Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Chair let me know when I have 30 seconds remaining?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is a defining moment. The American people are watching. The world is watching. The issue is clear: Will we stand with our soldiers by changing their mission to begin to bring them home or will we stand to keep our soldiers in Iraq's civil war? History will judge us. We can either continue down the President's perilous path or embrace a new direction. If we don't change course, we know what lies ahead: more American casualties, more American death, and more destruction. A new strategy that makes the 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. Let's try a new course and try it now. We must proceed because Iraq is the overarching issue of our time. We are being told we need to be patient. We are being told we have to give the latest escalation a chance to succeed. But we have heard it all before. We have heard for years that this administration has a plan for success. We have heard for years that progress is just a few months away. We have heard for years that we have turned a corner. But the plans for success keep getting tossed aside for new plans, the timelines for progress keep getting extended, and 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. There are too many parents who have buried their children, too many children left without their father or mother, and too many soldiers missing arms and legs and eyes and ears. It is time to change course, let the Iraqis step up to the plate and take responsibility for their own future, and begin to redeploy our troops out of Iraq. Those of us who oppose the war are used to the administration's attacks. They have questioned our patriotism and called us defeatist. When we challenged the President's misguided policy, they accused us of having political motives and being partisan. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. Our motives have always been clear: to protect the lives of our soldiers. The American people are far ahead of the administration. 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. We are meeting our responsibility by changing the mission of our military, not micromanaging the war. The recent hearings on Walter Reed should instruct us here today. They tell us how little faith we can put in this administration. The very people who hide behind the troops when their policies are questioned have failed to keep faith with our wounded soldiers. But just as importantly, the hearings on Walter Reed remind us all of the human costs of the war. This administration has done all it can to hide them from us. They have forbidden photographs of the coffins flown back from Iraq. The President has avoided attending the funerals of the fallen, and the tours at Walter Reed never included Building 18. But the hearings on Walter Reed swept away all the spin and camouflage and put our wounded soldiers back where they belong: at the heart of our debate about the war. At the end of those hearings, everyone agreed that the Army had failed these brave soldiers. But we failed them long before they arrived at an Army hospital. This administration failed them when it trumped up the intelligence in order to make the case for war.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional seconds. It failed them when it sent too few troops with too little armor. It failed them when it turned the reconstruction of Iraq into a political science project. We in the Senate will fail them today if we do not vote to change course and 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 are going to do. We stand for our constitutional system in which the Congress speaks for the people in matters of war and peace and can require that the President listen to them. Finally, we stand with our troops. We alone are insisting on a policy worthy of their courage and worthy of their sacrifice. Peace and progress in Iraq must be earned by the Iraqis and their neighbors. We must no longer send our brave soldiers into an uncertain fate on the streets of Baghdad. Bring them home to the heroes welcome they have earned.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, is there a time allocation or are we without a time allocation?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. I do not intend to be long, and I am glad to yield at any time to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Mr. President, this is a defining moment for our country. The American people are watching. The world is watching. The issue is clear. Will we stand with our soldiers by changing their 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 do not change course, we know what lies ahead--more American casualties, more wounded, more destruction. 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. Let's try a new course and let's try it now because Iraq is the overarching issue of our time and because we need to protect our national security. We are told we need to be patient. We are told we have to give the latest escalation a chance to succeed. But we have heard all of that before. We have heard for years that this administration has a plan for success. We have heard for years that progress is just a few months away. We have heard for years that we have turned 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 for a new direction. Mr. President, I reference this document. It is: ``Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq.'' It is a report to Congress by the Department of Defense, embargoed until 3 o'clock this afternoon. It is now after that hour. Here is what this document, which has just been released by the Department of Defense, has to say on stability and security in Iraq: The last two months of 2006, however, saw little progress on the reconciliation front. The first two of four planned reconciliation conferences were described in the last report (November 2006). These conferences laid solid groundwork for subsequent conferences, but there has been little progress since then and the conferences had no effect on quelling violence. On December 16-17, 2006, the Political Parties Conference was held in Baghdad. Speeches given by the Prime Minister and other Iraqi officials focused on political participation and national unity, and welcomed former Ba'athists into the political process, so long as they showed loyalty to the new national government. The Sadrist bloc, top Ba'athists, and many Sunni factions did not participate. A fourth conference of religious leaders has not yet been scheduled due to lack of financial support and attendance challenges. Mr. President, too many parents have had to bury their sons and daughters. Too many children have been left without their father or their mother. Too many soldiers are missing arms or legs. Nearly 3,200 of our forces have been killed. More than 24,000 have been wounded. The casualties keep mounting. The violence in Iraq continues to spiral as well. 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. casualties are inevitable. The intelligence community has finally determined what everyone but the Bush administration has been willing to admit for some time. As the Intelligence Estimate stated: [T]he term ``civil war'' accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethno- sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence, ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population displacements. Those are the words of the intelligence community. Secretary Powell agrees. Former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan agrees. Only President Bush continues to stubbornly deny that our troops are policing a civil war. The facts speak for themselves. According to the United Nations, nearly 35,000 civilians were violently killed in Iraq last year. In November and December of last year, more than 6,000 civilians were killed. 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 June 2005 testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, called out 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 or 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-- This is General Abizaid-- it suggests to me that what we need is a political rather than a military solution. Last week, General Petraeus, the new commander of our forces in Iraq, stated 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 troops into Iraq's civil war. Escalation didn't work in Vietnam and it will not work in Iraq either. The President's latest proposal--to increase the number of our troops in Iraq--makes no sense at all. Sending more troops into the cauldron of Iraq's civil war is not the solution. In addition to the fact that we know a military solution is not the answer, the administration still has not leveled with us on the number of troops the President plans to send to Iraq for the surge. On January 10, the President announced he had committed more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq. Within a few days, this number had been revised to 21,500. The CBO 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 estimates of the actual size of the escalation, and 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. By February 15, the number had more than doubled. General Schoomaker told the Armed Services Committee his estimate was somewhere between 5,000 and 6,000 troops when you 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.'' Last week, 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 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 Americans were killed in February of this year. In the same month last year, we lost 55 soldiers. Already, in 2 weeks this March, we have lost more than 31 soldiers, the same number killed in the entire month of March of 2006. This is what today's report from the Defense Department points out on page 18, under the section ``Attack Trends and Violence'': The total number of attacks on and casualties suffered by coalition forces, the ISF, and Iraqi civilians for the October-December reporting period were the highest of any 3- month period since 2003. It continues: Coalition forces continued to attract the majority of attacks, while ISF and Iraqi civilians continued to suffer the majority of the casualties. That is today's report. 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 stated 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 for any timeline for the redeployment of our military. The American people have been patient. But America now has 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. The Army is overextended. Many soldiers are now on their third rotation. To deal with the recruitment shortages, we have eased the standards and increased the bonuses. The Department of Defense is formalizing a policy to redeploy reservists more often and for longer. But 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 ask the Iraqis to step to the plate and take the responsibility for their own future, and 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. 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. It is time 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 wrong-headed policy. We have come to expect that. They have questioned our patriotism and call us defeatists. When we challenged the President's misguided policy, he accused us of having political motives and being partisan. Before the war, Vice President Cheney said we hadn't seen all the intelligence he had seen. But after the war, when things were going badly, the President said more than 100 times that we had seen the same intelligence. More than 2 years ago, I called on the administration to focus on the training of the Iraqi security forces and to begin to redeploy our troops out of Iraq. I said the Iraqis need to take responsibility and that we should set a goal of about a year for the redeployment of most of our forces out of Iraq. Rather than debating the merits of the policy, the Republican spin machine went into overdrive. A year ago, on the third anniversary of the war, Vice President Cheney went on national television and said: I would not look to Ted Kennedy for guidance and leadership in how we ought to manage national security. Well, the American people certainly know we cannot look to the Vice President and this administration for national security. The administration has been consistently wrong about the war in Iraq. Year after year, they insist on a dangerously incompetent strategy. They were wrong about the link between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein. They were wrong about Saddam Hussein's 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 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: protect the lives of our soldiers and protect our national security. We have an obligation to stand up for our troops and stand up to the President when he stubbornly refuses to change course in Iraq. Our 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 counterterrorism, and to guarantee the safety of our soldiers. Our proposal is consistent with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's finding. It recommended that: The primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should evolve to one of supporting the Iraqi Army, which would take over primary responsibility for combat operations. By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq. Those are the words of the Iraq Study Group. Legislation is clearly necessary to give the Iraq Government enough of an incentive to step up to the plate, work out its political differences, and take responsibility for Iraq's future. 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 good of our men and women in uniform 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 recent hearings on Walter Reed should inform our debate as well. They tell us how little faith we can put in this administration. The very people who hide behind the troops when we question their policies have failed to keep faith with our wounded soldiers. As importantly, the hearings on Walter Reed remind all of us of the human costs of the war. This administration has done all it can to conceal them from us. They have forbidden photographs of the coffins flown back from Iraq. The President has avoided attending the funerals of the fallen. The tours of Walter Reed never included Building 18. But the hearings on Walter Reed swept away all the spin and camouflage. They put our wounded soldiers back where they belong: at the heart of our debates about the war. At the end of those hearings, everyone agreed that the administration failed these brave soldiers, but we failed them long before they arrived at Walter Reed. The administration failed them when it trumped up the intelligence in order to make the case for war. It failed them when it sent too few troops with too little armor into battle. We in the Senate will fail them today 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 to begin to bring our troops home, and that is what we are going to do. We stand for our Constitution, in which the Congress speaks for the people in matters of war and peace and can require the President to listen. 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. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains for both sides?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to remind me when there is 1 minute remaining. First, I commend the good Senator for offering this amendment. It is important to understand what it does not do. It does not provide a right to strike, a right to bargain over pay. It does not prevent TSA from responding to emergencies, and it does not prevent TSA from responding to new threats. This amendment does none of that, even though it has been distorted and misrepresented. As the good Senator has pointed out, what are the existing attrition rates today? Look at the different security agencies, Immigration and Customs correctional officers, Secret Service and Border Patrol, and Transportation Security. This is the national security threat, the idea that the TSA has this kind of turnover. That is the nature of the threat, having to get new people after new people after new people, because workers don't have a right to speak and don't have the right to bring their grievances. What is the result? Even in this agency we find out in terms of lost time and the injury rate, this agency leads the pack. What does it show? It shows it is poorly administered and the workers are not being treated fairly or are not treated with respect. The McCaskill amendment is simple in what it does. The Border Patrol agents have these kinds of protections. FEMA has these protections. Immigration and Customs have these protections. Unless we have the McCaskill amendment, we will not have the range of these protections for Transportation Security Administration workers. The others have it but not TSA. What does the other side have against working men and women? How insulting, that these men and women will not put the security of the United States first. At the time of 9/11, under the Defense Department, they moved hundreds and thousands of civilians all around the country. They were all under collective bargaining agreements. Not one grievance was filed, not a single one. These men and women understood their duty. They understood the threat. They were patriotic Americans. What is it about the other side that questions that these are men and women of dignity who will do their job when this Nation is threatened? What is it about? It certainly wasn't there at 9/11 when their brothers and sisters who work for the Department of Defense agency were moved all around. They were prepared to do everything they were asked to do.

