Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this afternoon, the Senate will consider legislation that will have far-reaching effects on the Nation's readiness for bioterrorist attacks, epidemics, and other public health emergencies. The passage of the bill today is the culmination of a long process that our subcommittee, under the able leadership of Senator Burr, conducted to evaluate recommendations for renewing and strengthening the public health legislation enacted in 2002 and the BioShield proposal enacted the following year. That was no small challenge. Our lack of preparedness was painfully clear to the hundreds of thousands of Americans who suffered and are still suffering in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Today we face the possibility of a pandemic or a bioterrorist attack, which could be as bad as a Hurricane Katrina in every community in America. We know that we are not yet ready for a catastrophe of that scale. We need new medicines and new vaccines to protect against the disease threats of the twenty-first century. Yet many biotechnology companies are unwilling to invest in this area because of its uncertain commercial rewards. Congress previously enacted the BioShield law to provide a guaranteed market for these products, but that program has been implemented poorly and has failed to live up to its promise. Our legislation makes improvements in BioShield and supplements it by creating a new agency based on the successful model of DARPA, which has enhanced the development of important new products for our national defense. In recent years, the innovative research funded by DARPA has led to breakthroughs in supercomputers, robotics, materials science, nanotechnology, and in many other areas. Through the creation of a new agency, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Agency, we can emulate that success in the development of new vaccines and medicines. But creating new products is only half the story. The newest vaccines and the most sophisticated technology are of little value if our hospitals and health agencies are overwhelmed and underequipped. Time and again, Congress has called on the administration to take the steps needed to protect America against these new threats. But time and again, the response has been insufficient. In 2000, Congress enacted the Frist-Kennedy legislation to provide a framework for bioterrorism preparedness. In the first year after the legislation was enacted, these programs received just $1 million out of the $360 million called for by the legislation. Even in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the administration initially proposed only $50 million to upgrade our hospitals and emergency rooms, and requested only $125 million to improve our health agencies. Thanks to the leadership of Senator Daschle, Senator Frist, and Senator Byrd, and of now-Senator Burr when he served in the House, Congress rejected these recommendations and provided over half a billion dollars for hospital readiness and nearly a billion dollars for health agencies. Yet the administration has cut these needed funds. The support for hospital readiness through HRSA has decreased from $518 million in 2003 to $483 this year. The story is the same in the CDC program to improve our health agencies. Funding has dropped from $939 million in 2003 to $834 million this year. Is it any wonder that study after study shows that America is not ready for a biological attack? Our former colleague, Senator Lowell Weicker, is chairman of the board of the Trust for America's Health, which convened a panel of experts in public health to assess each State's readiness for bioterrorism. The sad story is that no State was fully ready. Even the most prepared States scored only 8 out of 10 on measures of basic preparedness. And these measures don't ask the impossible. One measure is whether a State has plans to ensure continuity of care in an emergency. Another is whether the State can provide additional ventilator beds for ten-- yes, just ten--additional patients. Even on these basic measures of readiness the majority of States scored a five or worse--and four States scored only a woeful 2 out of 10. We have seen the consequences of failure. Now we must prepare for success. With this bill, we take many important steps to increase our preparedness and response capabilities for public health emergencies. This bill will increase our medical surge capacity, strengthen our public health infrastructure, and clarify the responsibilities of Federal officials. The first response to emergencies happens at the State and local level. But State and local governments were quickly overwhelmed by the magnitude of the tragedy during Hurricane Katrina and would soon be overwhelmed in a pandemic. Federal assistance is essential. But for the past 4 years, we have been giving States money for public health preparedness without giving them adequate guidance on how to spend it. This bill reauthorizes these grants to State and local public health departments, but now provides benchmarks, performance standards and increased technical assistance from HHS that will allow State and local governments to improve their performance. Accurate and up-to-the-minute information is essential to managing an emergency. Health information technology is the key to a more effective health care system in so many areas, and it can immeasurably improve our ability to monitor a health emergency. Our legislation includes an important program to harness the power of health IT to aid our health emergency response. We must learn the lessons of the past and see that our hospitals and health professionals can treat the victims of disease, that our health agencies can detect disease threats rapidly and accurately and that all parts of our society have adequate plans to contain a disease outbreak. This bill takes the right steps to better prepare our Nation for the next public health emergency, no matter what its source. I urge my colleagues to approve this proposal and to work with us to see that we can send it to the President's desk before the end of the Congress.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. May I have recognition?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see the floor manager and the matter we have before us is of great importance and consequence. I know we have a variety of different amendments that are being considered and are being talked about, even as we are here now. I do not mean to interfere with the flow of this debate and reaching a timely conclusion of it, but I want to address the Senate for a few moments on what I consider to be sort of the important agenda for our committee, our HELP Committee, in this next session. I will cooperate, obviously, with the floor manager and ask that my remarks be printed in an appropriate place in the Record. And I will speak for just a few moments.

Mr. KENNEDY. So others who want to continue the debate will have the opportunity to do so. And as one who has been a floor manager, I understand his desire to have focus and attention on the underlying matters. But I appreciate the courtesy and the understanding of the manager letting me talk briefly this afternoon. (The remarks of Mr. Kennedy are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'') Amendment No. 5173

