Promise Act provides the necessary funding to improve the capacity of low-performing high schools, decrease dropout rates and increase student achievement. The act speaks directly to the root of the problem, providing support to high schools and middle schools to both assist and retain students who may have fallen between the cracks. The Graduation Promise Act would make great strides in helping high school students achieve to their fullest potential. The act would provide $2.5 billion to build capacity for secondary school improvement, and at the same time provide States and local school districts with the resources to ensure high schools with the greatest challenges receive the support they need to implement research-based interventions. Research shows that we can identify students who are most at-risk for not completing high school as early as sixth grade. With early intervention, quality teachers, small classes, and data-driven instruction we can ensure that these students make progress, stay in school and succeed. The act assists these efforts by supporting the development and dissemination of highly effective secondary school models for students most at risk of being left behind. It would also strengthen state improvement systems to identify, differentiate among, and target the level of reform and resources necessary to improve low-performing high schools, while ensuring transparency and accountability. Finally, the act would support states' continuing efforts to align State policies and systems to meet the goal of college and career-ready graduation for all students. Bringing our schools into the 21st century is the ultimate goal of this important piece of legislation. Local schools, States and the Federal Government must continue to work together to modernize the practices and models that are being used to ensure success from all of our high school students. Updating the system for the current times is a difficult process, but with the assistance of the Graduation Promise Act, all high school students can be given the tools necessary to succeed both in school and beyond. I thank my colleagues, Senator Bingaman and Senator Burr, for their good work on this initiative and their leadership on this issue. I look forward to working with them on this and many other important issues as we move forward with the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Act. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, with a heavy heart, I rise to express my tremendous sorrow for the growing number of victims impacted by a terrible tragedy on a Virginia college campus today. My deepest condolences and prayers go out to the students, faculty and their families at the Virginia Tech campus who have been affected by this horrific crime, especially those who lost loved ones. The Nation is stunned by the loss of so many young lives. The tragedy is felt all the more because these were young people--children in the prime of their lives, with so much to offer--and who gave so much to their families-- and now they are gone. They were sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, friends and neighbors. They were a part of all of us--and we will feel their loss. There will be time to debate the steps needed to avert such tragedies. But today our thoughts and prayers go to their families. Today, the world weeps for the victims at Virginia Tech. Our thoughts and prayers are with you. I thank the good Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, tomorrow our colleague and friend Ted Stevens will mark his 13,990th day as a Senator. It is an auspicious occasion because he will pass Strom Thurmond as the Senator who served longest as a member of the Republican Party. I remember well when Ted Stevens came to the Senate in 1968. It seems like only yesterday. It is a great honor to say we have served together here for more than 38 years. Ted was appointed to fill the seat of a true giant of public service, Bob Bartlett, the architect of Alaska statehood, who had passed away just before Christmas in 1968. I can't help but think all these years later that Bob Bartlett would be the first to pay tribute to what his friend Ted Stevens has accomplished as his successor in the Senate. I admire many things about my colleague from Alaska, the first and foremost being that he knows why he is here. He came to the Senate 9 years after Alaska was admitted to the Union, a State nearly a quarter the size of the continental United States and encompassing some of the most unforgiving geography and weather in the world. It is a State of tremendous natural beauty and indomitable spirit, but also enormous challenges brought about by its immense size, its distance from the lower 48, and its close proximity to the North Pole. Ted Stevens came to the Senate to fight for the State of Alaska and the wonderful people who call it home. More than 38 years later, his purpose continues just as clearly and his determination just as strong. His skill and passion in championing the people of his State are a remarkable tribute to the bond he has formed with the people of Alaska and his colleagues in Congress. In fact, Ted Stevens has given his entire career in service to others and to his country. He is a true public servant, a servant in the finest sense of the word. As a member of the Army Air Corps, he flew with the Flying Tigers of the 14th Air Force and earned two Distinguished Flying Crosses. The slogan of the Army Air Corps in those days was: The difficult we do immediately, the impossible takes a little longer. That has certainly been true of his service in the Senate, too. He has been a respected leader on military issues and a strong defender of some of the bravest workers in the world, our Nation's fishermen. We share that love for fishermen and for the sea, as our two States are defined by their relationship with the sea, its bounty, its beauty, and its mystery. He has answered the call of public service in countless ways time and time again. I saw his passion and determination to improve the lives of Native Alaskans when I traveled with him in his first year as a Senator to visit remote villages in Alaska back in April of 1969, and it is the same passion and determination I see today. Ted, Walter Mondale, and I traveled over 3,600 miles throughout the State visiting Anchorage, Pilot Station, Arctic Village, and other villages. We traveled at times by ski plane and even by dogsled. We were traveling with the Senate Subcommittee on Indian Education, and I will never forget what we saw. There were no Native Alaskan teachers and few spoke native languages, making it nearly impossible for the schoolchildren to learn, many of whom had never even heard English. We saw villages where people had to walk 2 miles through frozen tundra to find drinking water and other villages where only 8 out of 100 Native Alaskans were graduating from high school. I remember our subcommittee hearing in Fairbanks and the Pilot Station teacher who told us that the warmest she could ever get her classroom was zero degrees Fahrenheit. Imagine children trying to learn when it is that cold in the classroom. More than anything else, I remember Ted Stevens determination to improve the lives of the people and give them the opportunity to build a better future. We were able to pass legislation to improve water treatment facilities in Native Alaskan villages and improve education for the children as a result of that trip--and none of it would have happened without Ted Stevens. I also feel a special closeness with Ted because in addition to the many years we have served side by side, we both share the same soft- spoken and gentle approach for advancing our priorities and the many causes we care about so deeply. I only wish he were a Democrat. I also pay tribute to Ted's wonderful wife Catherine. She is an extraordinary woman, a person of enormous kindness and compassion who has been so understanding over the years of the demanding and often bizarre schedules we keep in this Chamber. I have come to know her through her impressive service to the Kennedy Center, where she has made such a great impact on the Board of Trustees. This milestone is very much hers as well. We know the innumerable sacrifices a Senator's spouse has to make--especially those who make their home on the farthest side of the continent. So I congratulate both Ted Stevens and Catherine Stevens on this extraordinary milestone. Well done, my friends, and best wishes for many more record-breaking days among us.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for far too long the criminal justice system has failed to adequately address recidivism, and that failure has imposed a large financial and social cost on the Nation. Even the best-intentioned prisoners face debilitating challenges when they rejoin their communities, yet the current system leaves them ill- prepared to face those challenges. Our existing policies of mass incarceration and release are not working. Large prison populations and high recidivism rates place heavy burdens on prisons, communities, and taxpayers. Of the 2.2 million persons housed in prisons today--an average annual increase of 3 percent in the past decade--97 percent will be released into the community. Overcrowding continues to plague the system. State prisons are operating at full capacity and sometimes as much as 14 percent above capacity, and Federal prisons are 34 percent above capacity. In 2005, prison populations in 14 States rose at least 5 percent. Recidivism and inadequate reentry programs add to the problem. Over 600,000 prisoners are released each year, but two-thirds of them are arrested again within 3 years. The social cost of recidivism is devastating to communities, and it also imposes a financial burden. States spend an average of approximately $22,000 annually to house a prisoner. Taxpayers spend more than $60 billion annually on corrections, more than six times the $9 billion spent 25 years ago. Yet the current system still fails to adequately support the essential programs for health, housing, substance abuse, education, and employment that ex-offenders need to reintegrate into their communities. Even community and local law enforcement programs that are effective in helping ex-offenders often lack adequate resources and guidance. Future generations will bear the burden created by today's high recidivism rates. In 2006, the Department of Health and Human Services reported that 2 million children nationwide have an incarcerated parent. Studies suggest that these children are seven times more likely to end up in prison themselves. One study found that as many as 1 in 10 will have been incarcerated before reaching adulthood. Of the approximately 100,000 juveniles who are currently incarcerated, many will become recidivists because of a lack of effective reentry programs. This increasingly serious failure demands a comprehensive solution that takes into account both the challenges that ex-offenders face and the role of law enforcement and community and family-based programs in successful reentry. That is why I am pleased to join my colleagues in support of the Second Chance Act. This legislation provides an opportunity for law enforcement, communities, and families to give former offenders a helping hand that the vast majority of them will use to become productive members of society. The Second Chance Act provides financial support, research, and guidance for proven and cost-effective solutions to the health, housing, substance abuse, education, and employment challenges that former offenders face in reintegrating into their communities. It funds mentoring grants, demonstration grants, drug treatment, and family- based treatment. It authorizes the National Institute of Justice to conduct research on offender reentry and on the need for a national resource center for State, local, and community service providers to collect and disseminate best practices. The bill also creates an interagency taskforce to review and report to Congress on the Federal barriers that so many ex-offenders face. A second chance starts with a place to live. This bill will promote programs that help recently released inmates overcome the first major hurdle they face--finding safe, adequate, and affordable housing. 