Mr. KENNEDY. Finally, as the good Senator has pointed out, as the smoke was coming out of the buildings in New York, when we saw the collapse of the first buildings and men and women under collective bargaining agreements were asked to go into those fiery infernos, no one was talking about collective bargaining agreements. They were talking about doing their duty to the United States. Let us permit these workers to do their duty. Let's give them these protections. Let's give them the kind of respect and dignity the McCaskill amendment gives them. I reserve whatever time remains.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join with Senator Hatch in introducing legislation to reauthorize the Traumatic Brain Injury Act. The reauthorization will expand assistance to the millions of adults and children in the nation who are facing serious problems because of brain injuries. Its provisions also have a major role in meeting the critical needs facing many of our wounded soldiers returning home from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The numbers tell the story. As of this month, almost 25,000 service members have been wounded in Iraq, and approximately two-thirds of the injuries include brain injuries. Here at home, an extremely high number of children from birth to age 14 experience traumatic brain injuries-- approximately 475,000 a year--and some of the most frequent injuries are among children under the age of five. Soldiers and children--I cannot think of two more deserving groups of people in our nation. Reauthorization of the Act is essential to continue the availability of federal funds for traumatic brain injury programs. The bill reauthorizes grants that assist States, Territories, and the District of Columbia in establishing and expanding coordinated systems of community-based services and supports for children and adults with such injuries. It also extends the ability to apply for these grants to American Indian Consortia. When Congress approved the Traumatic Brain Injury Act as part of the Children's Health Act of 2000, we had the foresight to establish a specific provision called the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Traumatic Brain Injury Program. This program has proved to be essential because individuals with traumatic brain injuries have an array of needs, including assistance in returning to work, finding a place to live, obtaining supports and services such as attendant care and assistive technology, and obtaining appropriate mental health, substance abuse, and rehabilitation services. Often these individuals--especially our returning veterans--must remain in extremely expensive institutions far longer than necessary, because the community-based supports and services they need are not available. Such services can lead both to reduced government expenditures and to increased productivity, independence and community integration, but the advocates must possess special skills, and their work is often time-intensive. In addition, our legislation provides funds for CDC programs that provide extremely important data gathering and information on injury prevention. In a time when both the Administration and Congress are searching for programs that provide the right kind of ``bang for the federal buck,'' an Institute of Medicine report last March showed that the TBI programs work. The programs in the Act were funded for a total of only $12 million dollars last year, and yet their benefit is obvious. Clearly these programs should be reauthorized and the funding should be increased. Although the reauthorization is for ``such sums as may be necessary,'' we must do all we can to expand the appropriations in the years ahead in order to meet the urgent need for this assistance. The IOM report called the current TBI programs an ``overall success,'' stating that ``there is considerable value in providing . . . funding,'' and ``it is worrisome that the modestly budgeted HRSA TBI Program continues to be vulnerable to budget cuts.'' As the study suggests, this program must be continued and allowed to grow, so that each state has the resources necessary to maintain vital services and advocacy for the estimated 5.3 million people currently living with disabilities resulting from brain injury. When our wounded soldiers return to their communities, the services and supports they need must be available. The nation owes these deserving people--especially our service members and our children--the services and advocacy available under these critical programs. I urge my colleagues to act quickly on this important reauthorization and enact this bipartisan bill as soon as possible.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join with Senator Hatch in introducing legislation to reauthorize the Traumatic Brain Injury Act. The reauthorization will expand assistance to the millions of adults and children in the nation who are facing serious problems because of brain injuries. Its provisions also have a major role in meeting the critical needs facing many of our wounded soldiers returning home from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The numbers tell the story. As of this month, almost 25,000 service members have been wounded in Iraq, and approximately two-thirds of the injuries include brain injuries. Here at home, an extremely high number of children from birth to age 14 experience traumatic brain injuries-- approximately 475,000 a year--and some of the most frequent injuries are among children under the age of five. Soldiers and children--I cannot think of two more deserving groups of people in our nation. Reauthorization of the Act is essential to continue the availability of federal funds for traumatic brain injury programs. The bill reauthorizes grants that assist States, Territories, and the District of Columbia in establishing and expanding coordinated systems of community-based services and supports for children and adults with such injuries. It also extends the ability to apply for these grants to American Indian Consortia. When Congress approved the Traumatic Brain Injury Act as part of the Children's Health Act of 2000, we had the foresight to establish a specific provision called the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Traumatic Brain Injury Program. This program has proved to be essential because individuals with traumatic brain injuries have an array of needs, including assistance in returning to work, finding a place to live, obtaining supports and services such as attendant care and assistive technology, and obtaining appropriate mental health, substance abuse, and rehabilitation services. Often these individuals--especially our returning veterans--must remain in extremely expensive institutions far longer than necessary, because the community-based supports and services they need are not available. Such services can lead both to reduced government expenditures and to increased productivity, independence and community integration, but the advocates must possess special skills, and their work is often time-intensive. In addition, our legislation provides funds for CDC programs that provide extremely important data gathering and information on injury prevention. In a time when both the Administration and Congress are searching for programs that provide the right kind of ``bang for the federal buck,'' an Institute of Medicine report last March showed that the TBI programs work. The programs in the Act were funded for a total of only $12 million dollars last year, and yet their benefit is obvious. Clearly these programs should be reauthorized and the funding should be increased. Although the reauthorization is for ``such sums as may be necessary,'' we must do all we can to expand the appropriations in the years ahead in order to meet the urgent need for this assistance. The IOM report called the current TBI programs an ``overall success,'' stating that ``there is considerable value in providing . . . funding,'' and ``it is worrisome that the modestly budgeted HRSA TBI Program continues to be vulnerable to budget cuts.'' As the study suggests, this program must be continued and allowed to grow, so that each state has the resources necessary to maintain vital services and advocacy for the estimated 5.3 million people currently living with disabilities resulting from brain injury. When our wounded soldiers return to their communities, the services and supports they need must be available. The nation owes these deserving people--especially our service members and our children--the services and advocacy available under these critical programs. I urge my colleagues to act quickly on this important reauthorization and enact this bipartisan bill as soon as possible.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the men and women who serve as transportation security officers, TSOs, are on the front lines of our effort to keep America safe. They do backbreaking, difficult work, day and night, to preserve our national security. Yet for years they have been treated as second-class citizens. These officers do not have the same rights and protections enjoyed by most Federal employees, including other employees at the Department of Homeland Security. They don't have a voice at work. They don't have protections if they speak out about safety conditions or security issues. And they have no right to appeal if they are subject to discrimination or unfair treatment. Because they lack these basic protections, TSOs often labor in disgracefully poor working conditions. In 2006, they had the highest rate of injury among all DHS agencies--more than twice that of any other security agency. Inadequate staffing means TSOs are often forced to work mandatory, unscheduled overtime, leaving them exhausted and creating unsafe conditions. They can be fired for speaking out about unfair treatment, unsafe working conditions, or national security issues, and they have no effective way to appeal such unfair treatment. As a result, TSOs have the lowest morale and highest rate of turnover among Federal agencies. In 2006, the attrition rate for TSOs was 16 percent--more than 3 times that of any other security agency, and more than 6 times the national average for the Federal government. They have a higher attrition rate than even high turnover private sector employers. The chances are good that the person preparing your coffee at the airport has more experience than the screener who checked your bags for bombs. These sky-high attrition rates are alarming. The lack of experienced security screeners threatens our national security. Constant turnover reduces institutional knowledge and undermines the agency's ability to implement effective security procedures. It also has a high financial price--the cost of training new employees has risen so high that TSA has had to request an additional $10 million in funds from Congress for this year to address these turnover concerns. Low morale and high turnover at a front-line security agency is a recipe for disaster. We have to solve the problem. Our Nation, and these hard-working federal employees, deserve better. TSOs have earned the right to be treated with respect. They deserve the same fundamental workplace rights as other Federal security employees, including whistleblower protections, appeal rights, and collective bargaining rights. The issue is one of basic respect for this valuable workforce. I have heard some deeply disturbing rhetoric from my Republican colleagues about the effect of restoring these collective bargaining rights. It has been suggested that if these rights are restored, workers will try to hide behind their contracts and not respond in an emergency. It has been suggested that collective bargaining rights keep security workers from performing their jobs effectively. These suggestions are an insult to every man and woman in uniform who works under a collective bargaining agreement across this country. To suggest that union workers will not do what is best for our country in the event of an emergency is scandalous, particularly in light of recent history. Every New York City firefighter, EMT and police officer who responded to the disaster at the World Trade Center on 9/11 was a union member under a collective bargaining agreement. No one questions these employees' loyalty or devotion to duty because they are union members. On 9/11, Department of Defense employees were required to report to wherever they were told, regardless of their usual work assignments. No Federal union tried to hold up this process in any way to bargain or seek arbitration. Not a single grievance was filed to challenge the assignments after the fact. Other Federal security employees already have the protections that the bill would provide, including Border Patrol agents, Capitol police officers, Customs and Border inspection officers, and Federal Protective Service officers. Many of these officers--particularly customs and border inspection officers who work at airports, seaports, and border crossings--perform fundamentally similar tasks to TSOs and have been performing them effectively with collective bargaining rights for years. It is an insult to each of these men and women to suggest that they will not be capable of fully performing their important duties if they are given a voice at work. Collective bargaining is the best way to bring dignity, consistency, and fairness to the workplace. It will make our TSO workforce safer and more stable, and enhance our security. Restoring these essential rights is long overdue, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the DeMint amendment that would remove these valuable protections from the bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, one of the most profound economic shifts of the past century has been the entry of women into the workforce in tremendous numbers. In 1900, women made up only 18.4 percent of the working