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I intend to oppose this legislation. One of the many lessons of the tragedy of September 11 is that America's overarching national security interest is keeping nuclear material and weapons out of the hands of terrorists. Nothing is more important for our national security than achieving this goal. The international nuclear nonproliferation regime flawed though it may be is our best hope of achieving this goal. While I believe America has a clear interest in strengthening our relationship with India, I do not believe it can, or should, be achieved by sidestepping nearly half a century of international nonproliferation agreements. In the long run, doing so will make America and the world more vulnerable to the perils of nuclear weapons. One of the defining goals of my years in the Senate has been to support the important advances made by our country and the international community in limiting the perils of nuclear weapons across the globe. President Kennedy considered the Limited Test Ban Treaty, which represented an early and historic advance in nuclear nonproliferation, as one of his greatest accomplishments. On signing the documents of ratification on October 7, 1963, President Kennedy said, ``This small step toward safety can be followed by others longer and less limited, if also harder in the taking. With our courage and understanding enlarged by this achievement, let us press onward in quest of man's essential desire for peace.'' Since that agreement, further progress was made with the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, NPT, the SALT and START agreements, as well as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. These agreements although far from perfect are essential to limiting the spread and use of nuclear weapons. They are the bedrock of our effort to ensure that the world will never, ever again know the horrors of the use of nuclear weapons. They took years to negotiate and implement, and we must be exceedingly careful about dismantling or carving out exceptions to them for any country. Supporters of this agreement argue that the international nonproliferation regime has not proved successful in every case--just look at Iran and North Korea. And I accept the premise of the administration's argument that the international arms control regime may need to be modified or adapted to fit current times, and that we need to find a way to address India. However, we need to recognize that commitments under the NPT made by virtually every nonnuclear state play an essential role in assisting the international community in keeping a check on their nuclear programs. And, before we make significant changes to the nonproliferation regime, we must be absolutely confident that we are doing more good than harm and that we will be more likely not less likely to limit the spread of nuclear weapons across the globe. I do not believe that running roughshod over these agreements by carving out an exception for India is the way to achieve these goals. General Brent Scowcroft cautioned that, ``I am concerned about a trend that we see reflected in the United States-India nuclear deal where we try to address proliferation risks by assessing the character of regimes and governments. Such an approach also opens up divisions among the world's nuclear powers, with each making a list of ``friends'' who can be trusted with nuclear technology and `foes' who are dangerous risks.'' Further, Robert Gallucci, the Dean of Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, pointed out that, if we do approve this arrangement with India, ``we will put at risk a world of very few nuclear weapon states, and open the door to the true proliferation of nuclear weapons in the years ahead.'' Certainly, there are some advantages to the nonproliferation regime under the proposed agreement. India would place a majority of its current and future civilian reactors under international safeguards. India has agreed to abide by the guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and to abide by the Missile Technology Control Regime. India has agreed not to test another nuclear device and has indicated that it will work with the United States on concluding an international regime to stop the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. These are definitely positive steps. However, India will not sign the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty and subject its military facilities to international inspection, and this remains a major concern. Until now, as part of an effort to limit the spread of nuclear weapons across the globe, international arms control agreements and U.S. law have required full international safeguards on civilian and military reactors before civilian nuclear energy could be provided. These requirements exist to ensure that by assisting a country's civilian program, we are not freeing up supplies for an unsafeguarded nuclear weapons program. Under this agreement, however, none of India's military reactors would be put under international safeguards, but it would receive civilian nuclear energy anyway. In other words, India will obtain the benefits of the NPT, without the obligations required by it. Additionally, despite India's stated commitment to conclude an international agreement to cut off the production of fissile material-- the essential component for making nuclear weapons--there is no timeframe for concluding such an agreement, nor is there any binding commitment for India to do so. United States, Russia, Great Britain, and France have agreed to a fissile material production cut-off for nuclear weapons, and India should as well. So we will knowingly permit a country to benefit from civilian nuclear energy cooperation and maintain an active, unsafeguarded program to construct, develop, and build nuclear weapons. If we provide India with the benefits of nuclear nonproliferation agreements without requiring them to sign the NPT nuclear agreement or, at least, cease the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons, there would be significant and harmful consequences for our global nonproliferation efforts. It will embolden Iran to flout the will of the international community. There could not be a worse moment to give India the green light to build weapons with the blessing of the United States and the international community. The Iranians see a clear double standard. As Iran's national security adviser said in March, ``The United States is imposing a contradictory theory of dual standards: though our NPT membership entitles us to access to nuclear science and technology, it claims that we will never have that right, whereas it cooperates with India, which does have the bomb but is not an NPT member.'' The Iranians will undoubtedly use the double standard of India in Iran's efforts to break the will of the international community to achieve its nuclear aims. Former Senator Sam Nunn stated that ``the U.S. India deal will likely make it more difficult to get other nations to join us in stopping threatening nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea.'' Similarly, Zbigniew Brzezinski, points out that this deal ``will complicate the quest for a constructive resolution of the Iranian nuclear problem.'' Furthermore, this agreement will put the United States in the position of indirectly supporting an arms race in South Asia. If the Indians or the administration could assure us that India had agreed, like the United States, Russia, Great Britain, and France, to a fissile material production cut-off for nuclear weapons, the concern would diminish. We know that India currently has very limited uranium resources, which it now must dedicate to generating electric power. It is so short of uranium that it can only run its reactors at about two- thirds capacity. But that will change once India gains access to foreign uranium supplies for its civilian uses. The agreement would provide India with sufficient uranium to supply its civilian reactors, freeing up domestic supplies for military purposes. Former Senator Sam Nunn warns that ``India will no longer be forced to choose whether its own limited uranium stocks should be used to support its civilian nuclear program or its nuclear weapons program.'' Some experts estimate that India could increase production from a handful of weapons a year to 50 or more, if it could use its domestic production for its weapons program. How will China and Pakistan react to India's increasing nuclear stockpile, as well as to the enhanced potential to produce fissile material as a result of this new cooperation? India states it only wants to build up its nuclear arsenal to the ``minimum credible deterrence'' level before it stops building nuclear weapons, but we don't really know what India is likely to do. How many more weapons will it need to reach that minimum credible deterrence? 