15 to 27 percent of prisoners expect to go to homeless shelters upon release. Figures published by the Volunteers of America in 2004 indicated that two-thirds of former prisoners who lacked adequate housing had committed crimes within 1 year of their release, compared to only one- quarter of those who had housing. Another recent study released by the National Criminal Justice Reference Service showed that 30-50 percent of parolees in urban areas such as Los Angeles and San Francisco are homeless, which compounds the profound hardship that re-integration already places on urban communities. The Second Chance Act supports our communities and local law enforcement by supporting housing programs for ex-offenders, so that they can take the first steps towards getting back on their feet and rejoining the community. The Second Chance Act also supports mental health care and substance abuse treatment programs that are vital to many ex-offenders as they struggle to reintegrate. Nearly a quarter of State prisoners and jail inmates with a mental health problem had served three or more prior incarcerations, yet two-thirds of State prisoners do not receive mental health treatment. In substance abuse treatment, more than two-thirds of State prisoners have been regular drug users at some point during their lives, and one-third had committed the crime for which they were imprisoned while under the influence of drugs. According to a recent Bureau of Justice Statistics report, of the approximately 50 percent of prisoners who met the criteria for drug dependence or abuse, less than half participated in drug treatment programs since their admission to prison. To address these issues, the Second Chance Act reauthorizes mental health care and substance abuse treatment demonstration projects and provides resources and best practices research to comprehensive community-based and family-based substance abuse programs. The programs supported by this legislation give ex-offenders the care and treatment they need to remain drug free and out of prison. We also cannot expect ex-offenders to become productive members of the community if they don't have the education and vocational training they need to find jobs. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that only 46 percent of incarcerated individuals have a high school diploma or its equivalent. The limited availability of education and vocational training programs exacerbates the problem. Only 5 percent of jail jurisdictions offer vocational training, and 33 percent of jurisdictions offer no educational or vocational training at all. Research shows what a profound effect such programs have on decreasing recidivism rates. Recidivism for inmates who participate in prison education, vocation, and work programs have been found to be 20 to 60 percent lower than for nonparticipants. The Federal Bureau of Prisons found a 33- percent drop in recidivism among Federal prisoners who participated in vocational training. The Safer Foundation in Chicago found a recidivism rate of 8 percent for participants in its vocational program, compared with 46 percent for a comparison group. The Second Chance Act supports community education and vocational training programs that have proven their effectiveness, and offers the tools and resources to study best practices on job training and placement. It also supports collaboration among community corrections, technical schools, community colleges, and the workforce development and employment service sectors to help ex- offenders overcome the many barriers they face in finding employment. In addition to addressing adult ex-offender reentry programs, the Second Chance Act also supports juvenile ex-offender reentry programs that put juvenile ex-offenders on the path to being productive adults and good citizens. The nearly 100,000 children who make up the juvenile prison population are among the most vulnerable and defenseless group in our criminal justice system. Too often, we fail to protect them. Many juvenile ex-offenders have learning disabilities and need substance abuse and mental health treatment. Many are incarcerated in overcrowded facilities. All need an education and the support of community-based programs to reintegrate them after incarceration. To help give juvenile ex-offenders the second chance they need to become positive forces in their communities, this bill reauthorizes the Juvenile Offender Reentry Demonstration Projects, creates a resource center to collect data and provide guidance concerning best practices for juvenile reentry, offers grants to improve educational methods in juvenile facilities, and supports community and family-based juvenile aftercare programs. In Massachusetts, programs like those that the Second Chance Act would authorize have already been nationally recognized for their success. In Hampden County, Sheriff Michael Ashe and the Hampden County Sheriff's Department have shown that law enforcement and community- based reentry programs that focus on education, employment and treatment are the most effective way to reduce recidivism and improve community safety. States such as Massachusetts have been creating innovative and effective reentry programs, and it is time for the Federal Government to do its part. Supporting such programs is the surest way to ensure that when ex-offenders leave prison, they go with the skills, guidance, and support they need to succeed. I am especially pleased that the Second Chance Act will support the Elderly Nonviolent Offender Pilot Program, which focuses on reintegrating nonviolent elderly offenders over the age of 60. The current strategy of incarcerating elderly inmates who are no longer a threat to their community is a waste of government resources and a humanitarian failure, and the problem is only getting bigger as the elderly prison population grows. A 2004 report by the National Institute of Corrections found that the number of State and Federal prisoners ages 50 or older rose 172 percent between 1992 and 2001, and some estimates suggest that the elderly inmate population has grown by as much as 750 percent over the last two decades. Even conservative estimates suggest that the population of elderly inmates will represent 33 percent of the total prison population by 2010. The average cost of housing the increasing number of elderly inmates is reported to be about $67,000, three times the average cost of housing younger inmates. As the age of the inmate population grows over the next decade, the total spent on corrections will increase dramatically, even though nonviolent elderly offenders pose little risk to the community. And according to a Department of Justice report, they have a recidivism rate of only 1.4 percent, much lower than the rate for younger inmates. Housing elderly inmates also raises humanitarian concerns. Often they require treatment for chronic and fatal diseases, protection from younger prisoners, and alterations to accommodate walkers, canes, and geriatric chairs. According to the National Institute of Corrections: [T]he lack of personal protection for elderly inmates, which may be frail and therefore vulnerable to the threats of assault by younger predatory inmates, contributes to the emotional stress and physical deterioration they routinely experience, especially among those who may be already vulnerable owing to chronic illness. Housing nonviolent elderly offenders is not just a financial issue. It is also a humanitarian problem for which we must find new solutions. Forty-one states already offer some kind of early limited release program for elderly inmates. The American Bar Association has recently endorsed a proposed amendment to the sentencing guidelines to allow more lenient sentencing for nonviolent elderly offenders. By supporting the Elderly Nonviolent Offender Pilot Program, Congress takes an important step towards addressing the humanitarian and financial challenges of housing an aging prison population. The Federal Bureau of Prisons estimates that 378 nonviolent elderly offenders, and an average of 53 nonviolent elderly offenders a year over the next decade, will be eligible for the program. It offers an opportunity to demonstrate the effectiveness of alternatives to housing elderly inmates, and I hope its success will lead to a more comprehensive solution to one of the important challenges facing the prison system. When ex-offenders return to prison, all Americans pay a price, both social and financial. The Second Chance Act supports a comprehensive solution to the recidivism problem in America--a problem that we cannot afford to ignore. It is a solution that allows local law enforcement, communities, and families to offer ex-offenders the programs and support they need to get back on their feet and become positive, productive members of their communities.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, hate crimes violate everything our country stands for. They send the poisonous message that certain Americans deserve to be victimized solely because of who they are. These are crimes committed against entire communities, the Nation as a whole and the very ideals upon which our country was founded. The vast majority of Congress agrees. In 2000, 57 Senators voted in support of this bill. In 2002, 54 Senators voted with us, and, in 2004, we had 65 votes. Today, we are re-introducing this bicameral, bipartisan bill with the support of 39 original cosponsors, and we have the votes to get cloture. We have the votes in the House too. This year, we are going to get it done. Our legislation is supported by a broad coalition of over 210 law enforcement, civic, religious and civil rights groups, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs Association, the Anti-Defamation League, the Interfaith Alliance, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National District Attorneys Association, and the National Center for Victims of Crime. Data from the National Crime Victimization Survey are especially disturbing because they indicate that a large number of hate crimes go unreported. The data indicates that an average of 191,000 hate crimes take place every year, but only a small percentage are reported to the police. We obviously need to strengthen the ability of Federal, State and local governments to investigate and prosecute these vicious and senseless crimes. The existing Federal hate crime statute was passed in 1968, soon after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It was such an important step forward at the time, but it is now a generation out of date. The absence of effective legislation has undoubtedly resulted in the failure to solve many hate-motivated crimes. The recent action of the Justice Department in reopening 40 civil-rights-era murders demonstrates the need for adequate laws. Many of the victims in these cases have been denied justice for decades, and for some, justice will never come. This bill corrects two major deficiencies in current law--one, the excessive restrictions requiring proof that victims were attacked because they were engaged in certain ``federally protected activities,'' and, two, the limited scope of the law, which covers only hate crimes based on race, religion, or ethnic background, excluding violence committed against persons because of their sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. The federally protected activity requirement is outdated, unwise and unnecessary, particularly when we consider the unjust outcomes that result from this requirement. Hate crimes can occur in a variety of circumstances, and citizens are often targeted during routine activities that should be protected. For example, in June 2003, six Latino teenagers went to a family restaurant on Long Island. They knew one another from their involvement in community activities and were together to celebrate one of their birthdays. As the group entered the restaurant, three men who were leaving the bar assaulted them, pummeling one boy and severing a tendon in his hand with a sharp weapon. During the attack, the men yelled racial slurs and one identified himself as a skinhead. Two of the men were tried under the current Federal law for committing a hate crime and were acquitted. The jurors said the government failed to prove that the attack took place because the victims were engaged in a federally