population. Today, more than 46 percent of the workers who claim a paycheck each week are women. Unfortunately, while America's women are working harder than ever, they are not being fairly compensated for their contributions to our economy. Discrimination against women continues to be prevalent in the workplace. Women earn about 77 cents for each dollar earned by men, and the gap is even greater for women of color. In 2004, African-American women earned only 67 percent of the earnings of White men, and Hispanic women earned only 56 percent. Unfortunately, the problem is not getting better. The current wage gap of 23 cents is the same gap that existed in 2002. Since 1963, when the Equal Pay Act was passed, the wage gap has narrowed by less than half of a penny a year. While many argue that this persistent pay gap is a consequence of women's choosing to take time out of the workforce, the evidence shows that other factors, including discrimination, are a significant cause. In 2004, the Census Bureau concluded that the substantial gap in earnings between men and women could not completely be explained by differences in education, tenure in the workforce, or occupation. Similarly, a recent General Accounting Office report concluded that the difference in men and women's working patterns does not explain the entire disparity in their wages. Discrimination plays a significant role as well. It is appalling and unacceptable that such discrimination still exists in America, and we need to combat it with Federal legislation. The issue is simple fairness, and Congress needs to act. I am proud to join with Senator Clinton and Senator Harkin in introducing the Paycheck Fairness Act today. This important legislation will give America's working women the tools they need to fight for fair pay. It will make sure our fair pay laws apply to everyone, and it will strengthen the penalties for employers that are not playing by the rules. These important reforms are long overdue. I urge my colleagues to stand up for working women and end wage discrimination by passing the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Teaching Fellows for Expanded Learning and After-School Act to tap the idealism, energy, and talent of 2-year and 4-year college graduates to serve as teaching fellows in our Nation's highest need schools. The Act will establish a new cadre of talented leaders to establish, expand or improve expanded learning initiatives, 21st century community learning center programs and after-school programs. These programs will build essential academic and youth development skills for all students in targeted grade levels in expanded-day programs. They will also assist teachers during the school day in linking the school curriculum more closely with after school programming. As we know most Olympic athletes train harder when a gold medal is in sight. Employees work overtime when a business launches a breakthrough product. Communities rally to provide material relief and comfort when natural disasters strike. When success matters most, increased effort is essential for achieving a worthy goal, and that fundamental principle can work in education too. The time has come for the Nation to go the extra mile to meet our education goals and ensure that all children develop the skills they need to participate fully in our economy and in the civic life of their communities. If students are to learn more--the core premise of the No Child Left Behind Act--they must have more time to meet these expectations. Teaching Fellows recruited under this bill will receive intensive training by experienced high-quality after-school programs and will serve for two years. The Act will also enable Teaching Fellows to pursue a bachelor's or graduate degree in education, in order to give communities a pipeline of leaders ready for future involvement in education and youth development. For the most part, reform efforts to date have equated education reform with school reform. As a result our attention has been focused on the 1,000 hours a year children are in school, while largely overlooking the 4,000 hours a year when children are awake and out of school. Teachers must, of course, remain at the heart of our strategy to improve education. But they need help. We need to expand learning time, involve caring adults in the lives of children, and make learning more relevant and engaging, especially for students who are struggling. The school calendar today is largely a relic of the agrarian age. It fails to respond to the realities that students must develop new skills for modem needs, and that in most families, parents are working during many of the after-school hours. Fourteen million children come back to empty homes after school. Voters across party lines, demographic groups, and geographic areas have said for 5 consecutive years that they overwhelmingly support after-school programs for all. Police chiefs, sheriffs and prosecutors overwhelmingly agree that investing in after-school programs is more effective in reducing youth violence and crime than hiring more police officers or stiff penalties. Diverting less than one percent of at-risk youth from a life of crime would save society several times the cost of the after-school programs. It is time for a new learning day to dawn in our country. Our communities and our citizens need to waken to clear call for involvement and investment in this aspect of public education. The Teaching Fellows for Expanded Learning and After-School Act draws on the impressive experience of after-school programs and schools that have developed, and tested these ideas and shown they can work. The Act is inspired by the Teaching Fellowship Program created by Citizen Schools, a national network of after-school programs with a track record of significant impact on academic achievement. A rigorous, long- term evaluation has shown that such students outperform their peers on six out of seven measures of school success. The Act also draws on the superb work of LA's BEST and After-School All-Stars, as well as the experience and innovations of other schools and programs across the country. Under the Act, the Department of Education will make grants to partnerships between local education agencies and strong community organizations, institutions of higher education, and community learning centers. These partnerships will recruit and place Teaching Fellows to work full-time in high-need schools that serve low-income students. Grants from the Department of Education will be at least $15,000 per Fellow annually, so that recipients can recruit, select, train, and support the Fellows. Fellows will also be able to earn a national service education award for each term of service. Partnerships will be required to obtain non-federal matching funds to leverage the federal government's investment and to involve the private sector in expanding these educational opportunities. Expanded learning time and after-school programs are the new frontier of education reform in America. Teaching Fellows recruited under the Act will complement the outstanding efforts of classroom teachers and infuse new energy, talent, and idealism in the after-school sector. They will also be an essential resource for the nation's parents, encouraging students to understand their potential and helping them to see the true promise of the American Dream. This bill is supported by thirty-seven groups representing education and after-school communities. I ask unanimous consent that their letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, one of the most profound economic shifts of the past century has been the entry of women into the workforce in tremendous numbers. In 1900, women made up only 18.4 percent of the working population. Today, more than 46 percent of the workers who claim a paycheck each week are women. Unfortunately, while America's women are working harder than ever, they are not being fairly compensated for their contributions to our economy. Discrimination against women continues to be prevalent in the workplace. Women earn about 77 cents for each dollar earned by men, and the gap is even greater for women of color. In 2004, African-American women earned only 67 percent of the earnings of White men, and Hispanic women earned only 56 percent. Unfortunately, the problem is not getting better. The current wage gap of 23 cents is the same gap that existed in 2002. Since 1963, when the Equal Pay Act was passed, the wage gap has narrowed by less than half of a penny a year. While many argue that this persistent pay gap is a consequence of women's choosing to take time out of the workforce, the evidence shows that other factors, including discrimination, are a significant cause. In 2004, the Census Bureau concluded that the substantial gap in earnings between men and women could not completely be explained by differences in education, tenure in the workforce, or occupation. Similarly, a recent General Accounting Office report concluded that the difference in men and women's working patterns does not explain the entire disparity in their wages. Discrimination plays a significant role as well. It is appalling and unacceptable that such discrimination still exists in America, and we need to combat it with Federal legislation. The issue is simple fairness, and Congress needs to act. I am proud to join with Senator Clinton and Senator Harkin in introducing the Paycheck Fairness Act today. This important legislation will give America's working women the tools they need to fight for fair pay. It will make sure our fair pay laws apply to everyone, and it will strengthen the penalties for employers that are not playing by the rules. These important reforms are long overdue. I urge my colleagues to stand up for working women and end wage discrimination by passing the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Teaching Fellows for Expanded Learning and After-School Act to tap the idealism, energy, and talent of 2-year and 4-year college graduates to serve as teaching fellows in our Nation's highest need schools. The Act will establish a new cadre of talented leaders to establish, expand or improve expanded learning initiatives, 21st century community learning center programs and after-school programs. These programs will build essential academic and youth development skills for all students in targeted grade levels in expanded-day programs. They will also assist teachers during the school day in linking the school curriculum more closely with after school programming. As we know most Olympic athletes train harder when a gold medal is in sight. Employees work overtime when a business launches a breakthrough product. Communities rally to provide material relief and comfort when natural disasters strike. When success matters most, increased effort is essential for achieving a worthy goal, and that fundamental principle can work in education too. The time has come for the Nation to go the extra mile to meet our education goals and ensure that all children develop the skills they need to participate fully in our economy and in the civic life of their communities. If students are to learn more--the core premise of the No Child Left Behind Act--they must have more time to meet these expectations. Teaching Fellows recruited under this bill will receive intensive training by experienced high-quality after-school programs and will serve for two years. The Act will also enable Teaching Fellows to pursue a bachelor's or graduate degree in education, in order to give communities a pipeline of leaders ready for future involvement in education and youth development. For the most part, reform efforts to date have equated education reform with school reform. As a result our attention has been focused on the 1,000 hours a year children are in school, while largely overlooking the 4,000 hours a year when children are awake and out of school. Teachers must, of course, remain at the heart of our strategy to improve education. But they need help. We need to expand learning time, involve caring adults in the lives of children, and make learning more relevant and engaging, especially for students who are struggling. The school calendar today is largely a relic of the agrarian age. It fails to respond to the realities that students must develop new skills for modem needs, and that in most families, parents are working during many of the after-school hours. Fourteen million children come back to empty homes after school. Voters across party lines, demographic groups, and geographic areas have said for 5 consecutive years that they overwhelmingly support after-school programs for all. Police chiefs, sheriffs and prosecutors overwhelmingly agree that investing in after-school programs is more effective in reducing youth violence and crime than hiring more police officers or stiff penalties. Diverting less than one percent of at-risk youth from a life of crime would save society several times the cost of the after-school programs. It is time for a new learning day to dawn in our country. Our communities and our citizens need to waken to clear call for involvement and investment in this aspect of public education. The Teaching Fellows for Expanded Learning and After-School Act draws on the impressive experience of after-school programs and schools that have developed, and tested these ideas and shown they can work. The Act is inspired by the Teaching Fellowship Program created by Citizen Schools, a national network of after-school programs with a track record of significant impact on academic achievement. A rigorous, long- term evaluation has shown that such students outperform their peers on six out of seven measures of school success. The Act also draws on the superb work of LA's BEST and After-School All-Stars, as well as the experience and innovations of other schools and programs across the country. Under the Act, the Department of Education will make grants to partnerships between local education agencies and strong community organizations, institutions of higher education, and community learning centers. These partnerships will recruit and place Teaching Fellows to work full-time in high-need schools that serve low-income students. Grants from the Department of Education will be at least $15,000 per Fellow annually, so that recipients can recruit, select, train, and support the Fellows. Fellows will also be able to earn a national service education award for each term of service. Partnerships will be required to obtain non-federal matching funds to leverage the federal government's investment and to involve the private sector in expanding these educational opportunities. Expanded learning time and after-school programs are the new frontier of education reform in America. Teaching Fellows recruited under the Act will complement the outstanding efforts of classroom teachers and infuse new energy, talent, and idealism in the after-school sector. They will also be an essential resource for the nation's parents, encouraging students to understand their potential and helping them to see the true promise of the American Dream. This bill is supported by thirty-seven groups representing education and after-school communities. I ask unanimous consent that their letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, families across America are facing serious challenges in today's global economy. The value of their wages is declining, the cost of living is going up, and many of their jobs are being shipped overseas. We must respond to this challenge to ensure that our citizens can still achieve the American dream. We have the best workers in the world, and we must prepare them to compete and succeed in the global economy. America has long been at the forefront in innovation, invention, and education. But other