50? 100? 500? Will Pakistan and China respond by building more weapons, too? Will the mad race for nuclear arms take on a life of its own, continuing to escalate with reckless abandon? And what will happen with our other allies who are members of the nonproliferation regime? There is no doubt that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty has played an essential role in the decisions of countries such as South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, and South Korea all allies of the United States--to stop pursuing their own nuclear weapons programs. But if we allow India to build nuclear weapons and enjoy civilian nuclear cooperation, will other U.S. friends and other countries in the future follow India's lead and demand the same? If we argue that the decision about India was based on trust, how on Earth will we be able to argue otherwise with these allies? They will accuse us rightly of having a double standard. I think we can all agree that the fewer the countries with nuclear weapons the better for U.S. national security, even if those aspiring countries are friendly toward the United States. President Jimmy Carter said in March that ``there is no doubt that condoning avoidance of the NPT encourages the spread of nuclear weaponry. Japan, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, Argentina and many other technologically advanced nations have chosen to abide by the NPT to gain access to foreign nuclear technology. Why should they adhere to self-restraint if India rejects the same terms.'' And what will happen to the international supply of material to India if it does test another weapon? While I am reasonably confident that the United States would terminate supplying nuclear materials and technology to India, there is a question whether the international regime particularly the Nuclear Suppliers Group would cease cooperation. Once the door to cooperation is opened to India, it may be difficult to get other countries to agree to shut it again. The Indian press has suggested that if India tests again it would likely lose the United States as a supplier but would retain access to uranium from other sources. In fact, Indian Prime Minister Singh told his Parliament in August that if there were a disruption of uranium supplies to India, such as in result of India testing another device, that ``the United States and India would jointly convene a group of friendly supplier countries, Russia, France and the United Kingdom, aimed at restoring fuel supplies to India.'' This certainly should raise alarm bells. I know Senator Obama has tried to address that problem with his amendment to the Senate bill, but all should be asking whether we should open the international spigot if we are uncertain about whether we can shut it off. Much has been made of the foreign policy benefit to America of this agreement, but I reject fully--the notion that America's relationship with India or the Indian American community--can or should be defined by this vote. The United States and India have a multitude of ties, which are growing ever closer, ever stronger. In the last decade we have seen a dramatic improvement in bilateral relations. India and America are the two largest democracies in the world. We share deeply held, common values, including respect for human rights, the rule of law, promoting peace, and prosperity in the world. My family and I have long had an interest in India. My brothers--John and Bobby visited in 1951, and I am a friend of India. I work closely with the Indian-American community to address hate crimes, immigration, and other issues that affect their daily lives. President Kennedy was right when he characterized India as a ``great and vital hope of democracy in Asia.'' He rightfully exclaimed that ``no thoughtful citizen'' could fail to recognize that India was a great and vital hope of democracy in Asia. Today, India is the world's largest democracy and soon will be the world's largest country. It has one of the fastest growing economies and plays a leading role in global affairs. The United States and India are seeking to improve trade and investment ties. We are cooperating in key areas such as agriculture, technology, energy, and the environment. India's green revolution came from America and proved essential to ending massive starvation in India. Today, our countries are cooperating on the next green revolution, to increase agricultural productivity and to help the environment. Defense cooperation is increasing. Our militaries are conducting more joint exercises, India is purchasing more U.S. counterterrorism and defense equipment, and in June 2005, the United States and India signed a 10-year defense pact. India, in recent years, has been the leader in sending students to study in the United States. Cultural links--whether food, movies, music or literature--are growing, too. After September 11, the United States cooperated with India in dealing with international terrorism threats. We are also working closely with India on public health threats, including HIV/AIDS and avian influenza. Our relationship is strong today and will continue to grow. These ties can and should continue to grow regardless of this agreement because it is in the interests of both of our countries. But we need to be realistic about the foreign policy benefits of this agreement. Naturally, we want the Indian Government to work with the United States to advance our foreign policy objectives. But we need to be realistic enough to know that India will follow a foreign policy that suits its interest. We should not and cannot expect India to pursue a policy that diverges from its national interests or not to pursue a policy that is in its national interests. Fortunately, India's national interests converge with ours on the vital national security issues. Neither country wants to see Iran acquire nuclear weapons and both are profoundly concerned by the terrorist threats. The tragic bombing in Mumbai in July where more than 200 people were killed by terrorists underscored to Indians that terrorism is a real and present danger. But we would be fooling ourselves if we thought that concluding a nuclear cooperative agreement with India will make it adopt policies regarding China, Iran, or others in the region or the world that are contrary to its national interest. Conversely, not concluding an agreement will not mean that India will forsake its national interests to spite the United States. India will not confront China or Iran or any other country merely because the United States asks it to do so. India will do so only if it is in India's national interests. This is independent of whether or not there is nuclear cooperation in place. Further, many have suggested that the U.S. nuclear industry will benefit from this agreement with increased reactor sales to India. However, this is not the case. Neither the United States nor India has ratified an international agreement to limit the civil liability for nuclear reactors. Until both nations agree to limit the liability, the U.S. nuclear industry will be hesitant to sell reactors to India. However, France and Russia have no such hesitations. Both have state-owned nuclear industries, so it is much less likely that victims of a nuclear reactor failure would be able to successfully