protected activity--using the restaurant. The result in this case is only one example of the inadequate protection under current law. The bill we introduce today will eliminate the federally protected activity requirement. Under this bill, the defendants who left the courtroom as free men would almost certainly have left in handcuffs through a different door. The bill also recognizes that hate crimes are also committed against people because of their sexual orientation, their gender, their gender identity, or their disability. It's up to Congress to make sure that tough Federal penalties also apply to those who commit such crimes as well. Passing this bill will send a loud and clear message. All hate crimes will face Federal prosecution. Action is long overdue. Examples of the problem abound. Two years ago, a 52-year-old Alabama man was beaten on the head with a hammer because he was gay. Still waiting for justice, the man lies in a coma as a result of that attack. In 1993, a 21-year-old transgender man, Brandon Teena was raped and beaten in Humboldt, NE, by two male friends. The local sheriff refused to arrest the offenders, and they later shot and stabbed Brandon to death. In 1999, four women in Yosemite National Park were targeted by a man who admitted to having fantasized about killing women for most of his life. The current hate crime law did not apply to this horrific crime because enjoyment of a Federal park is not a federally protected right. In 2001, Fred C. Martinez, Jr., a Navajo, openly gay, transgender youth, was murdered while walking home from a party in Cortez, CO. The perpetrator, Shaun Murphy, had traveled from New Mexico to Colorado with a friend in order to sell illegal drugs. He met Fred at a carnival that night, and the next morning, while driving, he saw Fred walking down the street. Shaun and his friend offered Fred a ride and dropped him off close to home. Shortly thereafter, Shaun attacked Fred and beat him to death with a large rock. His body was discovered several days later. The attackers bragged about this vicious crime, describing the victim with vulgar epithets. The perpetrator could not be charged with a hate crime because no State or Federal law protecting gender identity existed. He received a 40-year sentence under a plea agreement and he will be eligible for parole in 25 years. His victim did not live long enough to see his 20th birthday. If the defendant had been charged with a Federal hate crime, he could have received a life sentence. If the prosecutor had greater aid for his investigation under the proposed legislation, he could have had a stronger case against the defendant and prosecuted him more effectively. In October 2002, two deaf girls in Somerville, MA--one of whom was wheelchair bound due to cerebral palsy--were harassed and sexually assaulted by four suspected gang members in a local park. Although the alleged perpetrators were charged in the incident, the assaults could not be charged as hate crimes because there is no Federal protection for hate crimes against disabled individuals. These examples graphically illustrate the senseless brutality that our fellow citizens face simply for being who they are. They also highlight the importance of passing this legislation, which is long overdue.The vast majority of us in Congress have recognized the importance of this legislation since it was first introduced--nearly 10 years ago. This year, we have an opportunity to pass it in both the Senate and the House, and enact it into law. Let's make the most of this opportunity, and do all we can to end these senseless crimes. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record this list of organizations who support the Matthew Shepard bill. There being no objection the material was ordered to be printed as follows: 1. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. 2. American Association of University Women. 3. American Civil Liberties Union. 4. American Jewish Committee. 5. American Psychological Association. 6. Anti-Defamation League. 7. Asian American Justice Center. 8. Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism. 9. Human Rights Campaign. 10. Interfaith Alliance. 11. International Association of Chiefs of Police. 12. Japanese American Citizens League. 13. Jewish Council for Public Affairs. 14. Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. 15. Matthew Shepard Foundation. 16. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. 17. National Council of Jewish Women. 18. National District Attorneys Association. 19. National Sheriffs' Association. 20. People for the American Way. 21. Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism. 22. SALDEF (Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund). 23. Unitarian Universalist Association. 24. The United States Conference of Mayors. 25. Group Letter: Religious Organizations: African American Ministers in Action, American Jewish Committee. Anti- defamation League, Buddhist Peace Fellowship, Catholics for a Free Choice, Church Women United, The Episcopal Church, Hadassah, Hindu American Foundation, The Interfaith Alliance, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Jewish Women International, Muslim Public Affairs Council, NA'AMAT USA, National Council of Churches of Christ, National Council of Jewish Women, North American Federation of Temple Youth, Presbyterian Church USA, Sikh Council on Religion and Education, United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries, Union for Reform Judaism, United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society, Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, United Synagogues of Conservative Judaism and Women of Reform Judaism. 26. Group Letter: Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, American Association on Health and Disability, American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, American Association on Mental Retardation, American Association of People with Disabilities, American Council of the Blind, American Counseling Association, American Dance Therapy Association, American Medical Rehabilitation Providers Association, American Music Therapy Association, American Network of Community Options and Resources, American Occupational Therapy Association, American Psychological Association, American Therapeutic Recreation Association, American Rehabilitation Association, Association of Tech Act Projects, Association of University Centers of Disabilities, Autism Society of America, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Council for Learning Disabilities, Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation, Easter Seals, Epilepsy Foundation, Hellen Keller National Center, Learning Disabilities Association of America, National Alliance on Mental Illness, National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities, National Coalition on Deaf- Blindness, National Disability Rights Network, National Down Syndrome Society, National Fragile X Foundation, National Rehabilitation Association, National Respite Coalition, National Structured Settlement Trade Association, NISH, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Research Institute for Independent Living, School Social Work Association of America, Spina Bifida Association, The Arc of the United States, United Cerebral Palsy, United Spinal Association, World Institute on Disability. 27. Group Letter: National Partnership for Women and Families: 9to5 Bay Area, 9to5 Colorado, 9to5 Poverty Network Initiative (Wisconsin), 9to5 National Association of Working Women, AFL-CIO Department of Civil, Human and Women's Rights, American Association of University Women, Atlanta 9to5, Break the Cycle, Coalition of Labor Union Women, Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault (CCASA), Communications Workers of America AFL-CIO, Democrats.com, Equal Rights Advocates, Feminist Majority, Gender Public Advocacy Coalition, Gender Watchers, Hadassah the Women's Zionist Organization of America, Legal Momentum, Los Angeles 9to5, NA'AMAT USA, National Abortion Federation, National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum, National Association of Social Workers, National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Congress of Black Women, National Council of Jewish Women, National Council of Women's Organizations, National Organization for Women, National Partnership for Women and Families, National Women's Conference, National Women's Committee, National Women's Law Center, Northwest Women's Law Center, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, The Women's Institute for Freedom of the Press, Washington Teachers Union, Women Employed, Women's Law Center of Maryland, Women's Research and Education Institute, YWCA USA. 28. Excerpts of Support for the Hate Crime Prevention Act of 2007. 29. General List of Supporting Organizations 2007.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, hate crimes violate everything our country stands for. They send the poisonous message that certain Americans deserve to be victimized solely because of who they are. These are crimes committed against entire communities, the Nation as a whole and the very ideals upon which our country was founded. The vast majority of Congress agrees. In 2000, 57 Senators voted in support of this bill. In 2002, 54 Senators voted with us, and, in 2004, we had 65 votes. Today, we are re-introducing this bicameral, bipartisan bill with the support of 39 original cosponsors, and we have the votes to get cloture. We have the votes in the House too. This year, we are going to get it done. Our legislation is supported by a broad coalition of over 210 law enforcement, civic, religious and civil rights groups, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs Association, the Anti-Defamation League, the Interfaith Alliance, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National District Attorneys Association, and the National Center for Victims of Crime. Data from the National Crime Victimization Survey are especially disturbing because they indicate that a large number of hate crimes go unreported. The data indicates that an average of 191,000 hate crimes take place every year, but only a small percentage are reported to the police. We obviously need to strengthen the ability of Federal, State and local governments to investigate and prosecute these vicious and senseless crimes. The existing Federal hate crime statute was passed in 1968, soon after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It was such an important step forward at the time, but it is now a generation out of date. The absence of effective legislation has undoubtedly resulted in the failure to solve many hate-motivated crimes. The recent action of the Justice Department in reopening 40 civil-rights-era murders demonstrates the need for adequate laws. Many of the victims in these cases have been denied justice for decades, and for some, justice will never come. This bill corrects two major deficiencies in current law--one, the excessive restrictions requiring proof that victims were attacked because they were engaged in certain ``federally protected activities,'' and, two, the limited scope of the law, which covers only hate crimes based on race, religion, or ethnic background, excluding violence committed against persons because of their sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. The federally protected activity requirement is outdated, unwise and unnecessary, particularly when we consider the unjust outcomes that result from this requirement. Hate crimes can occur in a variety of circumstances, and citizens are often targeted during routine activities that should be protected. For example, in June 2003, six Latino teenagers went to a family restaurant on Long Island. They knew one another from their involvement in community activities and were together to celebrate one of their birthdays. As the group entered the restaurant, three men who were leaving the bar assaulted them, pummeling one boy and severing a tendon in his hand with a sharp weapon. During the attack, the men yelled racial slurs and one identified himself as a skinhead. Two of the men were tried under the current Federal law for committing a hate crime and were acquitted. The jurors said the government failed to prove that the attack