countries are catching up and surpassing us. America's 15 year olds scored below average in math and science literacy compared to the youth of other developed nations on the most recent international assessment by the Programme for International Student Assessment. We are losing ground in overall high school and college graduation rates. The U.S. has dropped below the average graduation rate for OECD countries. Out of 24 nations, the U.S. ranks 14th, just ahead of Portugal. Since 1975, the U.S. has dropped from 3rd to 15th place in the production of scientists and engineers. Federal investment in research and development is essential to keep us competitive, but federal dollars have been shrinking as a share of the economy. Funding for government research programs has fallen in real terms and is less than in 2004. At the same time, fast-growing economies such as China, Ireland, and South Korea are realizing the potential for economic growth that comes with investing in innovation. China's investment in research and development rose from $12.4 billion in 1991 to $84.6 billion in 2003, an average increase of 17 percent a year. Over the same period, the increase in U.S. investment averaged only 4 to 5 percent annually. Study after study tells us that we need major new investments in education and in research and development to stay ahead. We cannot just tinker at the margins and expect to retain our leadership in the global economy. We have a responsibility to make the investments that are necessary to our progress--a responsibility to our people, our economy, our nation, and our national security. Last year, the Council on Competitiveness urged a focus on lifelong skill development--through elementary, secondary and higher education, and workforce training and support, as essential to keeping America on the cutting edge of innovation. The recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' emphasized these recommendations. Two of the report's four major recommendations involved education as the solution to meeting the global challenge. The report set out a broad roadmap for keeping America competitive, but it prioritized investment in education over all other recommendations. The National Association of Manufacturers has also issued a report urging renewed focus on education and training to keep American businesses competitive. Last week, the National Governors Association released its ``Innovation America'' plan, which outlines opportunities for Federal investment to help spur innovation in the states. Here again, improving education and access to high quality job training take center stage. It is clear that we must act, and today we are taking a step toward putting America back on the right track. I am pleased to join a number of my colleagues today in reintroducing the ``America COMPETES Act,'' or the ``America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act.'' The bill is identical to legislation we introduced last year, but the need for action is even more important today to keep America competitive in the years to come. The legislation responds to many of the recommendations in the ``Gathering Storm'' and other recent reports; it takes important steps to encourage innovation in America as a way to create jobs and move our economy forward. Often, as we know, it is federally funded research that primes the pump for technological, medical and scientific breakthroughs. The bill will double basic research funding by the National Science Foundation by 2011. It also puts us on a strong course to doubling basic research funding by the Department of Energy. In addition, the legislation creates a President's Council on Innovation and Competitiveness, based on successful models being used in established and emerging economies in Europe and Asia. The Council will bring together the heads of federal agencies with leaders in business and academia to develop a comprehensive agenda to promote innovation. Japan for some time has had a similar council, and Ireland--the Celtic Tiger--has already had extraordinary success in expanding its R&D strength since it established its council two years ago. The bill also strengthens programs at college and universities to encourage renewed interest in nuclear science. Massachusetts has long been a leader in nuclear research. There are fewer than three dozen licensed research reactors in the United States, and three of them are located at Massachusetts universities--University of Massachusetts Lowell, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and MIT. These colleges will have a vital role as nuclear science expands, and this bill will help expand their programs and establish new ones to meet the growing demand. We must also make the research and development tax credit permanent. The incentive provided by the credit has led to quality jobs, better and safer products, greater productivity and a stronger and more robust national economy. A growing number of countries recognize the importance of research and development spending to future economic growth, and they now offer more generous R&D tax incentives than the United States. The top 6 pharmaceutical companies, and American high tech companies like Microsoft, Intel and GE have all opened advanced R&D facilities in India. We must give American companies the certainty that our tax incentives will continue year after year and will not expire, so that they can choose to maintain these high-skilled jobs here at home, to keep America at the cutting edge as a leader in innovation in the global economy. R&D investments also depend on a talented pool of well-trained individuals who can make discoveries and scientific breakthroughs. Jobs in science and engineering are expected to increase 70 percent faster than those in other fields over the next 6 years. To ensure that Americans are well-trained for these jobs, we must improve education at all levels--from the very early years in a child's life all the way through doctoral study and beyond--especially in math, science, engineering and technology. International comparisons of student achievement show that the United States is slipping behind other countries, but detailed analysis shows that the picture is more complex. The real problem lies in the serious and pervasive achievement gap in this country between higher income students and lower income students and between white students and students of color. On the most recent test comparing student achievement in industrial nations, white students in the United States performed better than the average for all countries in both math literacy and problem-solving, while their Hispanic and African American peers did worse. Low-income students in the U.S. performed worse than their high-income peers, and also performed worse than other low-income students in over half of the developed countries surveyed. If we can close this achievement gap, and guarantee all children in this country a world-class education, we can put America back at the top of the list. To do so, we need to renew and improve upon the important reforms in the No Child Left Behind Act this year. As we do so, we must make a strong commitment to adequately fund those reforms. We must also invest in teachers. Research shows that having a high quality teacher for five years in a row can overcome the average 7th grade mathematics achievement gap between lower income and higher income children. But almost half of math classes taught in high poverty and high minority schools are taught by teachers without a college major or minor in math or a related field. The problem is even more serious in middle schools--70 percent of math classes in these schools are taught by a teacher who doesn't even have a minor in math. Our bill recognizes and responds to the critical need to recruit and train high quality math, science, technology and engineering teachers to teach in schools with the greatest need, so that we can begin to close the achievement gap and ensure that all American students can compete on a level playing field with their peers in other nations. The bill provides a 10-fold increase in the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program at the National Science Foundation to recruit math, science, engineering and technology students and professionals to become teachers in high-need school districts. It provides grants to institutions of higher education to create undergraduate programs that integrate the study of math, science, engineering, or critical need foreign language with teacher education, modeled on the successful U-Teach program at the University of Texas. It also helps institutions create part-time master's degree programs to improve the content knowledge and teaching skills of current teachers. In both of these programs, universities would partner with high-need school districts to ensure that these resources go where they are needed most. The bill expands the Teacher Institutes for the 21st Century Program at the National Science Foundation to provide cutting-edge summer professional development programs for teachers who teach in high-need schools. It also creates a summer institute program in the Department of Energy to strengthen the math and science teaching skills of elementary and secondary school teachers. Recruitment and training of good teachers are important, but so is retention of good teachers. Each year, over 200,000 teachers leave the profession--6 percent of the teaching workforce. High attrition rates mean that one of every two teachers hired will completely drop out of teaching within 5 years-just when they have gained the experience needed to consistently improve student achievement. To be successful in closing the achievement gap, we must also do more to see that teachers have an incentive to stay in their classrooms once they are there. We should provide financial incentives--through fellowships or salary increases--to teachers who commit to teach in the highest need schools, where the unique challenges make the schools the hardest to staff. I look forward to working with my colleagues as the bill moves forward to add this critical component to the effort. In addition to providing a high quality teacher in every classroom, we must also ensure that children in low-income school districts have access to the same college preparatory classes that more affluent school districts are able to provide--and, importantly, that they have the preparation they need to succeed in those classes. To do so, the bill expands access to Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate classes as well as pre-AP and pre-IB courses, especially in high need schools, and creates a program to improve instruction in math for elementary and middle school students and provide targeted help to students struggling with the subject. The bill also addresses the critical need to ensure our education system is preparing students for the challenges they will face after graduation from high school. According to recent research, the nation loses over $3.7 billion a year in the cost of remedial education and lost earning potential because students are not adequately prepared to enter college when they leave high school. For students directly entering the workforce, 60 percent of employers in a survey conducted by the National Association of Manufacturers said that a high school diploma did not adequately prepare a typical student with even basic skills to qualify for an entry level job. Many states have recognized the need to better align elementary and secondary school standards, curricula, and assessments with the demands of college, the 21st century workforce and the Armed Forces. Our bill provides grants to assist states in those efforts. The grants would support state P-16 councils that bring together leaders in the early education, K-12, and higher education communities, in the business sector, and in the military to improve the rigor of elementary and secondary education and prepare students for the postsecondary challenges they will face. These provisions will help spur the development of more rigorous standards, as well as innovative curricula that engage our children in learning and inspire a new generation of scientists and engineers. It will assist states in the work they are doing to create new disciplines in engineering and technology at the elementary school level to teach students the practical applications of math and science. The National Center for Technological Literacy at the Museum of Science in Boston is at the forefront of these efforts. In addition to the education programs at the Department of Education and the National Science Foundation, the legislation relies on the resources of the Department of Energy to assist in the effort to improve math and science education. The National Labs at the Department of Energy can have a critical role in these efforts, and so can the more than 300 colleges and universities across the country conducting research supported by the Department of Energy. I appreciate my colleagues' efforts to ensure that the resources of the Department of Energy are used to enhance educational opportunities for children not only in the states that host National Labs, but across the country. It is also becoming increasingly important for students to become exposed to and immersed in critical foreign languages and cultures. In recent years, foreign language needs have significantly increased throughout the public and private sector due to the presence of a wider range of security threats, the emergence of new nation states, and the globalization of the U.S. economy. Currently, the U.S. government uses tens of thousands of employees with foreign language skills in 100 languages and more than 80 Federal agencies. In addition, American businesses increasingly need employees experienced in foreign languages and international cultures to manage a culturally diverse workforce. For students to become proficient in these critical foreign languages, they must have access to a sustained course of study, beginning in the early grades. But currently, only one-third of students in grades 7-12 and a mere 5 percent of elementary school students study a foreign language. Even fewer study critical need foreign languages. Only about 24,000 of approximately 54 million elementary and secondary school children in the United States are studying Chinese. In contrast, more than 200 million children in China study English--a compulsory subject for all Chinese primary school students. The bill begins to address these needs by providing grants to institutions of higher education and local educational agencies to work in partnerships to create programs of study in critical foreign languages for students from elementary school through postsecondary education. These programs and investments will help prepare our students to compete in the 21st century, but if we are serious about keeping America competitive, there is still more we can--and must--do. A college degree is fast becoming the price of admission to participation in the global economy. Today, over 60 percent of jobs require some postsecondary training, and the number is rising rapidly. Such jobs bring higher pay as well. A recent study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development shows that in the United States, earnings of people with a post-secondary degree are 72 percent higher on average than those with only a high school diploma. But with soaring costs and stagnant financial aid, college is increasingly out of reach for students and families. Research shows that 400,000 students a year do not go to a four-year college because they cannot afford it. 170,000 do not go to college at all. When our troops returned home from World War II, we created the GI Bill and sent them to college