sue for damages. As we have seen at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Bhopal, the liability exposure for such accidents can be overwhelming, resulting in thousands of deaths and radiation exposure for millions of people. Understandably, the U.S. nuclear industry is reluctant to sell reactors to another country until their liability for such an accident is limited. If we support this agreement without accompanying limitations on liability, we open the door for the French and the Russians to sell nuclear reactors to India but not for our own industry. I also do not believe this is an issue the Congress should be voting on now. President Bush is asking us to trust him that the risks of this agreement will not materialize and that additional benefits will follow--especially that India will cease fissile material production as a result of a new treaty. But with so many details unresolved and much up in the air, I see a vote for this legislation, which will permanently change U.S. law, as giving the administration a blank check in concluding the negotiations with India on a nuclear cooperation agreement and with the terms of safeguard agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency and revisions to the Nuclear Suppliers Group's guidelines. Nuclear nonproliferation is too important to our national security to take unnecessary risks. We should wait until the whole package has been negotiated and until we have better answers to the questions I have raised about the implications of this agreement before we take this step; for once we take the step of carving up the international nonproliferation regime, it is no easy matter to return if we find out we have erred. This genie cannot be put back in the bottle. I am particularly concerned that unpleasant answers will come out after we have voted on the legislation. In an action that was eerily reminiscent of the White House's decision to withhold until after the vote on the Iraq war North Korea's admission about its nuclear weapons program, the State Department delayed a report on proliferation with Iran until after the House had already approved this agreement. It turned out that there were two Indian companies on that report. Further, the administration kept quiet on Pakistan's constructing a nuclear reactor that could be used in a regional arms race, making India more likely to ramp up its production of fissile material, using the domestic production freed up by this agreement. And, as we learned this week, Ambassador Negroponte has not yet provided answers to the Foreign Relations Committee's questions on India's nonproliferation activities. We have the time and we have the responsibility to get this right. Let's be sure of what we are getting ourselves into. If it can be shown with enough confidence that India will take steps to become a full-fledged member of the nonproliferation community and has agreed to cut off production of fissile material, then I would certainly vote in favor of the cooperation agreement. Until then, I will be reserving my vote, looking for answers, and waiting to see the final agreement.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the message from this election is clear. There is little doubt that the American people want a change of course in Iraq. But they also want a government that stands with them and their families as they look to the future--jobs that reward their hard work, health care that is good and affordable, and education that continues to open the door to the American dream for all of our citizens. That was the agenda of the voters in this election and it will be the agenda of our Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee when we convene in the new year. And with Senator Reid as our majority leader, America's families will see great progress on the issues that they care most about. Yesterday, Democrats selected the membership of our committee. Every member is an experienced legislator with a deep commitment to working families and a solid record for getting things done. So I welcome back Senator Dodd, Senator Harkin, Senator Mikulski, Senator Bingaman, Senator Murray, Senator Jack Reed, and Senator Clinton. And I welcome our new members: Senator Obama, Senator-elect Sanders, and Senator-elect Brown. I am also grateful to continue working together with Chairman Enzi. The gavel may change hands, but our partnership will not. He is a true leader and has set the standard for fairness and statesmanship, and I look forward to working with him on the many issues before the committee in the next Congress. My first priority will be to increase the minimum wage. Americans are working harder than ever, but millions of hard-working men and women across the country aren't getting their fair share. We are not rewarding work fairly anymore, and working families are falling behind. The minimum wage has been stuck at $5.15 an hour for almost 10 years. A minimum wage worker who works 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year still makes just $10,700 a year--$6,000 below the poverty line for a family of three. In this era of skyrocketing costs, these hard-working Americans are forced to make impossible choices--between paying the rent or buying food, between paying for gas or paying the doctor. Americans understand fairness, and they know this is unfair. That is why the American people took the battle into their own hands this year. They pounded the pavements for months to put minimum wage increases on the ballot in six States this year. And all six of these ballot initiatives passed by decisive margins. If there is one message from this election that emerged loud and clear, it is that no one who works for a living should have to live in poverty. Raising the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour will benefit almost 15 million Americans. It will help more than 7.3 million children whose parents will receive a raise. Minimum wage workers serve in many of the most difficult and most important jobs in our society. They care for children in day care centers, and for the elderly in nursing homes. They clean office buildings, hotel rooms, and restaurants across the country. They are men and women of dignity, and they deserve a fair wage that respects the dignity of their work. It is long past time to give minimum wage workers a raise. Another high priority is to remove the barriers to lifesaving stem cell research. We are in the era of the life sciences, and no area of medical research has more promise than stem cell research to speed the search for new cures for diabetes, Parkinson's Disease, cancer, and many other serious illnesses. Thanks to the courage of leaders such as Michael J. Fox, the people of Missouri last week chose hope over fear by approving a constitutional amendment to allow stem cell research. Congress should learn from that example. Last year, a broad bipartisan majority approved legislation to tear down the barriers that have kept NIH scientists from realizing the full potential of this research. That bill was rejected by the President, but hope can never be vetoed. We will be back again and again next year until we succeed in overturning the restrictions on stem cell research that hinder the search for new cures, and delay the day when the hope of a better future becomes a reality for patients across America. We must also address the crisis in college affordability that affects every low and middle income family and that threatens our economic progress. It is more important than ever for our citizens to have a college education so they can compete in the global economy and have a fair chance at the American Dream. But because of soaring college costs, stagnant student aid and heavy student loan debt, it is becoming increasingly difficult for our citizens to get such an education. Today, students