took place because the victims were engaged in a federally protected activity--using the restaurant. The result in this case is only one example of the inadequate protection under current law. The bill we introduce today will eliminate the federally protected activity requirement. Under this bill, the defendants who left the courtroom as free men would almost certainly have left in handcuffs through a different door. The bill also recognizes that hate crimes are also committed against people because of their sexual orientation, their gender, their gender identity, or their disability. It's up to Congress to make sure that tough Federal penalties also apply to those who commit such crimes as well. Passing this bill will send a loud and clear message. All hate crimes will face Federal prosecution. Action is long overdue. Examples of the problem abound. Two years ago, a 52-year-old Alabama man was beaten on the head with a hammer because he was gay. Still waiting for justice, the man lies in a coma as a result of that attack. In 1993, a 21-year-old transgender man, Brandon Teena was raped and beaten in Humboldt, NE, by two male friends. The local sheriff refused to arrest the offenders, and they later shot and stabbed Brandon to death. In 1999, four women in Yosemite National Park were targeted by a man who admitted to having fantasized about killing women for most of his life. The current hate crime law did not apply to this horrific crime because enjoyment of a Federal park is not a federally protected right. In 2001, Fred C. Martinez, Jr., a Navajo, openly gay, transgender youth, was murdered while walking home from a party in Cortez, CO. The perpetrator, Shaun Murphy, had traveled from New Mexico to Colorado with a friend in order to sell illegal drugs. He met Fred at a carnival that night, and the next morning, while driving, he saw Fred walking down the street. Shaun and his friend offered Fred a ride and dropped him off close to home. Shortly thereafter, Shaun attacked Fred and beat him to death with a large rock. His body was discovered several days later. The attackers bragged about this vicious crime, describing the victim with vulgar epithets. The perpetrator could not be charged with a hate crime because no State or Federal law protecting gender identity existed. He received a 40-year sentence under a plea agreement and he will be eligible for parole in 25 years. His victim did not live long enough to see his 20th birthday. If the defendant had been charged with a Federal hate crime, he could have received a life sentence. If the prosecutor had greater aid for his investigation under the proposed legislation, he could have had a stronger case against the defendant and prosecuted him more effectively. In October 2002, two deaf girls in Somerville, MA--one of whom was wheelchair bound due to cerebral palsy--were harassed and sexually assaulted by four suspected gang members in a local park. Although the alleged perpetrators were charged in the incident, the assaults could not be charged as hate crimes because there is no Federal protection for hate crimes against disabled individuals. These examples graphically illustrate the senseless brutality that our fellow citizens face simply for being who they are. They also highlight the importance of passing this legislation, which is long overdue.The vast majority of us in Congress have recognized the importance of this legislation since it was first introduced--nearly 10 years ago. This year, we have an opportunity to pass it in both the Senate and the House, and enact it into law. Let's make the most of this opportunity, and do all we can to end these senseless crimes. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record this list of organizations who support the Matthew Shepard bill. There being no objection the material was ordered to be printed as follows: 1. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. 2. American Association of University Women. 3. American Civil Liberties Union. 4. American Jewish Committee. 5. American Psychological Association. 6. Anti-Defamation League. 7. Asian American Justice Center. 8. Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism. 9. Human Rights Campaign. 10. Interfaith Alliance. 11. International Association of Chiefs of Police. 12. Japanese American Citizens League. 13. Jewish Council for Public Affairs. 14. Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. 15. Matthew Shepard Foundation. 16. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. 17. National Council of Jewish Women. 18. National District Attorneys Association. 19. National Sheriffs' Association. 20. People for the American Way. 21. Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism. 22. SALDEF (Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund). 23. Unitarian Universalist Association. 24. The United States Conference of Mayors. 25. Group Letter: Religious Organizations: African American Ministers in Action, American Jewish Committee. Anti- defamation League, Buddhist Peace Fellowship, Catholics for a Free Choice, Church Women United, The Episcopal Church, Hadassah, Hindu American Foundation, The Interfaith Alliance, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Jewish Women International, Muslim Public Affairs Council, NA'AMAT USA, National Council of Churches of Christ, National Council of Jewish Women, North American Federation of Temple Youth, Presbyterian Church USA, Sikh Council on Religion and Education, United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries, Union for Reform Judaism, United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society, Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, United Synagogues of Conservative Judaism and Women of Reform Judaism. 26. Group Letter: Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, American Association on Health and Disability, American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, American Association on Mental Retardation, American Association of People with Disabilities, American Council of the Blind, American Counseling Association, American Dance Therapy Association, American Medical Rehabilitation Providers Association, American Music Therapy Association, American Network of Community Options and Resources, American Occupational Therapy Association, American Psychological Association, American Therapeutic Recreation Association, American Rehabilitation Association, Association of Tech Act Projects, Association of University Centers of Disabilities, Autism Society of America, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Council for Learning Disabilities, Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation, Easter Seals, Epilepsy Foundation, Hellen Keller National Center, Learning Disabilities Association of America, National Alliance on Mental Illness, National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities, National Coalition on Deaf- Blindness, National Disability Rights Network, National Down Syndrome Society, National Fragile X Foundation, National Rehabilitation Association, National Respite Coalition, National Structured Settlement Trade Association, NISH, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Research Institute for Independent Living, School Social Work Association of America, Spina Bifida Association, The Arc of the United States, United Cerebral Palsy, United Spinal Association, World Institute on Disability. 27. Group Letter: National Partnership for Women and Families: 9to5 Bay Area, 9to5 Colorado, 9to5 Poverty Network Initiative (Wisconsin), 9to5 National Association of Working Women, AFL-CIO Department of Civil, Human and Women's Rights, American Association of University Women, Atlanta 9to5, Break the Cycle, Coalition of Labor Union Women, Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault (CCASA), Communications Workers of America AFL-CIO, Democrats.com, Equal Rights Advocates, Feminist Majority, Gender Public Advocacy Coalition, Gender Watchers, Hadassah the Women's Zionist Organization of America, Legal Momentum, Los Angeles 9to5, NA'AMAT USA, National Abortion Federation, National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum, National Association of Social Workers, National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Congress of Black Women, National Council of Jewish Women, National Council of Women's Organizations, National Organization for Women, National Partnership for Women and Families, National Women's Conference, National Women's Committee, National Women's Law Center, Northwest Women's Law Center, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, The Women's Institute for Freedom of the Press, Washington Teachers Union, Women Employed, Women's Law Center of Maryland, Women's Research and Education Institute, YWCA USA. 28. Excerpts of Support for the Hate Crime Prevention Act of 2007. 29. General List of Supporting Organizations 2007.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I again thank my friend and colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin, for his steadfast leadership in this extraordinarily important issue. We are full of hope this afternoon about the votes here in the Senate. I welcome just a few moments to express my own views about where I think we are and what I think the issues really are before the Senate. For years, many of us have fought the same battle, the battle to give those suffering or injured every ethical option for new cures. For those speaking on the Senate floor, perhaps little changes from one year's debate to the next. We still speak of hope. We still speak of dreams denied when those hopes are dashed. We still speak of our belief that medical research should be valued. But for those who listen to our debate, a year can make all the difference in the world. For a young man or woman bravely serving their country, a year can make the difference between vigorous active service and life in a wheelchair or a brain injury from a war wound. For someone fighting the long and lonely battle against Alzheimer's disease, a year can make the memory of a beloved spouse or child a little fainter, a little more distant. For a patient battling against the tremors of Parkinson's disease, a year can mean more and more life activities fade out of reach. If overturning the administration's unwarranted restrictions on stem cell research brings just one breakthrough, just one of the many that our best scientists believe are possible, that breakthrough can mean all the difference in the world for the patients who benefit. They cannot wait another year, or another day, for the help stem cell research can bring, and we should not wait in aiding them. We must take action here and now to end these unnecessary and harmful restrictions on lifesaving research. Continuing the administration's restrictions means the gap between what scientists could do and what they are allowed to do grows even wider. Continuing the restrictions means our Nation's best scientists will go on having to waste precious time on pointless redtape and bureaucratic obstacles, time that should be spent on the search for new cures. Continuing the restrictions means having to tell the patients who are counting on the promise of stem cell research: Wait just a little longer, dream just a little less, hope just a little more faintly. The Senate must act, just as the House has already, to unlock the potential of stem cell research. When the Congress has approved this needed legislation, we must turn our attention to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and urge the President of the United States not to veto the legislation that gives so much hope to so many. Mr. President, just an extraordinary statement and comment from the Nation's leading scientist, Dr. Zerhouni, who is the head of the National Institutes of Health: From my standpoint as NIH director, it is in the best interest of our scientists, our science, and our country that we find ways and the nation finds a way to allow the science to go full speed across adult and embryonic stem cells equally. This is the statement of the head of the National Institutes of Health, an extraordinary scientist and researcher himself. It couldn't be said more clearly and more compellingly. Finally, to remind ourselves what this really is all about--because it is basically about individuals--here are two extraordinary soldiers who served in Iraq. James Crossby, Winthrop, MA, is now in a wheelchair because of a damaged spinal column--others could have similar situations from their own States--and Sgt Jason Wittling, Marine Corps, injured in Karbala, again with spinal cord injuries. And that is one of the areas where there is such great hope. Finally, one of the most moving letters I have received in the time I have been in the Senate was on this issue, from Lauren Stanford, from Plymouth, MA--15 years old. She wrote just after watching the President of the United States speak on this issue when he set up the regime on which we have all commented, which limits the great possibilities we have talked about during the course of this debate. This is what she said: That night-- Referring to the night the President talked-- President Bush talked about protecting the innocent. I wondered then: what about me? I am truly innocent in this situation. I did nothing to bring my diabetes on; there is nothing I can do to make it any better. All I can do is hope for a research breakthrough and keep living the difficult, demanding life of a child with diabetes until that breakthrough comes. How, I asked my parents, is it more important to throw discarded embryos into the trash than it is to let them be used to hopefully save my life--and to give me back a life where I don't have to accept a constant, almost insane level of hourly medical intervention as ``normal''? How could my nation do this to me? That is the issue which Lauren Stanford has put before the Senate. Hopefully she will get an overwhelming, bipartisan answer this afternoon when the roll is called. I yield the remainder of my time..