to learn the skills they would need in the changing world. The pay off to the nation was immense. The economy reaped an estimated $7 in benefit for every dollar invested in that effort. In recent decades however, federal grant aid has dwindled and the grants don't go as far as they used to. Thirty years ago, seventy-seven percent of the federal assistance provided to students was in the form of grants, but in recent years the number has dropped to twenty percent. With college costs skyrocketing, the value of the Pell Grant has not kept pace. To ensure the prosperity of our families and the nation, we must open the doors of college to all by restoring the Pell Grant as the foundation of the student aid system. Last year, Congress squandered an opportunity to significantly increase aid for low income students. The Senate passed a bill that would have immediately increased the Pell grant from $4,050 to $4,500. But this increase was rejected, and the funds were used instead to pay for tax giveaways for the wealthiest Americans. Last month, under the new Democratic leadership, Congress made a strong down payment to help low-income families afford college by raising the maximum Pell grant for the first time since 2003 from $4,050 to $4,310. I know many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree that higher education is the key to keeping America competitive, and I look forward to working with them to build on this down payment as we reauthorize the Higher Education Act this year to ensure that the cost of college is not a barrier to full participation in the new economy. We need to reform the federal student aid system to redirect excessive lender subsidies into additional help and support for students and families, including increased need-based aid, making student loans more manageable, and providing loan forgiveness for individuals in public sector careers. We must also do more to address the devastating impacts of the global economy on American workers and their families. Our workers are facing global competition that is often fundamentally unfair, but this bill does nothing to level the playing field or to help ease the burden of their transition to the global economy. To truly improve our national competitiveness, we must address all aspects of this challenge. We cannot continue to ignore the plight of working Americans. First, we need to level the playing field in the competition for good jobs. Americans have nothing to fear from competition that's fair. But it's not fair when Americans are competing with foreign workers who lack basic protections such as child labor laws, a minimum wage, or the right to organize. It's not fair when U.S. companies cut costs by exploiting and abusing foreign workers. We need to exercise global leadership in promoting fair wages and safe working conditions for workers around the world, reward companies that treat their foreign workforces fairly, and be a strong voice in sanctioning those countries that will not play by the rules. Beyond these basic steps to level the playing field, we owe a particular duty to American workers who are losing their jobs because of trade. We all benefit from the lower prices and variety of products that globalization provides, but many of our most vulnerable workers are paying the price. We've lost nearly 3 million manufacturing jobs since 2001, and service sector jobs are now moving overseas as well. These are good, middle-class jobs, with decent wages and benefits that form the core of the American middle class. Our response to globalization must address the disappearance of good jobs. We must create the good jobs of the future. We must eliminate tax incentives for companies to ship jobs overseas. We must give fair warning to workers who are at risk of losing their jobs to overseas competition, so that they can plan for their futures. We must strengthen our commitment to help workers who lose their jobs to adjust to the new economy, with well-funded training and income assistance programs that ease the transition to new employment. Fulfilling our commitment to American workers also demands that we give them their fair share of the economic growth that globalization brings. Both houses of Congress have now voted overwhelmingly to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, and that vital legislation should reach the President's desk soon. But that's only a first step. We need to do much more to promote good jobs and ensure that workers get their fair share of economic growth. We also must give workers a stronger voice in the new economy by protecting their right to organize and form a union. If we truly want to be competitive in the global economy, we need to address these challenges facing the American workforce head on. Our employees deserve greater job security in the present, and better job opportunities in the future. I hope that the same bipartisan coalition that has worked together so effectively on this competitiveness bill can also work together to address these important issues for America's working families. The legislation we are introducing today is not a complete package. What it does represent is the beginning of a strong commitment that we will need to sustain and build on if America is to remain competitive in the years ahead. It's gratifying that this bill has strong bipartisan support, because that support is critical to ensuring that these proposals become a reality. Words alone will not keep America competitive. This legislation must be more than a promise. I look forward to working with my colleagues as the bill moves forward to ensure that Congress provides the new investments essential to fully support these important proposals. Americans know how to rise to challenges and come out ahead. We've done it before and we can do it again. We rose to the challenge after World War II with the GI Bill. We rose to the Soviet Union's challenge of Sputnik in 1957 by passing the National Defense Education Act, and we went on to inspire the nation in the next decade by sending a man to the moon and by doubling the federal investment in education. We need the same bold commitment now to help the current generation meet and master the global challenges we now face. The America COMPETES Act can be an effective first step. I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve upon the bill as it moves forward and to expand on these efforts in the months to come to make this essential initiative as effective as possible.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, families across America are facing serious challenges in today's global economy. The value of their wages is declining, the cost of living is going up, and many of their jobs are being shipped overseas. We must respond to this challenge to ensure that our citizens can still achieve the American dream. We have the best workers in the world, and we must prepare them to compete and succeed in the global economy. America has long been at the forefront in innovation, invention, and education. But other countries are catching up and surpassing us. America's 15 year olds scored below average in math and science literacy compared to the youth of other developed nations on the most recent international assessment by the Programme for International Student Assessment. We are losing ground in overall high school and college graduation rates. The U.S. has dropped below the average graduation rate for OECD countries. Out of 24 nations, the U.S. ranks 14th, just ahead of Portugal. Since 1975, the U.S. has dropped from 3rd to 15th place in the production of scientists and engineers. Federal investment in research and development is essential to keep us competitive, but federal dollars have been shrinking as a share of the economy. Funding for government research programs has fallen in real terms and is less than in 2004. At the same time, fast-growing economies such as China, Ireland, and South Korea are realizing the potential for economic growth that comes with investing in innovation. China's investment in research and development rose from $12.4 billion in 1991 to $84.6 billion in 2003, an average increase of 17 percent a year. Over the same period, the increase in U.S. investment averaged only 4 to 5 percent annually. Study after study tells us that we need major new investments in education and in research and development to stay ahead. We cannot just tinker at the margins and expect to retain our leadership in the global economy. We have a responsibility to make the investments that are necessary to our progress--a responsibility to our people, our economy, our nation, and our national security. Last year, the Council on Competitiveness urged a focus on lifelong skill development--through elementary, secondary and higher education, and workforce training and support, as essential to keeping America on the cutting edge of innovation. The recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' emphasized these recommendations. Two of the report's four major recommendations involved education as the solution to meeting the global challenge. The report set out a broad roadmap for keeping America competitive, but it prioritized investment in education over all other recommendations. The National Association of Manufacturers has also issued a report urging renewed focus on education and training to keep American businesses competitive. Last week, the National Governors Association released its ``Innovation America'' plan, which outlines opportunities for Federal investment to help spur innovation in the states. Here again, improving education and access to high quality job training take center stage. It is clear that we must act, and today we are taking a step toward putting America back on the right track. I am pleased to join a number of my colleagues today in reintroducing the ``America COMPETES Act,'' or the ``America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act.'' The bill is identical to legislation we introduced last year, but the need for action is even more important today to keep America competitive in the years to come. The legislation responds to many of the recommendations in the ``Gathering Storm'' and other recent reports; it takes important steps to encourage innovation in America as a way to create jobs and move our economy forward. Often, as we know, it is federally funded research that primes the pump for technological, medical and scientific breakthroughs. The bill will double basic research funding by the National Science Foundation by 2011. It also puts us on a strong course to doubling basic research funding by the Department of Energy. In addition, the legislation creates a President's Council on Innovation and Competitiveness, based on successful models being used in established and emerging economies in Europe and Asia. The Council will bring together the heads of federal agencies with leaders in business and academia to develop a comprehensive agenda to promote innovation. Japan for some time has had a similar council, and Ireland--the Celtic Tiger--has already had extraordinary success in expanding its R&D strength since it established its council two years ago. The bill also strengthens programs at college and universities to encourage renewed interest in nuclear science. Massachusetts has long been a leader in nuclear research. There are fewer than three dozen licensed research reactors in the United States, and three of them are located at Massachusetts universities--University of Massachusetts Lowell, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and MIT. These colleges will have a vital role as nuclear science expands, and this bill will help expand their programs and establish new ones to meet the growing demand. We must also make the research and development tax credit permanent. The incentive provided by the credit has led to quality jobs, better and safer products, greater productivity and a stronger and more robust national economy. A growing number of countries recognize the importance of research and development spending to future economic growth, and they now offer more generous R&D tax incentives than the United States. The top 6 pharmaceutical companies, and American high tech companies like Microsoft, Intel and GE have all opened advanced R&D facilities in India. We must give American companies the certainty that our tax incentives will continue year after year and will not expire, so that they can choose to maintain these high-skilled jobs here at home, to keep America at the cutting edge as a leader in innovation in the global economy. R&D investments also depend on a talented pool of well-trained individuals who can make discoveries and scientific breakthroughs. Jobs in science and engineering are expected to increase 70 percent faster than those in other fields over the next 6 years. To ensure that Americans are well-trained for these jobs, we must improve education at all levels--from the very early years in a child's life all the way through doctoral study and beyond--especially in math, science, engineering and technology. International comparisons of student achievement show that the United States is slipping behind other countries, but detailed analysis shows that the picture is more complex. The real problem lies in the serious and pervasive achievement gap in this country between higher income students and lower income students and between white students and students of color. On the most recent test comparing student achievement in industrial nations, white students in the United States performed better than the average for all countries in both math literacy and problem-solving, while their Hispanic and African American peers did worse. Low-income students in the U.S. performed worse than their high-income peers, and also performed worse than other low-income students in over half of the developed countries surveyed. If we can close this achievement gap, and guarantee all children in this country a world-class education, we can put America back at the top of the list. To do so, we need to renew and improve upon the important reforms in the No Child Left Behind Act this year. As we do so, we must make a strong commitment to adequately fund those reforms. We must also invest in teachers. Research shows that having a high quality teacher for five years in a row can overcome the average 7th grade mathematics achievement gap between lower income and higher income children. But almost half of math classes taught in high poverty and high minority schools are taught by teachers without a college major or minor in math or a related field. The problem is even more serious in middle schools--70 percent of math classes in these schools are taught by a teacher who doesn't even have a minor in math. Our bill recognizes and responds to the critical need to recruit and train high quality math, science, technology and engineering teachers to teach in schools with the greatest need, so that we can begin to close the achievement gap and ensure that all American students can compete on a level playing field with their peers in other nations. The bill provides a 10-fold increase in the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program at the National Science Foundation to recruit math, science, engineering and technology students and professionals to become teachers in high-need school districts. It provides grants to institutions of higher education to create undergraduate programs that integrate the study of math, science, engineering, or critical need foreign language with teacher education, modeled on the successful U-Teach program at the University of Texas. It also helps institutions create part-time master's degree programs to improve the content knowledge and teaching skills of current teachers. In