and families are pinching every penny to save for college--but it is not enough. Each year, 400,000 low-income students do not attend a 4-year college because of cost factors. Student debt is also a barrier to the pursuit of vital but lower-paying professions like teaching, public health, and social work. Last year, we passed an increase in student aid through the Senate only to see our proposals die in the House. With the House and Senate under new management, next year we will provide needed help to families struggling to put their children through college. We will increase Pell Grants from $4,050 to $5,100. We will cap college loan payments to no more than 15 percent of your income. We will cut student loan interest rates. We will reform the student loan program so it works for students and not just the banks. And we will use the savings to increase student aid. And at long last, we can no longer ignore the need for health care reform. We must reduce the cost of health and we must make it available to each and every American. Every Member of the Senate, and their staffs, and every Federal employee has a sense of security about health care that is denied to millions of Americans. Members of Congress know that if we get sick, or if our children need medical care, our health insurance plan will cover virtually all of the costs. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens have no such guarantee. Nearly 50 million Americans lack health care coverage entirely, and tens of millions more have inadequate coverage. In a nation with the best doctors and finest hospitals in the world, it is profoundly wrong that so many Americans suffer from illnesses that could have been prevented or treated more effectively--if only health care had been available and affordable. The time is long overdue to address the crisis in health care. Bipartisan health care reform is possible, and our first step toward it should be effective legislation to strengthen and reauthorize CHIP, the program that provides quality health care for 4 million children. But our experience with health reform in Massachusetts showed that we can do more. We proved that people from all parts of the political spectrum can come together to provide health care for all. So this, too, is one of our top goals for the coming Congress. Together, we can--we must--make the promise of this century of the life sciences a reality for all Americans by seeing that every American has quality, affordable health care. These are our top priorities for the new year, but they are not our only priorities. We must pass the CLASS Act and create a long-term care infrastructure in this country that will support every American's choice to live at home and be part of their community. Every older or disabled American has this right, and it is our job in Congress to provide them with the support they need to make this a reality. We will strengthen early learning opportunities, starting at birth, for each of our children. Prevention works in health care and it can work in education as well. We must also ensure that our schools are equipped to meet the challenges of the global economy. Our Nation's future depends on many things, but certainly one of the most important measures of the strength of our democracy is the excellence of our public schools. This year, we will revisit the reforms contained in the No Child Left Behind Act. The law charted a sound course for American education four years ago, but it is time for us to reshape our commitment and provide better solutions for schools to respond to the challenges identified by the law. These reforms are right and we're ready to work with President Bush, as we did 5 years ago. But given the many failures of implementation by his administration and the meager commitments to education reform in his budgets, the President has a high hurdle to cross to demonstrate that he is seriously committed to these reforms. In addition, we must give workers a stronger voice in their own futures and in meeting the needs of their families. We must protect workers' right to join together and fight for better wages and working conditions, free from employer intimidation. Workers need opportunities to improve their skills through job training programs. And families deserve paid sick days to care for loved ones without fear of losing their jobs. Americans who have worked a lifetime to provide for their families deserve to retire in dignity, not in poverty. We must ensure our retirement system works for all Americans, not just corporate executives. We can make bipartisan progress, too, on measures that will improve health care and reduce costs--not by denying services to patients, but by improving efficiency and effectiveness. Congress should aid doctors, hospitals, and patients to improve their use of electronic medical records, and we should explore responsible ways to reward the quality of health care, not just the quantity of care. And we must fulfill our duty through our hearings and our legislative program to ensure that Government is working for the people, that we have strong laws to keep workers safe on the job and that workers are fairly paid, that student loans work for students and not just the banks, that students are protected from exploitation in the private student loan market, that prescription drugs we rely on and the food we eat are safe, that the workers that risked their lives for others on 9/ 11 are cared for as they deal now with the illness and injury. These will be my priorities as chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee next year. They come directly out of this election where the American people spoke loud and clear. And I look forward to working with my colleagues to make important progress for America's families.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last Saturday, all across the country, we honored our Nation's veterans, and we renewed our commitment to care for them, in the way Abraham Lincoln advised us in his Second Inaugural Address: ``to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan.'' From the very beginning of America, brave men and women have sacrificed their lives or suffered wounds while serving our country. We owe each of them a debt of gratitude that we can never truly repay, and we must honor them and support them whenever we can. In doing so, we must take great care to remember that not all wounds are visible and that, when we call upon our best and brightest, we often send their precious minds, as well as their bodies, into harm's way. The continuing current missions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been especially demanding of, and damaging to, our troops. A recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and conducted by a medical research team at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research surveyed soldiers and Marines returning from Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations yielded disturbing results. According to the survey, post-traumatic stress disorder, major depression, substance abuse, or other mental health disorders may afflict nearly 1 in 5 service members returning from Iraq and more than 1 in ten returning from Afghanistan. The Veterans Health Administration estimates that a large percentage of the veterans of Iraq or Afghanistan who have sought VA care have exhibited symptoms of one or more mental disorders and have sought treatment from veterans centers. Last month, the Washington Post reported that, as of the end of June, the VA treated a third of the more than 184,000 veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq for these symptoms. Nearly half of those treated were diagnosed as possible victims of post-traumatic stress disorder. According to the Post, the VA's estimate represents a tenfold increase in the number of cases