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank my friends, Senators Harkin and Specter, for the extraordinary leadership they have provided on the extraordinary leadership they have provided on this issue, which is so important to families in our country. We deal with a lot of issues around this body. But this particular legislation probably offers more hope to more people than perhaps anything else we will do here in the Senate this year. When we think of all of the various kinds of illnesses and diseases and accidents that have affected so many families here in the Senate-- and, most importantly, the American families--we know we have the best in terms of treatment for these illnesses and sicknesses in the United States for those who are able to receive it. Still, all of these illnesses and sicknesses have defied the ablest and most gifted minds until very recently, and that is with the discovery that started about 10 years ago with the opportunity for using stem cells, which can play a very indispensable role in providing a cure for these individuals. That is what this is basically all about--an extraordinary opportunity that is out there, and whether we in the United States are going to permit the great institution--the greatest institution for research--the National Institutes of Health to be able to unleash the vastness of the creativity, brilliance, and ability of those researchers and scientists to try to unlock the cures for so many of these diseases, and do it in a way that is ethically sound, and for so many of the reasons that have been spelled out. This is an enormously timely bill. I thank Senator Harkin for his persistence and for ensuring we were going to be able to have this on the floor of the Senate in a timely way. I thank Senator Reid for scheduling this. I thank the broad bipartisan coalition that has come together on our side and on the other side of the aisle which has given strong support for this legislation. It is pretty popular at this time in Washington to talk about the differences that exist in our Nation's Capital. There are some very important ones. We have come together, Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate--those who have over a long period of time advocated the pro-life position and those who have felt there should be an ability for individuals to make judgments about their own future--in support of this legislation. So this is a very special time, and this vote we are going to have tomorrow is enormously important. Again, I thank my colleagues and friends for bringing us to the point where we are today. Nearly a decade ago, American scientists made the revolutionary discovery that tiny cells, called stem cells, held the extraordinary potential to offer new hope and new help in the fight against diabetes and Parkinson's disease, spinal injury, and many other illnesses. Six years ago, many of us in the Senate joined millions of patients and their families in calling on President Bush to support this lifesaving research. Sadly, he rejected those calls and instead imposed severe restrictions on the search for the cures. Since those severe limitations were imposed, we have struggled to free American scientists from these unwarranted restrictions. Last year, we scored a great victory when the House and Senate, with broad bipartisan majorities, voted to end those restrictions. But those efforts came to naught with a veto, and we are back at the battle again. I share that view of my colleagues and friends in saying if we are not successful--although we are hopeful we will be--we are going to continue this battle day in and day out until we are successful. Today we renew our hope that the President will start anew and consider the merits of this new legislation instead of automatically picking up the veto pen. When Congress passed the bipartisan stem cell bill last year, we voted for hope, for progress, and for life. But President Bush chose to dash those hopes by vetoing the legislation. Now we are taking up the cause once again. Our legislation again brings together conservatives and progressives, Members of Congress on both sides of the debate over a woman's right to choose. Representatives from big cities, small towns, rural communities--we all agree stem cell research must go forward. This legislation before us is only six pages long. It is a short, simple bill with enormous goals and vast potential. It overturns the unrealistic and unreasonable restrictions on the embryonic stem cell research imposed by the President's Executive order 5 years ago. His unilateral action bypassed Congress and froze progress in its tracks by barring the NIH from funding research using any stem cells derived after August 9, 2001, an arbitrary date chosen solely to coincide with the President's speech. Many of us warned at that time that this policy would delay the search for new cures and put needless barriers in the way of medical progress. At a HELP Committee hearing days after the Executive order was issued, many of us raised concerns about the new policy and urged the President to reconsider. Our concerns were dismissed by the administration, but time has shown that each of the drawbacks we feared then has become a real barrier to progress today. At the time of the Executive order, the administration claimed that over 60 independent stem lines would be available to NIH researchers. We found, as our friend from California, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Harkin pointed out earlier, that 21 of those stem lines are available to NIH researchers and all those were obtained using out- of-date methods and outmoded techniques. We listened carefully to the words of Dr. Landis, who is chair of the NIH stem cell task force, in testimony before the Senate in January of this year. ``We are missing out on possible breakthroughs.'' ``Federally funded research has monitoring oversight and transparency that privately funded research will not necessarily have.'' ``The cell lines that are eligible for the NIH funding now have been shown to have genetic instabilities,'' effectively pointing out the missed opportunities that are in place now because of the restrictions put on by the administration and that even the research that is being done in the private sector, as limited as it is, is lacking in the kind of monitoring and oversight and, in many instances, the enormously important ethical considerations that have been included in this legislation. It has been mentioned earlier in this discussion but needs to be mentioned again, the excellent statement by the Director of the National Institutes of Health before the Senate on March 19, where he points out: To sideline the NIH in such an issue of importance, in my view, is shortsighted. I think it wouldn't serve the Nation well in the long run. We need to find a way to move forward. These are two of the most distinguished researchers, scientists. Dr. Zerhouni has had a brilliant record at the NIH. Dr. Landis has had a brilliant record. Anyone who has the opportunity to listen to them respond to questions can't help but leave that meeting recognizing and supporting their position. Those are the issues. That is what this legislation is about. Our legislation makes the basic change needed to reverse our current policy. As has been pointed out, science without ethics is akin to a ship without a rudder. For that reason, the legislation establishes essential ethical safeguards for stem cell research--enormously important--and has been reviewed earlier during this debate. Our legislation authorizes new initiatives for obtaining the stem cells from sources other than embryos. We strongly support ongoing research for alternatives to embryonic stem cell research, but it is fundamentally wrong to shut down the promise of new cures while that search is underway. In the end, this debate is not about abstract principles or complex aspects of science but the people who look with hope to stem cell research to help them with the challenges they face. It is important to SGT Jason Wittling. Let me read about SGT Jason Wittling. He was injured in Kabala, Iraq. He is in the U.S. Marine Corps: I was in Charlie Company, 1st Combat Engineering Battalion, 1st Marine Division. I spent 10 years, 1 month, 28 days in the Marine Corps, but who's counting. On May 9, 2003, on the outskirts of Kabala, Iraq, my squad was disposing of Iraqi ordinances. The fuse went off prematurely, and as a result of the accident, his vehicle overturned on him. I had burst fractures of my C6 vertebrae in my neck, broke my right wrist, and a number of other injuries. He is in a wheelchair now, a brave and courageous marine. Sergeant Wittling now looks to stem cell research for new hope for his injuries. He has had multiple surgeries. Here is LCpl James Crosby of Winthrop, MA. He enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 17. He is married to Angela. He was living in California before his service and injury. On March 18, James was wounded by enemy fire while riding in the back of a U.S. military vehicle in Iraq. A rocket was fired and killed the driver and injured two marines, including James. Shrapnel pierced James's side and penetrated his intestine and spine. James was immediately flown to a hospital in Kuwait. He had his first operation there and was stabilized. He was finally flown to a U.S. military hospital in Germany. In Germany, James underwent several surgeries to remove shrapnel and repair wounds. James's wife Angela was flown to Germany to be with him. He is now in a wheelchair. He has had multiple additional operations. He has lost 50 pounds, requires a colostomy bag at all times. He has undergone 14 surgeries. He remains paralyzed from the waste down. He is now in a wheelchair and has high hopes that stem cell research can be of help, permitting him to recover from his wounds. There are countless others who have similar injuries and recognize the importance of this research. I am going to conclude with a letter I received from 15-year-old Lauren Stanford, who is from Plymouth, MA, who has juvenile diabetes. In her letter, she wrote of her hope of what stem cell research means to her and her family. She wrote me again this year. While she is still full of hope, you can also hear her frustration. These are her words: I'm now wearing what is called a continuous glucose monitoring system. It has a wire probe that I insert under my skin every few days on my own. When I first held the wire probe to my thigh, I was scared to death. The needle was huge, and I was going to be plunging it into my body. Would it hurt? What if it didn't work? Was it worth the risk? After about 20 minutes of sweating and shaking, I stopped chickening out and found the guts to do it. And then, as soon as I did it, I knew almost immediately it was the right thing to do. It went in fine. It didn't hurt that much. And it is helping me. Those were her words. She goes on to write to each of us about our decisions on how to vote on this legislation. Here is what she writes: Some of you might be scared to vote yes. You know it's the right thing to do; after all, if embryos are being discarded, how can it not be right to use them to help people like me? Your hand is lingering over the yes lever, just like mine was over the insertion device. You can see it might do some good . . . but you're afraid. Someone might get mad. It might hurt a little. But follow my lead. Be brave. Do something that might hurt a little or scare you for a second, but after will make so many things so much better. Vote yes to allow scientists to do this valuable research to free kids like me from horrible diseases. Vote yes and take another step along with me to finding cures. No one ever said doing the right thing, the brave thing, and the thing to make the world better would be easy. I've learned that the hard way. Vote yes. Free me from the machines that keep me alive. Clear away my future of kidney damage, blindness and fear of a shortened life. Those are Lauren Stanford's words, and they compel us to act. Tomorrow we can cast a vote of conscience and courage. By approving the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, we call upon the President of the United States to think anew and decide not to veto hope. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to Robert D. Evans, who retired on February 28, after 35 years of distinguished service with the American Bar Association, including services as director of the ABA's Governmental Affairs Office. Born in Vermont, Bob received his B.A. from Yale University in 1966 and his law degree from the University of Michigan in 1969. He began his legal career at the Chicago firm known today as Sachnoff & Weaver, practicing corporate and commercial law. When an opportunity to work on public policy issues arose, he joined the ABA Chicago staff in 1972, and soon found himself working in the ABA's Washington, DC, office. Since 1982, Bob has served as director of the Governmental Affairs Office, providing strong leadership on many issues, including judicial independence, tax reform, the PATRIOT Act, and numerous anticrime and antiterrorism bills. Perhaps what people will remember most is Bob's career-long effort to guarantee access to justice for all through the development and preservation of the Legal Services Corporation, which funds local legal aid programs to help low-income individuals and families deal with basic legal problems that affect day-to-day living. Bob is listed in ``Who's Who in America'' and ``Who's Who in American Law.'' He has received numerous awards and commendations for his dedicated and tireless work in seeking equal justice for America's poor, including recognition from the National Legal Aid and Defender Association and the National Clients Council. Bob has also made outstanding contributions to Washington-area communities. He has served Washington Grove, MD, as mayor and town council member, and currently sits on the Washington Grove Planning Commission. Bob has also chaired the Associations Division of the National Capital Area United Way Campaign, and has helped to raise millions of dollars for DC area charities to support those in need. He also was president of Project Northstar, a homeless children's tutoring program for homeless children in the District of Columbia. With his dedication to the rule of law, his professionalism, his expertise and his unfailing good humor, Bob has fulfilled the highest ideals and goals of the legal profession. He has improved the administration of justice, and brought greater access to legal representation and American justice for all persons, regardless of their economic or social condition. Bob will be greatly missed. I join his many colleagues and friends in wishing Bob, his wife Kathie, and their daughter Sarah much happiness in the years to come.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support legislation that would increase the number of visas available for Iraqi and Afghan translators. America has a strong obligation to keep faith with the Iraqis and Afghans who have worked so bravely with us--and have often paid a terrible price for it. Translators have been the eyes and ears of our military, and they have saved American lives. They now have a target on their backs because of their service to our country, and we need to protect them by granting them safe refuge in the United States. Under the current program, only 50 translators a year from Iraq and Afghanistan are eligible for admission to the United States. So far this year, we have already admitted 50, and 450 more are waiting for admission under the program. At the current rate, that is a 9-year backlog. These men and women are in mortal danger every day and they should be permitted to come to the United States without delay. They have been recommended by the American military. The Department of Homeland Security agreed that they are eligible for admission to the United States. To ensure that these courageous allies are able to come to America this year, the Lugar-Kennedy bill authorizes 500 visas a year for the current fiscal year 2007 and for the next 2 years so that this critical lifeline will continue to be available. Under the bill's provisions, persons who served as translators or interpreters either for our military or for the Department of State can qualify. The bill is not intended to address the much broader massive refugee crisis unfolding in Iraq. Already more than 2 million Iraqis have fled the country, and nearly 2 million more have been displaced internally. Each refugee is a personal story of courage, loyalty, heroism, and tragedy. We have a special duty to protect all of them and their loved ones who are being targeted by insurgents and sectarian death squads either because of their faith or because of their association with the United States. Obviously, we cannot take all of these refugees into America, but we have an obligation to lead an international effort to solve this dangerous crisis as well. Legislation is essential to address this problem, and I am hopeful we can enact it soon. But it is especially urgent that we act now to protect the lives of the translators who have served us so well in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for far too long, we've acquiesced in a lop-sided economy that benefits wealthy individuals and corporations, but not America's working families. Tens of millions of our men and women are working harder than ever, but they aren't receiving their fair share of the economy they helped do so much to create and sustain. Since President Bush took office, corporate profits have increased 65 percent. Productivity is up 18 percent. But household income has declined; the wages of working Americans are stagnant. Six million have lost their health insurance. Their retirement is uncertain as well-- only 1 in 5 workers today has a guaranteed pension. In short, working families are finding that the American dream is beyond their reach. This injustice is worsening each year, and it is time for Congress to deal with it. The best way to see that employees receive their fair share of America's prosperity is to give them a stronger voice in the workplace. Unions were fundamental in building America's middle class, and they have a vital role today in preserving the American dream for working families. Unions can make all the difference between an economy that's fair, and an economy where working people are left behind. Union wages are 30 percent higher than non-union wages. 80 percent of union workers have health insurance, compared to only 49 percent of non-union workers. Union members are 4 times more likely to have a secure, guaranteed pension. No wonder most American workers want union representation. The question is, why don't more of them have it? The reason is clear. In 2005 alone, more than 30,000 workers were illegally fired or retaliated against for attempting to exercise their right to have a union in their workplace. Every 17 minutes, a worker is fired or punished in some illegal way for supporting a union. Unscrupulous employers routinely break the law to keep unions out--they intimidate employees, harass them, and discriminate against them. They shut down whole departments--or even entire plants--to avoid negotiating a union contract. It's illegal and unacceptable, but it happens every day. Clearly, the current system is broken. It can't stop these illegal, anti-worker, anti-labor, anti-union tactics that take place every day. The penalties are so minor that employers treat them as just another cost of doing business. Even when workers succeed in forming a union, they often can't obtain a first contract because management stonewalls them and refuses to negotiate. Half of all cases alleging that employers refused to bargain are filed during first-contract negotiations--and in most of those cases, the National Labor Relations Board finds an unfair labor practice. Year after year, Congress has refused to act against these union- busting tactics that are now all too familiar in the workplace. It's time to listen to the voice of America's working men and women, and give them what they want and deserve--a fair voice in the workplace and a fair chance at the American dream. That's why I'm reintroducing the Employee Free Choice Act today. This essential legislation will strengthen protections for workers' freedom to choose union representation. It will restore their democratic right to join together for better wages, better benefits, and better working conditions. It will help millions of working men and women to build a better life for themselves and a better future for their children. I am proud to have 46 of my fellow Senators joining me in sponsoring this important bill, and I hope that all of my colleagues will support it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for far too long, we've acquiesced in a lop-sided economy that benefits wealthy individuals and corporations, but not America's working families. Tens of millions of our men and women are working harder than ever, but they aren't receiving their fair share of the economy they helped do so much to create and sustain. Since President Bush took office, corporate profits have increased 65 percent. Productivity is up 18 percent. But household income has declined; the wages of working Americans are stagnant. Six million have lost their health insurance. Their retirement is uncertain as well-- only 1 in 5 workers today has a guaranteed pension. In short, working families are finding that the American dream is beyond their reach. This injustice is worsening each year, and it is time for Congress to deal with it. The best way to see that employees receive their fair share of America's prosperity is to give them a stronger voice in the workplace. Unions were fundamental in building America's middle class, and they have a vital role today in preserving the American dream for working families. Unions can make all the difference between an economy that's fair, and an economy where working people are left behind. Union wages are 30 percent higher than non-union wages. 