both of these programs, universities would partner with high-need school districts to ensure that these resources go where they are needed most. The bill expands the Teacher Institutes for the 21st Century Program at the National Science Foundation to provide cutting-edge summer professional development programs for teachers who teach in high-need schools. It also creates a summer institute program in the Department of Energy to strengthen the math and science teaching skills of elementary and secondary school teachers. Recruitment and training of good teachers are important, but so is retention of good teachers. Each year, over 200,000 teachers leave the profession--6 percent of the teaching workforce. High attrition rates mean that one of every two teachers hired will completely drop out of teaching within 5 years-just when they have gained the experience needed to consistently improve student achievement. To be successful in closing the achievement gap, we must also do more to see that teachers have an incentive to stay in their classrooms once they are there. We should provide financial incentives--through fellowships or salary increases--to teachers who commit to teach in the highest need schools, where the unique challenges make the schools the hardest to staff. I look forward to working with my colleagues as the bill moves forward to add this critical component to the effort. In addition to providing a high quality teacher in every classroom, we must also ensure that children in low-income school districts have access to the same college preparatory classes that more affluent school districts are able to provide--and, importantly, that they have the preparation they need to succeed in those classes. To do so, the bill expands access to Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate classes as well as pre-AP and pre-IB courses, especially in high need schools, and creates a program to improve instruction in math for elementary and middle school students and provide targeted help to students struggling with the subject. The bill also addresses the critical need to ensure our education system is preparing students for the challenges they will face after graduation from high school. According to recent research, the nation loses over $3.7 billion a year in the cost of remedial education and lost earning potential because students are not adequately prepared to enter college when they leave high school. For students directly entering the workforce, 60 percent of employers in a survey conducted by the National Association of Manufacturers said that a high school diploma did not adequately prepare a typical student with even basic skills to qualify for an entry level job. Many states have recognized the need to better align elementary and secondary school standards, curricula, and assessments with the demands of college, the 21st century workforce and the Armed Forces. Our bill provides grants to assist states in those efforts. The grants would support state P-16 councils that bring together leaders in the early education, K-12, and higher education communities, in the business sector, and in the military to improve the rigor of elementary and secondary education and prepare students for the postsecondary challenges they will face. These provisions will help spur the development of more rigorous standards, as well as innovative curricula that engage our children in learning and inspire a new generation of scientists and engineers. It will assist states in the work they are doing to create new disciplines in engineering and technology at the elementary school level to teach students the practical applications of math and science. The National Center for Technological Literacy at the Museum of Science in Boston is at the forefront of these efforts. In addition to the education programs at the Department of Education and the National Science Foundation, the legislation relies on the resources of the Department of Energy to assist in the effort to improve math and science education. The National Labs at the Department of Energy can have a critical role in these efforts, and so can the more than 300 colleges and universities across the country conducting research supported by the Department of Energy. I appreciate my colleagues' efforts to ensure that the resources of the Department of Energy are used to enhance educational opportunities for children not only in the states that host National Labs, but across the country. It is also becoming increasingly important for students to become exposed to and immersed in critical foreign languages and cultures. In recent years, foreign language needs have significantly increased throughout the public and private sector due to the presence of a wider range of security threats, the emergence of new nation states, and the globalization of the U.S. economy. Currently, the U.S. government uses tens of thousands of employees with foreign language skills in 100 languages and more than 80 Federal agencies. In addition, American businesses increasingly need employees experienced in foreign languages and international cultures to manage a culturally diverse workforce. For students to become proficient in these critical foreign languages, they must have access to a sustained course of study, beginning in the early grades. But currently, only one-third of students in grades 7-12 and a mere 5 percent of elementary school students study a foreign language. Even fewer study critical need foreign languages. Only about 24,000 of approximately 54 million elementary and secondary school children in the United States are studying Chinese. In contrast, more than 200 million children in China study English--a compulsory subject for all Chinese primary school students. The bill begins to address these needs by providing grants to institutions of higher education and local educational agencies to work in partnerships to create programs of study in critical foreign languages for students from elementary school through postsecondary education. These programs and investments will help prepare our students to compete in the 21st century, but if we are serious about keeping America competitive, there is still more we can--and must--do. A college degree is fast becoming the price of admission to participation in the global economy. Today, over 60 percent of jobs require some postsecondary training, and the number is rising rapidly. Such jobs bring higher pay as well. A recent study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development shows that in the United States, earnings of people with a post-secondary degree are 72 percent higher on average than those with only a high school diploma. But with soaring costs and stagnant financial aid, college is increasingly out of reach for students and families. Research shows that 400,000 students a year do not go to a four-year college because they cannot afford it. 170,000 do not go to college at all. When our troops returned home from World War II, we created the GI Bill and sent them to college to learn the skills they would need in the changing world. The pay off to the nation was immense. The economy reaped an estimated $7 in benefit for every dollar invested in that effort. In recent decades however, federal grant aid has dwindled and the grants don't go as far as they used to. Thirty years ago, seventy-seven percent of the federal assistance provided to students was in the form of grants, but in recent years the number has dropped to twenty percent. With college costs skyrocketing, the value of the Pell Grant has not kept pace. To ensure the prosperity of our families and the nation, we must open the doors of college to all by restoring the Pell Grant as the foundation of the student aid system. Last year, Congress squandered an opportunity to significantly increase aid for low income students. The Senate passed a bill that would have immediately increased the Pell grant from $4,050 to $4,500. But this increase was rejected, and the funds were used instead to pay for tax giveaways for the wealthiest Americans. Last month, under the new Democratic leadership, Congress made a strong down payment to help low-income families afford college by raising the maximum Pell grant for the first time since 2003 from $4,050 to $4,310. I know many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree that higher education is the key to keeping America competitive, and I look forward to working with them to build on this down payment as we reauthorize the Higher Education Act this year to ensure that the cost of college is not a barrier to full participation in the new economy. We need to reform the federal student aid system to redirect excessive lender subsidies into additional help and support for students and families, including increased need-based aid, making student loans more manageable, and providing loan forgiveness for individuals in public sector careers. We must also do more to address the devastating impacts of the global economy on American workers and their families. Our workers are facing global competition that is often fundamentally unfair, but this bill does nothing to level the playing field or to help ease the burden of their transition to the global economy. To truly improve our national competitiveness, we must address all aspects of this challenge. We cannot continue to ignore the plight of working Americans. First, we need to level the playing field in the competition for good jobs. Americans have nothing to fear from competition that's fair. But it's not fair when Americans are competing with foreign workers who lack basic protections such as child labor laws, a minimum wage, or the right to organize. It's not fair when U.S. companies cut costs by exploiting and abusing foreign workers. We need to exercise global leadership in promoting fair wages and safe working conditions for workers around the world, reward companies that treat their foreign workforces fairly, and be a strong voice in sanctioning those countries that will not play by the rules. Beyond these basic steps to level the playing field, we owe a particular duty to American workers who are losing their jobs because of trade. We all benefit from the lower prices and variety of products that globalization provides, but many of our most vulnerable workers are paying the price. We've lost nearly 3 million manufacturing jobs since 2001, and service sector jobs are now moving overseas as well. These are good, middle-class jobs, with decent wages and benefits that form the core of the American middle class. Our response to globalization must address the disappearance of good jobs. We must create the good jobs of the future. We must eliminate tax incentives for companies to ship jobs overseas. We must give fair warning to workers who are at risk of losing their jobs to overseas competition, so that they can plan for their futures. We must strengthen our commitment to help workers who lose their jobs to adjust to the new economy, with well-funded training and income assistance programs that ease the transition to new employment. Fulfilling our commitment to American workers also demands that we give them their fair share of the economic growth that globalization brings. Both houses of Congress have now voted overwhelmingly to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, and that vital legislation should reach the President's desk soon. But that's only a first step. We need to do much more to promote good jobs and ensure that workers get their fair share of economic growth. We also must give workers a stronger voice in the new economy by protecting their right to organize and form a union. If we truly want to be competitive in the global economy, we need to address these challenges facing the American workforce head on. Our employees deserve greater job security in the present, and better job opportunities in the future. I hope that the same bipartisan coalition that has worked together so effectively on this competitiveness bill can also work together to address these important issues for America's working families. The legislation we are introducing today is not a complete package. What it does represent is the beginning of a strong commitment that we will need to sustain and build on if America is to remain competitive in the years ahead. It's gratifying that this bill has strong bipartisan support, because that support is critical to ensuring that these proposals become a reality. Words alone will not keep America competitive. This legislation must be more than a promise. I look forward to working with my colleagues as the bill moves forward to ensure that Congress provides the new investments essential to fully support these important proposals. Americans know how to rise to challenges and come out ahead. We've done it before and we can do it again. We rose to the challenge after World War II with the GI Bill. We rose to the Soviet Union's challenge of Sputnik in 1957 by passing the National Defense Education Act, and we went on to inspire the nation in the next decade by sending a man to the moon and by doubling the federal investment in education. We need the same bold commitment now to help the current generation meet and master the global challenges we now face. The America COMPETES Act can be an effective first step. I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve upon the bill as it moves forward and to expand on these efforts in the months to come to make this essential initiative as effective as possible.