treated in only 18 months, and the number is likely to increase as our forces continue to serve multiple tours of duty in hostile areas. The number may be further increased by ongoing medical outreach programs conducted by the military to increase service members' awareness of the indications and implications of the types of psychological trauma associated with combat deployments. As their awareness grows, many more veterans will likely seek mental health treatment, and veterans groups are deeply concerned that the VA is already straining to meet the increased demand. All too frequently we read reports of reduced services, staff shortages, and long waits for minimal or intermittent care. In August, the Washington Post reported the example of a veteran of Iraq who receives only 30 minutes of treatment a month for post- traumatic stress disorder. In October, the Post reported that another veteran of Iraq was told he would have to wait 2\1/2\ months for an appointment at a VA facility to treat his sleep disorder. We need to be sure that our veterans receive the care they deserve, and that the VA has the capacity to provide adequately specialized services to every veteran who needs counseling or treatment. We can't allow the heavy demands of our commitments overseas to impair the quality of assistance that our veterans actually receive. The more we ask of our brave men and women, the more we must provide them in return. The Kerry amendment will help the Veterans' Administration to better address the surge in mental health needs of our veterans and help to provide a higher standard of medical care to them in a more productive and efficient manner. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Our veterans need and deserve this support. We owe them nothing less in light of the intense dangers and stresses they have faced and endured so courageously.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Chairman Enzi, Senator DeWine, Senator Mikulski, Chairman McKeon, Representative Tiberi, Representative Miller, and Representative Hinojosa for their bipartisan leadership in reauthorization the Older Americans Act. It's been a lifeline for senior citizens across the country for 40 years, and all of us want it to continue to fullfill its important mission in the years ahead. Like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the Older Americans Act is part of our commitment to care for the Nation's seniors in their golden years. Last year, 1,200 bi-partisan delegates were chosen by the Governors of all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the Territories to attend the first White House Conference on Aging since 1985. Over the years these conferences have served as catalysts for change, and this conference was no different. The delegates called for reauthorization of the Older Americans Act as their No. 1 priority and I'm pleased that Congress has answered their call. As we all know, the baby boomer generation is retiring. One in nine Americans are over age 65 today, but by the year 2030, the number will be one in five. Our authorization bill is designed to take some of the necessary steps to put the infrastructure in place to provide services that will be needed by those retirees. It requires State and local agencies to acknowledge the dramatically changing demographics and to plan ahead. I hope Congress will continue to build on these efforts in coming years and provide increased funds for the important programs in this Act. The Conference on Aging also focused on another important theme--the importance of civic engagement and community service by senior citizens. Members of the new generation of older Americans obviously want to continue to be engaged in their communities after they retire, and it would make no sense for our society not to draw on their experience and knowledge in constructive ways. The Older Americans Act already provides opportunities for employment of older Americans through the Senior Community Service Employment Program. According to a study by the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University, the number of older persons aged 55 to 74 with income below 125 percent of poverty will increase from 6 million in 2005 to over 8 million in 2015. Our bill strengthens job training for seniors to involve them in the communities they love, and which also love them. Last year, the program supported 61,000 jobs and served 92,000 people. Older Americans today provide 45 million hours of valuable service to their communities, particularly in senior centers, public libraries, and nutrition programs. The bill is also intended to encourage good nutrition, healthy living, and disease prevention among seniors. The Meals on Wheels program, enacted in the 1970's, is one of its greatest successes, and Massachusetts has been in the forefront of efforts to provide community-based nutrition services to the elderly. The Massachusetts program coordinates twenty-eight nutrition projects throughout the State to deal with poor nutrition and social isolation of seniors. Our bill will expand the ability of programs such as Meals on Wheels to reach all older individuals who need better nutrition. Today it's estimated that 47 percent of the elderly eligible for Supplemental Security Income, 70 percent of seniors eligible for food stamps, 67 percent of people eligible for Qualified Medicare Beneficiary protections, and 87 percent of those eligible for Specified Low-Income Medicare Beneficiary protections are not participating in these programs. Surely, we can do a better job of outreach to bring these programs to the attention of those who need them. Our bill addresses the need for better outreach to seniors about the healthcare, mental health services, and long-term care benefits available to them. I also commend all of the staff members who have worked so hard to bring this bill to final passage today, especially Ellen-Marie Whelan and Keysha Brooks-Coley in Senator Mikulski's office, Lauren Fuller and Kori Forster in Senator Enzi's office, and Lindsay Morris and Karla Carpenter in Senator DeWine's office. This bill will mean better health and more fulfilling lives for both seniors and their communities in the years ahead, and I strongly support its passage.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on a second matter, the issue which is currently before the Senate--I know we are in a period of morning business, but the underlying issue is the Secure Fence Act of 2006. I listened to my friend and colleague from Idaho speak very eloquently about the AgJOBS bill. I enjoyed the opportunity to work with him in helping to fashion that legislation. We worked very closely together and were able to convince our colleagues on the Democratic and Republican side of the value of this legislation. It demonstrates very clearly a problem we are facing with the underlying bill, which is called the Secure Fence Act of 2006. Rather than focusing on comprehensive legislation to deal with the immigration ordeal with the AgJOBS bill, as the Senator has mentioned, which would be valuable and very important in terms of the agriculture industry and also providing important protections for the workers themselves--a compromise that was worked out over a period of years--we are effectively saying no, we are not going to deal with that. We are just not going to deal with it. The leadership has decided they won't have an opportunity to deal with it, even though there are more than 60 Members, Republicans and Democrats alike, who would like to deal with it. I join comments that have been made by the Senator from Idaho, but also by my friends Senator Boxer, Senator Feinstein, and others. We are going to have the time here this afternoon. As Senators pointed out, this is legislation which is understood and which is very important. One cannot pick up the