80 percent of union workers have health insurance, compared to only 49 percent of non-union workers. Union members are 4 times more likely to have a secure, guaranteed pension. No wonder most American workers want union representation. The question is, why don't more of them have it? The reason is clear. In 2005 alone, more than 30,000 workers were illegally fired or retaliated against for attempting to exercise their right to have a union in their workplace. Every 17 minutes, a worker is fired or punished in some illegal way for supporting a union. Unscrupulous employers routinely break the law to keep unions out--they intimidate employees, harass them, and discriminate against them. They shut down whole departments--or even entire plants--to avoid negotiating a union contract. It's illegal and unacceptable, but it happens every day. Clearly, the current system is broken. It can't stop these illegal, anti-worker, anti-labor, anti-union tactics that take place every day. The penalties are so minor that employers treat them as just another cost of doing business. Even when workers succeed in forming a union, they often can't obtain a first contract because management stonewalls them and refuses to negotiate. Half of all cases alleging that employers refused to bargain are filed during first-contract negotiations--and in most of those cases, the National Labor Relations Board finds an unfair labor practice. Year after year, Congress has refused to act against these union- busting tactics that are now all too familiar in the workplace. It's time to listen to the voice of America's working men and women, and give them what they want and deserve--a fair voice in the workplace and a fair chance at the American dream. That's why I'm reintroducing the Employee Free Choice Act today. This essential legislation will strengthen protections for workers' freedom to choose union representation. It will restore their democratic right to join together for better wages, better benefits, and better working conditions. It will help millions of working men and women to build a better life for themselves and a better future for their children. I am proud to have 46 of my fellow Senators joining me in sponsoring this important bill, and I hope that all of my colleagues will support it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I commend Senators Mikulski and Hutchison for their leadership on this issue and thank Senator Enzi for his hard work to get this bill through the Senate. I agree with Senator Mikulski that it is the intent of Congress that the Secretary, acting through the Director, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, will administer the described demonstration project as part of its overall management of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Program.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the award of a Congressional Gold Medal to our former colleague, Senator Ed Brooke, is eminently well-deserved, and I urge the Senate to approve this legislation. To all of us who know Ed Brooke, he was an outstanding Senator, a true statesman, a champion of equal justice and opportunity for all, and a man of great conscience and compassion. Senator Brooke was born in Washington, DC, not far from these Chambers on Capitol Hill, and he graduated from Howard University. He had studied medicine, intending to become a physician, but realized that he was more at home in the fields of literature, political science, and history. After finishing his degree at Howard, he served our country in World War II as a captain in the Army's segregated 366th Infantry Regiment, which fought with great courage in the Italian theater. During his service, he distinguished himself not only as a gifted leader, but as a skilled defense counsel in court martial proceedings. Returning from the war, he enrolled in Boston University Law School and became editor of the Law Review. After graduating, he began a successful law practice in Massachusetts and continued his commitment to public service as well. He chaired the Finance Commission of Boston, and specialized in rooting out public corruption. His ability, energy, and dedication won him renown, and he was elected attorney general of Massachusetts, becoming the first African American in the Nation to hold such a position. In his two terms as attorney general, he became a leader in the battle against organized crime In 1966, he was elected to the Senate from Massachusetts, the first African-American Senator since Reconstruction. I vividly remember escorting him down the center aisle of this Chamber for his swearing in. At that time, the Senate was deeply involved in enacting the historic civil rights legislation of the 1960s, and I was touched by the magnitude and immense symbolism of that moment for Ed and his family, for African Americans, for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and for the Nation as a whole. When people question Ed about his significant place in history, his response is always spirited and unchanging. He didn't want to be remembered only as the Senate's African-American Member. During his campaign for attorney general, he had said, ``I'm not running as a Negro. I never have. I'm trying to show that people can be elected on the basis of their qualifications and not their race.'' Ed always saw himself in this light. Despite his other ``firsts,'' he was first and foremost an American and a son of Massachusetts, and it was important to him that his accomplishments and talents speak louder than the color of his skin. Needless to say, his heritage uniquely qualified him to combat social injustice and stand as an eloquent voice for America's oppressed. He served on President Johnson's Commission on Civil Disorders, which investigated the causes of the race riots in American cities at the time, and the committee's recommendations became a central part of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. When he spoke on the Senate floor in support of the extending the Voting Rights Act in 1975, he addressed this body with inspiring candor and sincerity. In a time of great turmoil and division, he was a symbol of hope for Americans of color throughout our Nation--hope that our country was changing, hope that the American dream was still alive. Those who were intent on defeating the Voting Rights Act could not avoid pangs of conscience as Ed declared, ``I cannot believe that in 1975, on the floor of the U.S. Senate, we are ready to say to the American people, black and white, red and brown, that they cannot be assured of the basic right to vote!'' His point was irresistible, and the very next day, the Senate passed the bill. Ed was passionate about opportunity for all. In his two terms with us, he set a high standard for public service and was a model of senatorial independence, supporting measures on both sides of the aisle that he felt strengthened our country, and improved the lives of all Americans. He was a champion of the minimum wage, a strong voice for Medicare and Social Security, and an effective defender of women's rights. The title of his autobiography, ``Bridging the Divide,'' published earlier this year, says it all. He bridged race, he bridged parties, and defied any conventional categorization. I remember Ed discussing the difficulty of providing a home for his family after his return from World War II, at a time when race disqualified him from considering certain properties. His plight was characteristic of the struggle experienced by millions of Americans at that time. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 is a tribute to his leadership as a Senator, and long after he left the Senate, he continued the battle for fair housing and opportunity as leader of the National Low Income Housing Coalition. As Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, ``We must come to see that the end we seek is a society of peace. That will be the day not of the white man, not the black man. That will be the day of man as man.'' Edward Brooke is the embodiment of Dr. King's vision. He was a great Senator among us, he is still a caring public servant. He is a great American, and he certainly deserves this very special tribute from Congress. I urge my colleagues to approve this award of the Congressional Gold Medal to our former colleague, Ed Brooke.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to cooperate with my friend and colleague. If the Senator would give us a few moments to go over that for the leadership to work that out. I do not do it as a matter of personal privilege but as speaking for our leader on this side. So if the Senator would withhold for a half an hour or so. I would have to object to it. I do not personally object to it. I object for the leadership until it has an opportunity to examine the amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, is the Senator trying to perfect his own amendment?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Senator is requesting to alter his amendment, I have no objection to him doing so.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, amendment No. 680 is at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for the benefit of the Members, as they remember, we passed the substance of this legislation, I believe, 97 to 3. That is what is effectively the substance of this legislation. The House of Representatives has passed its own minimum wage. Because of the parliamentary complexities, we were unable to get this issue resolved. The House has included a minimum wage provision in their proposal. We offer this proposal, which is an expression of the Senate. It has broad bipartisan support--Republican and Democrat. This will mean both pieces of legislation--the supplemental--will have the minimum wage, and then the conferees will be able to make their judgment. But out of it will come an increase in the minimum wage. So it is in that spirit. I am delighted to debate the minimum wage, but I think we had a good debate. We had, I think, close to 7 days' debate on it in the last few weeks, so I do not think that is necessary. That is the current situation. That is the reason that legislation is pending at this time. I very much appreciate the cooperation of the floor managers in letting us get this at least up before the Senate at this time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I oppose the Republican effort to strike the critical section of this bill requiring our troops in Iraq to begin to come home in 120 days and that we finish the job in 2008. This is a defining moment for our country. The American people are watching, and the world is watching. The issue is clear. Will we stand with our soldiers by ending their misguided mission and beginning to bring them home? Or will we stand with the President and keep our soldiers trapped in Iraq's civil war? History will judge us. We can either continue down the President's perilous path or insist on a new direction. If we don't change course, we know what lies ahead--more American casualties, more deaths, more destruction, greater loss of respect for America in the wider world, and greater danger to our national security. A new strategy that makes Iraqis less reliant on our military is the best way forward. More of the same misguided policy will result in more of the same tragedy for our military. We need a realistic strategy, and we need it now. Iraq is the overarching issue of our time. Our national security itself is at stake. In this debate, we hear echoes of the past: We are accused of cutting and running. We are accused of giving comfort to the enemy. We are told we need to be patient and to accept the importance of staying the course. We are told we have to give the latest escalation a chance to succeed. Listen to this comment from a high-ranking American official: It became clear that if we were prepared to stay the course, we could help to lay the cornerstone for a diverse and independent Asia . . . If we faltered, the forces of chaos would scent victory and decades of strife and aggression would stretch endlessly before us. The choice was clear. We would stay the course. And we shall stay the course. That is not President Bush speaking. It is President Lyndon Johnson 40 years ago, ordering a 100,000 more American soldiers to Vietnam. Here is another quotation: The big problem is to get territory and to keep it. You can get it today and it will be gone next week. That is the problem. You have to have enough people to clear it . . . and enough people to preserve what you have done. That is not President Bush on the need for more forces in Iraq. It is President Johnson in 1966 as he doubled our military presence in Vietnam. Here is yet another familiar argument. We are not going to tuck our tail and run . . . Those are not President Bush's words. Those are the words of President Johnson in 1966. Here is another familiar argument: We are being steadfast in Vietnam because we don't want the next generation of Americans to have to fight another war. That is not President Bush, but it sure sounds like him. It is Vice President Agnew in December 1969. Here is another familiar argument being used in the Iraq debate by the stay-the-course Republicans that we've heard before: We think we can bring peace. We will bring peace. The peace that we will be able to achieve will be due to the fact that Americans, when it really counted, did not buckle, did not run away, but stood fast . . . That is not President Bush. It is President Nixon in September 1969. And here is another: If, when the chips are down, the world's most powerful nation, the United States of America, acts like a pitiful, helpless giant, the forces of totalitarianism and anarchy will threaten free nations and free institutions throughout the world. That's not President Bush. Those are the words of President Nixon in April of 1970. These words from the past resonate painfully in today's debate on Iraq. In Vietnam, the White House grew increasingly obsessed with victory, and increasingly divorced from the will of the people and any rational policy. The Department of Defense kept assuring us that each new escalation in Vietnam would be the last. We were told to be steadfast, to stay the course, and not to retreat. There was no military solution to that war. But we kept trying to find one anyway. In the end, 58,000 Americans died in the search for it. Echoes of that disaster are all around us today. Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam. But we have heard all that in the current debate about Iraq as well. We have heard for years that the administration has a plan for success, that progress is just around the corner. But the plans for success keep getting tossed aside for new plans. The administration has benchmarks to measure success, but there are no consequences when the benchmarks are not met. The timelines for progress keep getting extended. We have turned so many corners that we have ended up back where we started-- trying to control Baghdad. It is time to change direction. Mr. President, 3,200 members of our forces have been killed, and more than 24,000 have been wounded. The casualties keep mounting. The violence continues to spiral upward. Our troops are in the impossible position of trying to stabilize a country at war with itself. The recent National Intelligence Estimate confirms the nightmare scenario unfolding for our troops. Iraq is sliding deeper into the abyss of civil war, and our brave men and women are caught in the middle of it. Prospects for halting the sectarian violence are bleak. Greater chaos and anarchy are looming ahead. Needless additional U.S. causalities are inevitable. The facts speak for themselves. According to the United Nations, nearly 35,000 civilians were violently killed in Iraq last year. Most were killed in Baghdad, where ``unidentified bodies killed execution- style are found in large numbers daily.'' More than 2 million refugees have fled the violence in Iraq, and another 1.8 million have been displaced internally. Our military should not be caught in the middle of this quagmire. Only a political solution can solve Iraq's problems. General Casey, in his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee in June 2005, called for a political solution. He said: If you look back historically at how insurgencies have been defeated, they have been defeated when the insurgents saw their options as better protected in the political process and their prospects for economic advancement can be better protected by the political process than fighting for them. And that's the essential element here. Last August, General Abizaid spoke about the need for a political solution. He said: Our troops are the best equipped, the best trained, the best led in the world. And I am enormously proud of them, and I have the utmost confidence in their ability to handle any mission. Yet, sectarian violence is worse than ever in Baghdad in particular. And I wonder about the validity of a strategy that says that less capable troops that are not as well equipped, trained and led as the best troops in the world can handle the security of this country if the upswing in violence has occurred despite the presence of the best troops in the world. It doesn't give me a lot of confidence in our underlying strategy. And it suggests to me that what we need is a political rather than a military solution. General Petraeus, the new commander of our forces in Iraq, recently emphasized as well that there is ``no military solution'' in Iraq. But no one in the administration has been able to clearly articulate a political solution or how it can take hold in the midst of this chaos. Instead of giving the Iraqis a necessary incentive to get their political house in order by beginning an orderly redeployment of our troops out of Iraq, the President stubbornly insists on sending more and more American troops into Iraq's civil war. Escalation didn't work in Vietnam and it won't work in Iraq either. Even worse, the administration has not been honest about the number of troops the President plans to send to Iraq for the surge. On January 10, he announced that he had committed ``more than 20,000'' additional troops to Iraq. Within a few days, we were told the number was 21,500. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that it would be far higher as much as 35,000 to 48,000 troops when support troops are included. On February 6, I asked General Pace and Secretary Gates for the best military estimate as to the actual size of the escalation. Their answer was an additional 10 to 15 percent. General Pace said, ``you're going to need no more than another 2,000, 2,500 troops on the ground.'' Nine days later, the number more than doubled. General Schoomaker told the Armed Services Committee his estimate was somewhere between 5,000 and 6,000 troops when he included imbedded trainers. Then, on March 6 Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England told a House committee ``about 4,000, maybe as many as 7,000.'' On March 7, at the request of General Petraeus, Secretary Gates authorized an additional 2,200 military police troops. We still don't have an accurate total for the size of this escalation. The administration refuses to speak with clarity and candor. Since the current surge began, Shiite militias in Baghdad may be lying low, but violence has increased elsewhere in Iraq. In Diyala province, in just 3 months, American casualties have exceeded the number for the entire year of 2006. In January this year, 83 American soldiers were killed, compared to 62 in the same month a year ago. Eighty more American soldiers were killed in February this year. In the same month last year, we lost 55 soldiers. In March, we have already lost 76 soldiers, compared to 31 in March 2006. Continuing our open-ended commitment to stay in Iraq will not bring victory. It will not stop the violence, and it will not protect our national security. The administration has outlined military, economic, and political benchmarks to measure success. But it has not given any timeline to achieve them, and it has not specified any consequences if the benchmarks are not met. This same administration supported timelines for every Iraqi election and for drafting the constitution. Yet it remains emphatically opposed to any timeline for the redeployment of our military. The American people have been patient. But America has now been in Iraq longer than it took us to win World War II. Instead of progress, we continue to see unacceptably high levels of violence, death, and destruction. We are putting too much strain on our Army, especially the Army National Guard. Our forces are overextended. Many soldiers are now on their third rotation. In the long run, we can't protect our Army if we don't end the war. Our troops have done their part. They have served with great courage. We are proud of their service, and we are ready to welcome them home. It is time to change course. It is time to insist that Iraqis step up to the plate and take responsibility for their own future. It is time to begin to redeploy our troops out of Iraq. It is time to put the Iraqis on notice that our military will no longer be a permanent crutch for them to lean on and avoid their responsibility to achieve a political solution. As General Abizaid told the Armed Services Committee last November: I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future. The only practical way to accomplish the change that is long overdue is for American combat troops to begin to come home. Those of us who opposed the war are used to the administration's attacks when we disagree with their wrongheaded policy. We have come to expect that. They have questioned our patriotism and called us defeatists. When we challenged the President's misguided policy, they accused us of having political motives and being partisan. But all of their criticisms have a hollow ring, because the administration has been so consistently wrong about the war in Iraq. They were wrong about the link between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein. They were wrong about Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction. They were wrong about America being greeted as liberators. They were wrong about the insurgency being in its last throes. And they are wrong to deny that Iraq is in a civil war. The American people are far ahead of the administration. For all of us who oppose this misguided war, our goals have always been clear: to protect the lives of our soldiers and to protect our national security. We have an obligation to stand up for our troops and stand up to our President when he stubbornly refuses to change course in Iraq. This legislation will do that. It will change the mission of our military away from combat and require the President to begin to redeploy American combat troops out of Iraq in 4 months. The target date for the completion of the redeployment is March 2008, 1 year from now. A limited number of troops would remain in Iraq after that, to train and equip the Iraqi Security Forces, to conduct counter-terrorism operations, and to guarantee the safety of our soldiers. Legislation is clearly necessary to give the Iraqi Government enough incentive to step up to the plate, work out its political differences, and take responsibility for Iraq's future. Our proposal is consistent with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's findings. It is also consistent with the wishes of the American people, who want most of our troops home within a year. How much clearer does it have to be before Republicans in Congress and the President finally respond to the voices of the American people? We are meeting our responsibilities by changing the mission of our military. We are not micromanaging the war. Many of us oppose the war, but all of us support our troops. We don't want to keep sending more and more of them into the middle of a civil war. Under no circumstances do we want them to go to war without proper armor and equipment. Our troops deserve better. Their families and loved ones deserve better. For the sake of our men and women in uniform in Iraq and the American people, it is time for us to take a stand. We need to adopt a new strategy. We need to make clear to the Iraqi Government that the mission of our troops must change and that we have a clear timeframe for their departure from Iraq. The Senate will fail our troops unless we vote to change course and begin to bring our soldiers home. At the end of this debate, the American people will know where each of us stands. On our side of the aisle, we stand with the American people. The voters told us in November to change course and begin to bring our troops home, and that is what we want to do. We stand with our troops. We and we alone are the ones insisting on a policy worthy of their courage and sacrifice. We stand for protecting America's national security. The war in Iraq has been a disaster from the start. It has made America more hated in the world. It has made it harder to win the war against terrorism. It has made it harder to work with other nations on every issue. Peace and progress in Iraq must be earned by Iraqis and their neighbors. We must no longer send our brave soldiers to an uncertain fate on the streets of Baghdad. We must begin to bring them home, to the hero's welcome they have surely earned.