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support the Improving America's Security Act. The 9/11 Commission released its report in July 2004. But more than 2 years have now passed, and many of its recommendations still haven't been implemented. The Nation remains seriously unprepared for another terrorist strike. I commend Senator Reid for making these recommendations a top priority. Democrats are committed to implementing the Commission's recommendations and we intend to honor that commitment. The Commission urged Congress to prevent further attacks by stopping terrorists before they reach our shores. This bill includes practical steps using technology and diplomacy to keep terrorists out of the country. It provides greater security for the visa waiver program, by authorizing the Department of Homeland Security to establish a simplified online electronic visa application to visitors before they enter the United States. It also improves the reporting of lost and stolen passports and the exchange of information about prospective visitors who may be a security threat. The visa waiver program is worthwhile, but we need to make it as secure as possible. I commend the committee for including in the bill an amendment granting collective bargaining and appeal rights to Transportation Security Administration officers. These men and women are on the frontlines of our effort to keep America safe. But for years, they have been treated as second-class citizens, lacking basic workplace rights. The agency has higher injury and attrition rates than any other Federal agency. It is vital to our national security to minimize turnover in this important profession and give these workers a voice on the job to speak out on safety issues without fear of reprisal or retaliation. Granting them these fundamental rights will stabilize this essential workforce, increase its morale, and improve our national security. In addition, the bill establishes a dedicated funding stream to promote communications interoperability. This was one of the hard lessons we learned on 9/11 and also during Katrina. The lack of funding for interoperable communications is one of the highest concerns I hear from first responders in Massachusetts. They shouldn't have to rely on uncertain funding from the overburdened and underfunded FIRE grants program to achieve such communications. The committee correctly recognized that this is a national goal and it has proposed a $3.3 billion grant program over 5 years to achieve it. This bill makes real progress in another key area that the Commission identified for improvement: intelligence sharing at all levels of Government, in order to disrupt terrorist networks before their plan is carried out. Information sharing is vital so that analysts have all available information to ``connect the dots'' before an attack is launched. The bill orders a homeland security advisory system to alert State and local governments about threats, and authorizes a training program for State and local law enforcement in handling intelligence. It also establishes homeland security fusion centers to bring Federal, State and local antiterrorism efforts under the same roof and promote further information sharing. The bill makes progress in other areas identified by the 9/11 Commission as needing improvement. It provides support to State and local governments to establish incident command stations to coordinate response efforts during a terrorist attack or other disasters. It calls for a national strategy for transportation security to provide transit system operators with guidance to protect passengers and infrastructure. It calls on the Department of Homeland Security to make annual risk assessments of critical infrastructure, and to make recommendations for hardening those targets and putting other countermeasures in place. The bill also strengthens the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board in significant ways. It requires Senate confirmation of all of its members and ensures that no more than three members will be of the same party. Importantly, it requires that the Board expand its public activities, which will allow for greater accountability. It also gives the Board authority to request that the Attorney General issue a subpoena and requires that the Attorney General notify Congress if he does not do so. Finally, it includes a $30 million authorization over the next 4 years to ensure that it has the resources to carry out its important responsibilities. In some areas, the bill could be improved. The 9/11 Commission recommended that homeland security funds be allocated strictly on the basis of risk. While all States may bear some degree of risk, our experience on 9/11 suggests that terrorists are most likely to target areas that will produce the greatest loss of life or property or national symbols. The bill improves on current law in allocating resources under the largest of the homeland security grant programs--- the State homeland security grants. Currently, each State is guaranteed at least three-quarters of 1 percent of the total appropriated for the program. That may seem like a relatively modest amount, but when you multiply it 50 times, it represents nearly 40 percent of the total appropriation. The bill lowers the minimum guarantee to 0.45 percent, allowing more of the overall sum to be allocated based purely on actual risk. The House bill lowers that amount even further to one-quarter of 1 percent. The issue is how best to allocate these limited resources, and I believe the House funding formula more faithfully reflects the 9/ 11 Commission's recommendation and is the wisest use of limited resources. On the bill's proposal for a National Bioterrorism Integration Center, I agree that the Nation must be able to rapidly identify and localize biological threats, but I am concerned that this new system will duplicate existing disease monitoring systems. I appreciate the chairman's willingness to work out ways to minimize duplication and allow a flow of information between the new system proposed in the bill and existing disease monitoring systems. One issue not addressed in this legislation is the health needs of first responders, volunteers, and residents of New York City harmed by the 9/11 terrorist attacks. On that day, valiant police officers, firefighters and health care workers rushed to the site, and many lost their lives. Many others today are sick, and growing sicker, because of their heroism. Tens of thousands of others who worked to clean up and rebuild downtown Manhattan were also exposed to a toxic mix of dust and chemicals whose effects are just beginning to be understood. This is an issue we will be taking up in the coming weeks in the HELP Committee, with the leadership of Senator Clinton, and I hope we can work together to enact legislation to help these brave men and women and their families as soon as possible. Again, I commend the committee for proposing this needed bipartisan bill. We also owe an immense debt to the members of the 9/11 Commission, especially Chairman Tom Kean and Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton, for never relenting in their mission to see that their recommendations are implemented to protect the Nation from future terrorist attacks. I have no doubt that their persistence is in no small part the reason this bill is being acted on today. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in the wake of the tragic events of September 11, Congress, the Administration and the country faced the urgent need to do all we can to strengthen our national security and counterterrorism strategy. Soon after the attacks, Congress moved swiftly to enact new intelligence and law enforcement powers for the Federal Government through the PATRIOT Act. Since then, we have also enacted legislation to reform our intelligence laws, and we spent significant time re-authorizing key provisions of the PATRIOT Act last year. Yet, much work still needs to be done to achieve the goals of the 9/ 11 Commission. Two and a half years after its report, many of its recommendations haven't been implemented and the Nation remains seriously unprepared for another terrorist strike. A top priority is to enact the pending Improving America's Security Act--an important step in the right direction to implement the Commission's recommendations and strengthen the nation's preparedness against terrorism. Given the circumstances driving the passage of these measures, the administration and Congress must continue to work together to assess whether existing national security laws are adequate and make necessary improvements when required. While families in Boston, New York and across the country were still grieving over the tragedy of September 11, our communities suddenly faced a new threat, when anthrax contamination resulted in 5 deaths and 20 hospitalizations across the country. As Federal, State and local law enforcement struggled to deal with the threat of terrorism, yet another challenge arose because of reckless individuals who perpetrated hoaxes that caused panic, unrest and expenditure of critical resources. Since September 11 such hoaxes have seriously disrupted many lives and needlessly diverted law-enforcement and emergency-services resources. In the wake of the anthrax attacks in the fall of 2001, for example, a number of individuals mailed unidentified white powder, intending for the recipient to believe it was anthrax. Over 150,000 anthrax hoaxes were reported between September 2001 and August 2002. In Massachusetts, one of these hoaxes was directed at a military facility. Fire trucks and hazmat responders rushed to the scene at the Agawam armory, only to learn that the powder spread over the armory equipment was not a toxic substance. Hoaxes about anthrax continue to be a serious problem. Earlier this week, such a scare shut down a university campus in Missouri when a student claimed to have a bomb and anthrax. It was a false alarm, but authorities had no choice except to make a serious response. They quarantined 23 people and evacuated 6,000 students from the campus and a nearby elementary school. The emotional and financial costs associated with these hoaxes puts an extraordinary strain on our communities and resources. Progress has been made to pass Federal and State laws to give prosecutors the authority to charge perpetrators engaging in such reckless conduct. Without tough and comprehensive laws on the books, successful and fair prosecutions are much more difficult. In 2004, Congress enacted the first Federal terrorism hoax statute. Its purpose was to establish definitions and set serious penalties to deal with the problem of hoax crimes, but events have moved the need for additional authority. A significant number of prosecutions have taken place for individuals who disrupt communities with terrorist hoaxes, but a disturbing pattern has also developed of new hoaxes not covered by the original law. A few weeks ago in Boston, advertisers using so-called ``guerrilla tactics'' left strange packages near sites essential for our region's infrastructure. A serious response obviously had to be made, but its cost was high. Our public safety officials did an outstanding job in responding to the threat and discovering the hoax. Boston, Cambridge, Somerville and other affected local governments are struggling to deal with the cost and lost productivity it caused. The incident highlighted the need to close the gaps in existing federal law on terrorist hoaxes. The current statute only punishes hoaxes involving an unduly restricted list of terrorist offenses. This list does not include, for example, hoaxes related to taking hostages, to blowing up energy facilities, attacks on military bases, or attacks on railways and mass-transit facilities, such as the London bombings. The legislation I am introducing today will punish hoaxes involving any terrorist offense listed in current law. It also increases the maximum penalty for hoaxes involving the death or injury of a U.S. soldier during wartime. One such incident involved a soldier from Flagstaff, Arizona who was then serving in Iraq. On a Sunday morning a prank caller devastated the family of a 22-year-old in the Army, falsely telling them their son was dead. The call came only hours after the soldier had appeared in an Arizona Daily Sun photo at a Support the Troops rally. The hoax was a nightmare for the family. It took them a full day to get confirmation that their son was still alive in Iraq. As a member of the family testified, ``As a result of this ordeal, my family had been put in an upheaval that is unimaginable. My mother, my brother, my sister and everybody in my family were placed in terror and immeasurable pain. My niece even went into premature labor.'' The consequences of this hoax went beyond the soldier's family. The Army had allowed him to call home from Iraq by satellite phone to reassure them that he was alive and uninjured. But another soldier had been killed bringing him the satellite phone to make the call. As the son wrote to his uncle: ``I have seen things words can't describe and done things I don't want to. I lost some friends out here loading their bodies on the truck was the worst feeling in the world. One guy died bringing me a satellite phone so I could call dad to let him know I was alive. It made me think of Saving Private Ryan. Was it worth his life and the risk of three others to bring me a phone? I know it was a relief to all of you to hear I was OK. Now I feel I must make my life worth his. I don't know if I can do that.'' The person who caused such a hoax deserves to be punished. This bill assures that effective penalties will be imposed for similar crimes in the future. The bill also expands civil liability to allow first responders and others to seek reimbursement from a party who knows that first responders are responding to such a hoax and fails to inform authorities that no such event has occurred. Finally, the bill clarifies that threatening communications are punishable under federal law even if they are directed at an organization rather than a person. It's unconscionable in this post-9/11 world, for anyone to be perpetrating hoaxes that cause panic and drain already limited public safety resources. All of us remember where we were and what we were doing on 9/11. We will never forget the lives that were lost and the heroism of the first responders. We honor all those working so hard today to prevent future attacks. Hopefully, this bill will fulfill its purpose of preventing the false alarms that can be so disruptive of our families and our communities in these difficult and dangerous times.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join Senator Smith today to introduce the Laboratory Test Improvement Act. Our goal is to ensure the quality of clinical tests used every day in hospitals and doctors' offices across the country. Physicians often base medical decisions on the results of such tests, and patients deserve confidence that they will not be wrongly diagnosed or given the wrong pill because of a faulty test. In this era of rapid progression in the life sciences, we are learning more and more about the human genome and the genetic basis of disease. Genetic tests are now available for over a thousand different diseases, and the number is continuing to grow. The tests are being used to diagnose illnesses, predict who is most susceptible to specific diseases, and identify persons who carry a genetic disease that they could pass on to their children. Today, doctors often apply different treatments until they find one that is effective and safe for a patient. But such a trial and error strategy often delays effective treatment and may well cause avoidable adverse events. In many cases today, however, clinical tests can enable doctors to avoid such errors. Through personalized medicine and the use of newly developed genetic tests, doctors are able to give a particular drug only to patients in whom it is very likely to be effective and safe, and can avoid giving it to patients who might suffer an adverse reaction. As additional technologies are developed and our knowledge increases, clinical testing will become more and more important in guiding medical decisions, and it is essential for us to see that the tests meet a high standard. We know, however, that patients have received the wrong results from some tests. In some cases, the claims associated with genetic tests are clearly dubious. Last year, Senator Smith chaired a hearing by the Special Committee on Aging on a GAO report, which found that some genetic tests sold to the public have no scientific merit. Our legislation will give health providers and patients the best possible information about the analytical and clinical validity of all clinical tests. It is our responsibility to guarantee that such tests are accurate and reliable, and I urge our colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in the wake of the tragic events of September 11, Congress, the Administration and the country faced the urgent need to do all we can to strengthen our national security and counterterrorism strategy. Soon after the attacks, Congress moved swiftly to enact new intelligence and law enforcement powers for the Federal Government through the PATRIOT Act. Since then, we have also enacted legislation to reform our intelligence laws, and we spent significant time re-authorizing key provisions of the PATRIOT Act last year. Yet, much work still needs to be done to achieve the goals of the 9/ 11 Commission. Two and a half years after its report, many of its recommendations haven't been implemented and the Nation remains seriously unprepared for another terrorist strike. A top priority is to enact the pending Improving America's Security Act--an important step in the right direction to implement the Commission's recommendations and strengthen the nation's preparedness against terrorism. Given the circumstances driving the passage of these measures, the administration and Congress must continue to work together