newspapers without reading the adverse results of our failing to act. This is something we should be addressing as an amendment--I think it is much more valuable than the underlying legislation, but we certainly should have had the opportunity as an amendment. On the issue of the Secure Fence Act, immigration reform is one of the most pressing issues we face today. It is a security issue, an economic issue, and a moral issue. President Bush told us that it was a top domestic priority. Many Members in the Senate understood the importance of the issue and devoted an unprecedented number of weeks to hearings, markups and extensive floor debate to this priority. In May, the Senate passed a historic bipartisan bill supported by 64 Senators. The House however passed a very different bill last December one that has been roundly condemned as cruel and ineffective by religious leaders, Latino leaders, and immigration and security experts. It focuses only on enforcement and makes it a felony for any Good Samaritan to help immigrants. As one religious leader described it this week, you could go to jail for giving an undocumented immigrant a cup of water in Jesus' name. What's more, the bill does nothing about the 12 million undocumented immigrants who are here already, and it does nothing about the Nation's future immigration needs both vital ingredients to an effective immigration policy. Common sense tells us that enforcement alone is not the solution to today's complex immigration challenges. We can build fences, but people will come around them. We can put high tech devices on our borders and they will deter some people, but we all know that many others still will find a way to come. We can make criminals of the pastors and priests who help immigrants, but that is not only contrary to our values, it will have little impact on immigration. The logical next step would have been for Congress to appoint conferees so we could begin negotiating a compromise. That is what we do--pass a Senate bill and pass a House bill. Then conferees are appointed from both Houses to reconcile their differences on the bill. That is what Congress does on critical issues. But, instead of rolling up their sleeves and doing the work necessary to get legislation to the President's desk that deals with the key elements of the immigration problem--that will bolster national security, ensure economic prosperity; and protect families--the Republican leadership in the House frittered away the summer, preferring to embark on a political road show--featuring 60 cynical one-sided hearings, and wasting millions of precious taxpayer dollars. And after the bunting came down and the klieg lights were removed, after all the political hoopla and hot rhetoric, what did they produce? A fence. Did they do anything about the millions of people who come here on airplanes with visas, and stay here illegally after their visas expire? No. Just a fence. Did they do anything to ensure that employers don't hire people who are here illegally? No. Just a fence. Did they do anything about the 12 million undocumented immigrants who are here already, living in the shadows while working hard to support their families? No. Just a fence. Yes, Republican leaders wasted time, opportunity, and your money. For a $9 billion fence that won't do the job. That is just a bumper sticker solution for a complex problem. It's a feel good plan that will have little effect in the real world. We all know what this is about. It may be good politics, but it's bad immigration policy. That is not what Americans want. They deserve something better than a fence. Over and over and over again, the American people have told us that they want our immigration system fixed, and fixed now. They have told us that this complex problem requires a comprehensive solution. The American people want tough but fair laws that will strengthen our borders and crack down on employers who hire undocumented workers, but at the same time provide a practical solution that will allow undocumented immigrants to become taxpaying legal workers who perform tasks needed by our economy. Today or tomorrow, this Republican Congress will recess for the elections, and leave this issue still unresolved. I hope that we can use the next few weeks productively to work together on compromises that can be adopted when we return in November. What is the solution? How do we control our borders effectively? How do we restore the rule of law and make sure that immigrants come to this country with a visa, not with a smuggler? The bipartisan bill passed by the Senate is the only practical way to cure what ails us. The only way we can truly bring illegal immigration under control and achieve border security is to combine enforcement and border protection with a realistic framework for legal immigration. It's obvious that we have insufficient legal avenues for immigrant workers and families to come to this country, and no path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented workers and families already here. The problem is fueling a black market of smugglers and fake document-makers, to the peril of citizens and immigrants alike. Rather than saber-rattling, chest-thumping, and ranting, the American people would like to see both parties and both Houses of Congress come together to negotiate a realistic and enforceable policy for immigration. Piecemeal proposals won't work. They will only make a bad situation worse. Those who are here illegally will not leave, but will go deeper underground, and those seeking to enter will take even more dangerous routes and be less likely to survive. Employers will have an unstable workforce of men and women who are afraid to speak up when abused. The dysfunctions and pathologies of the current failed system will continue to worsen. On this specific proposal for a fence, let's consider the facts: Never mind that months ago the Senate voted to approve a 370-mile fence exactly what Secretary Chertoff said he needed for targeted urban areas. Never mind that the Senate has voted to fund the fence Secretary Chertoff requested. It is in the appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security that we will pass this afternoon. Never mind that DHS has not requested additional fencing. Last week, in promoting his ``Secure Border Initiative'', Secretary Chertoff said, ``What we are looking to build is a virtual fence, a 21st century virtual fence . . . one that does not involve old-fashioned fencing.'' Never mind that fencing is manpower intensive--you need border patrol agents to continuously monitor them to apprehend illegal crossers. But this bill will require DHS to construct up to 850 miles of fencing in remote, desolate areas, in desert and wilderness areas, and even across rivers--where it will serve no security purpose whatsoever. Never mind that it will cost billions of dollars. The Congressional Budget Office estimate the cost at roughly $3 million a mile, which may be on the low end--the first 11 miles of the San Diego fence cost $3.8 million a mile and the final 3.5 mile section cost approximately $9 million a mile. As the Congressional Research Service recently noted, the costs may be even higher. You need to take into account the terrain, land acquisition, environmental planning, private contractors, double layering, fence design, procurement costs and a number of other factors. We also can't forget the annual maintenance costs, which could be as high as $1 billion a year. Never mind that fences don't work. Undocumented immigrant entries have increased tenfold since the strategy of fencing was introduced in the mid-1990s. Since that time, the probability of apprehending an unauthorized border crosser fell from 20 percent to 5 percent. The United States now spends $1700 per border apprehension, up from $300 in 1992. San Diego's wall has been