to assess whether existing national security laws are adequate and make necessary improvements when required. While families in Boston, New York and across the country were still grieving over the tragedy of September 11, our communities suddenly faced a new threat, when anthrax contamination resulted in 5 deaths and 20 hospitalizations across the country. As Federal, State and local law enforcement struggled to deal with the threat of terrorism, yet another challenge arose because of reckless individuals who perpetrated hoaxes that caused panic, unrest and expenditure of critical resources. Since September 11 such hoaxes have seriously disrupted many lives and needlessly diverted law-enforcement and emergency-services resources. In the wake of the anthrax attacks in the fall of 2001, for example, a number of individuals mailed unidentified white powder, intending for the recipient to believe it was anthrax. Over 150,000 anthrax hoaxes were reported between September 2001 and August 2002. In Massachusetts, one of these hoaxes was directed at a military facility. Fire trucks and hazmat responders rushed to the scene at the Agawam armory, only to learn that the powder spread over the armory equipment was not a toxic substance. Hoaxes about anthrax continue to be a serious problem. Earlier this week, such a scare shut down a university campus in Missouri when a student claimed to have a bomb and anthrax. It was a false alarm, but authorities had no choice except to make a serious response. They quarantined 23 people and evacuated 6,000 students from the campus and a nearby elementary school. The emotional and financial costs associated with these hoaxes puts an extraordinary strain on our communities and resources. Progress has been made to pass Federal and State laws to give prosecutors the authority to charge perpetrators engaging in such reckless conduct. Without tough and comprehensive laws on the books, successful and fair prosecutions are much more difficult. In 2004, Congress enacted the first Federal terrorism hoax statute. Its purpose was to establish definitions and set serious penalties to deal with the problem of hoax crimes, but events have moved the need for additional authority. A significant number of prosecutions have taken place for individuals who disrupt communities with terrorist hoaxes, but a disturbing pattern has also developed of new hoaxes not covered by the original law. A few weeks ago in Boston, advertisers using so-called ``guerrilla tactics'' left strange packages near sites essential for our region's infrastructure. A serious response obviously had to be made, but its cost was high. Our public safety officials did an outstanding job in responding to the threat and discovering the hoax. Boston, Cambridge, Somerville and other affected local governments are struggling to deal with the cost and lost productivity it caused. The incident highlighted the need to close the gaps in existing federal law on terrorist hoaxes. The current statute only punishes hoaxes involving an unduly restricted list of terrorist offenses. This list does not include, for example, hoaxes related to taking hostages, to blowing up energy facilities, attacks on military bases, or attacks on railways and mass-transit facilities, such as the London bombings. The legislation I am introducing today will punish hoaxes involving any terrorist offense listed in current law. It also increases the maximum penalty for hoaxes involving the death or injury of a U.S. soldier during wartime. One such incident involved a soldier from Flagstaff, Arizona who was then serving in Iraq. On a Sunday morning a prank caller devastated the family of a 22-year-old in the Army, falsely telling them their son was dead. The call came only hours after the soldier had appeared in an Arizona Daily Sun photo at a Support the Troops rally. The hoax was a nightmare for the family. It took them a full day to get confirmation that their son was still alive in Iraq. As a member of the family testified, ``As a result of this ordeal, my family had been put in an upheaval that is unimaginable. My mother, my brother, my sister and everybody in my family were placed in terror and immeasurable pain. My niece even went into premature labor.'' The consequences of this hoax went beyond the soldier's family. The Army had allowed him to call home from Iraq by satellite phone to reassure them that he was alive and uninjured. But another soldier had been killed bringing him the satellite phone to make the call. As the son wrote to his uncle: ``I have seen things words can't describe and done things I don't want to. I lost some friends out here loading their bodies on the truck was the worst feeling in the world. One guy died bringing me a satellite phone so I could call dad to let him know I was alive. It made me think of Saving Private Ryan. Was it worth his life and the risk of three others to bring me a phone? I know it was a relief to all of you to hear I was OK. Now I feel I must make my life worth his. I don't know if I can do that.'' The person who caused such a hoax deserves to be punished. This bill assures that effective penalties will be imposed for similar crimes in the future. The bill also expands civil liability to allow first responders and others to seek reimbursement from a party who knows that first responders are responding to such a hoax and fails to inform authorities that no such event has occurred. Finally, the bill clarifies that threatening communications are punishable under federal law even if they are directed at an organization rather than a person. It's unconscionable in this post-9/11 world, for anyone to be perpetrating hoaxes that cause panic and drain already limited public safety resources. All of us remember where we were and what we were doing on 9/11. We will never forget the lives that were lost and the heroism of the first responders. We honor all those working so hard today to prevent future attacks. Hopefully, this bill will fulfill its purpose of preventing the false alarms that can be so disruptive of our families and our communities in these difficult and dangerous times.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join Senator Smith today to introduce the Laboratory Test Improvement Act. Our goal is to ensure the quality of clinical tests used every day in hospitals and doctors' offices across the country. Physicians often base medical decisions on the results of such tests, and patients deserve confidence that they will not be wrongly diagnosed or given the wrong pill because of a faulty test. In this era of rapid progression in the life sciences, we are learning more and more about the human genome and the genetic basis of disease. Genetic tests are now available for over a thousand different diseases, and the number is continuing to grow. The tests are being used to diagnose illnesses, predict who is most susceptible to specific diseases, and identify persons who carry a genetic disease that they could pass on to their children. Today, doctors often apply different treatments until they find one that is effective and safe for a patient. But such a trial and error strategy often delays effective treatment and may well cause avoidable adverse events. In many cases today, however, clinical tests can enable doctors to avoid such errors. Through personalized medicine and the use of newly developed genetic tests, doctors are able to give a particular drug only to patients in whom it is very likely to be effective and safe, and can avoid giving it to patients who might suffer an adverse reaction. As additional technologies are developed and our knowledge increases, clinical testing will become more and more important in guiding medical decisions, and it is essential for us to see that the tests meet a high standard. We know, however, that patients have received the wrong results from some tests. In some cases, the claims associated with genetic tests are clearly dubious. Last year, Senator Smith chaired a hearing by the Special Committee on Aging on a GAO report, which found that some genetic tests sold to the public have no scientific merit. Our legislation will give health providers and patients the best possible information about the analytical and clinical validity of all clinical tests. It is our responsibility to guarantee that such tests are accurate and reliable, and I urge our colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, yesterday, February 27 marked the 200th anniversary of the birth of one of America's greatest and best loved poets, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. His magnificent poems portray the unique character of the Nation and its history and are an essential part of our cultural legacy. He is especially beloved in Massachusetts. He was a member of the Harvard faculty for many years, and the beautiful Longfellow House and the Longfellow National Historic site are among the most popular sites in our State for residents and tourists alike. He was famed throughout the world for his extraordinary narrative poems, and in his later years he was known as ``the grand old man of American letters.'' One of his classic poems in the genre was ``The Building of the Ship,'' which drew on his love of the sea and knowledge of ship building from his early years in Portland, ME. Two lines near the end are some of his most famous ``Thou, too, sail on, O Ship of State! Sail on, O Union, strong and great!'' which President Abraham Lincoln found immensely inspiring. Another of his most famous narrative poems is ``Paul Revere's Ride,'' which has always been a special favorite of mine. It tells the remarkable story of that early American patriot and his dramatic ride from Boston to Lexington and Concord at the beginning of the Revolutionary War. It is one of the most well-known poems in America, which students have memorized for generations. On this bicentennial anniversary of his birth, I would like to share that poem with my colleagues. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record. Paul Revere's Ride Listen my children and you shall hear Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere, On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-five; Hardly a man is now alive Who remembers that famous day and year. He said to his friend, ``If the British march By land or sea from the town to-night, Hang a lantern aloft in the belfry arch Of the North Church tower as a signal light,-- One if by land, and two if by sea; And I on the opposite shore will be, Ready to ride and spread the alarm Through every Middlesex village and farm, For the country folk to be up and to arm.'' Then he said ``Good-night!'' and with muffled oar Silently rowed to the Charlestown shore, Just as the moon rose over the bay, Where swinging wide at her moorings lay The Somerset, British man-of-war; A phantom ship, with each mast and spar Across the moon like a prison bar, And a huge black hulk, that was magnified By its own reflection in the tide. Meanwhile, his friend through alley and street Wanders and watches, with eager ears, Till in the silence around him he hears The muster of men at the barrack door, The sound of arms, and the tramp of feet, And the measured tread of the grenadiers, Marching down to their boats on the shore. Then he climbed the tower of the Old North Church, By the wooden stairs, with stealthy tread, To the belfry chamber overhead, And startled the pigeons from their perch On the sombre rafters, that round him made Masses and moving shapes of shade,-- By the trembling ladder, steep and tall, To the highest window in the wall, Where he paused to listen and look down A moment on the roofs of the town And the moonlight flowing over all. Beneath, in the churchyard, lay the dead, In their night encampment on the hill, Wrapped in silence so deep and still That he could hear, like a sentinel's tread, The watchful night-wind, as it went Creeping along from tent to tent, And seeming to whisper, ``All is well!'' A moment only he feels the spell Of the place and the hour, and the secret dread Of the lonely belfry and the dead; For suddenly all his thoughts are bent On a shadowy something far away, Where the river widens to meet the bay,-- A line of black that bends and floats On the rising tide like a bridge of boats. Meanwhile, impatient to mount and ride, Booted and spurred, with a heavy stride On the opposite shore walked Paul Revere. Now he patted his horse's side, Now he gazed at the landscape far and near, Then, impetuous, stamped the earth, And turned and tightened his saddle girth; But mostly he watched with eager search The belfry tower of the Old North Church, As it rose above the graves on the hill, Lonely and spectral and sombre and still. And lo! as he looks, on the belfry's height A glimmer, and then a gleam of light! He springs to the saddle, the bridle he turns, But lingers and gazes, till full on his sight A second lamp in the belfry burns. A hurry of hoofs in a village street, A shape in the moonlight, a bulk in the dark, And beneath, from the pebbles, in passing, a spark Struck out by a steed flying fearless and fleet; That was all! And yet, through the gloom and the light, The fate of a nation was riding that night; And the spark struck out by that steed, in his flight, Kindled the land into flame with its heat. He has left the village and mounted the steep, And beneath him, tranquil and broad and deep, Is the Mystic, meeting the ocean tides; And under the alders that skirt its edge, Now soft on the sand, now loud on the ledge, Is heard the tramp of his steed as he rides. It was twelve by the village clock When he crossed the bridge into Medford town. He heard the crowing of the cock, And the barking of the farmer's dog, And felt the damp of the river fog, That rises after the sun goes down. It was one by the village clock, When he galloped into Lexington. He saw the gilded weathercock Swim in the moonlight as he passed, And the meeting-house windows, black and bare, Gaze at him with a spectral glare, As if they already stood aghast At the bloody work they would look upon. It was two by the village clock, When he came to the bridge in Concord town. He heard the bleating of the flock, And the twitter of birds among the trees, And felt the breath of the morning breeze Blowing over the meadow brown. And one was safe and asleep in his bed Who at the bridge would be first to fall, Who that day would be lying dead, Pierced by a British musket ball. You know the rest. In the books you have read How the British Regulars fired and fled,---- How the farmers gave them ball for ball, From behind each fence and farmyard wall, Chasing the redcoats down the lane, Then crossing the fields to emerge again Under the trees at the turn of the road, And only pausing to fire and load. So through the night rode Paul Revere; And so through the night went his cry of alarm To every Middlesex village and farm,---- A cry of defiance, and not of fear, A voice in the darkness, a knock at the door, And a word that shall echo for evermore! For, borne on the night-wind of the Past, Through all our history, to the last, In the hour of darkness and peril and need, The people will waken and listen to hear The hurrying hoof-beats of that steed, And the midnight message of Paul Revere. --Henry Wadsworth Longfellow.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. All of us remember the elections. All of us remember President Bush saying: I am going to take my time and find a new direction.

Mr. KENNEDY. All of us remember he said: Do not rush me. I want to talk to the generals. I want to talk to political leaders. I want to talk to people all over this country and all over the world to find out a new policy. Then he comes out with this policy. And what is it? It is a military policy to escalate in Iraq.