a boon for the smuggling industry, and increased the loss of immigrant lives by shifting entry to the desert. Never mind that fencing will do nothing to stop the 40-50 percent of the people currently in the United States who entered the country with legal visas and have now overstayed their visas. Never mind that fences won't keep out criminals or terrorists. The 9/ 11 terrorists didn't come across the Mexican border illegally--they entered the U.S. with visas. Never mind that fences won't stop immigrants from coming here to work. As Governor Napolitano of Arizona recently said: You show me a 50-foot wall and I'll show you a 51-foot ladder at the border to get over it. Narrow, shortsighted, enforcement-only proposals like a fence will never fix our broken immigration system. We should listen to Tom Ridge, former Secretary of Homeland Security, who recently said: Trying to gain operational control of the borders is impossible unless our enhanced enforcement efforts are coupled with a robust Temporary Guest Worker program and a means to entice those now working illegally out of the shadows into some type of legal status. A group of former high-ranking government officials has said unequivocally: The reality is that stronger enforcement and a more sensible approach to the 10-12 million illegal aliens in the country today are inextricably interrelated. One cannot succeed without the other. President Bush agreed. In May, he got it right when he declared: An immigration reform bill needs to be comprehensive because all elements of this problem must be addressed together, or none of them will be solved at all. What the Republican leadership doesn't seem to get, is that comprehensive immigration reform is all about security: Homeland security; economic security; family security. That is what the vast majority of our people want. They want realistic solutions that effectively protect our Nation. They don't want piecemeal, feel-good measures that will waste billions of precious taxpayer dollars and do nothing to correct the serious problems. What can we expect in the next month? The Republican leadership has two choices. They can bring us together to work out effective compromises for a comprehensive bill. Or they can continue to use hard working immigrants as political pawns for November's elections. I hope that they will not choose the politically expedient choice--to embark on another slanderous campaign, featuring more political stunts, misleading press releases, and glossy campaign ads about how tough they are on the border. The Chicago Tribune editorial page understands this tactic. Earlier this week they wrote that ``Immigrant bashing is so much easier than immigration reform.'' Sacrificing good immigration policy for political expediency and hateful rhetoric is not just shameful--it is cowardly. We have the bill to solve this problem now. We owe the American people a serious answer on the issue, and our Republican leadership should be held accountable for their inaction and their inability to address this pressing issue facing our Nation. Let's stop this farce. Let's stop playing politics with immigration. We know they are wrong. Their scheme will leave us weaker and less secure. We can't allow them to derail our strong bipartisan reforms. I urge my colleagues to choose good policy over political expedience and oppose this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a document that reflects the 50 organizations that are in opposition to this particular proposal. They include the LUCAC, MALDEF, La Raza, a great number of the religious organizations and others that have expressed their views about it. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent to have printed a document that includes a number of editorials in the newspapers, editorials about the fence from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Idaho Statesman, LA Times, and Orlando Sentinel. Then the Tucson Citizen, the Waco Tribune--a number of editorials from around the country.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, could I ask for 2 minutes?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, a short while ago on the floor of the U.S. Senate, my friends and colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, our chairman, Senator Enzi, and Senator Burr brought to the Senate's attention what we call the bioterrorism BARDA legislation, S. 3678. I am a strong supporter of that legislation. I believe that legislation provides a rather unique process by which outstanding opportunities for breakthroughs in vaccines and other medical technologies can be developed and furthered. This can be enormously valuable and helpful against any bioterrorist threats, pandemic flu, or other kinds of diseases or pandemics we might face in the future. There are several of our colleagues who want to have an opportunity to improve and strengthen that legislation. Obviously, they are entitled to do so. But I want to underscore the strong work that has been done to date by our chairman, Senator Enzi and also by Senator Burr in developing this legislation. The BARDA concept is very close to what was done a number of years ago with DARPA, the Department of Defense's advanced research program, which has demonstrated enormous success in finding new technologies that are used by the military. It is a very commendable concept and offers us great hope down the line. This legislation also recognizes that we are going to develop capacity to contain whatever danger there may be in local communities by strengthening support for hospitals, containment, and the public health infrastructure. Prevention, detection, containment, and support for the health facilities, are all interrelated--they are enormously important. So I hope that as soon as we return in the lame duck session, this will be a first order of business. I have talked with our leader about this issue. I look forward to, in the course of these next few weeks, talking to some of our colleagues who have offered amendments to see how we might be able to proceed, even in this limited amount of time, to ensure that we have effective legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, to bring to the attention of the Senate, during the consideration of the DOD appropriations, I offered an amendment with my colleague Senator Reid about an NIE for Iraq. We have not had an NIE--National Intelligence Estimate--just for Iraq. The one that has been printed in the newspapers, or the reports in the newspapers have been an NIE about global terrorism, of which Iraq was a part, but we have not had an NIE on Iraq in the last 2\1/2\ years. This was accepted in the conference report. Yesterday I sent a letter to Mr. Negroponte, with Senator Rockefeller, Senator Levin, Senator Biden, Senator Reid, and Senator Reed, urging him to move forward. It outlines the areas to be covered in the assessment. I had that letter printed in the Record. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, unfortunately, serious and unjustified health disparities continue to exist in our Nation today. Over 45 million Americans have no health insurance and often don't get the health care they need, or else they receive it too late. We know that persons who are uninsured are more likely to delay doctor visits and needed screenings like mammograms and other early detection tests, which can help prevent serious illness and death. The Institute of Medicine estimates that at least 18,000 Americans die prematurely each year solely because they lack health coverage. Some of the most shameful health disparities involve racial and ethnic minorities, and typically they are more likely to be uninsured. African Americans have a lower life expectancy than whites, and are much more likely to die from stroke, and their uninsurance rates are much higher than for their white counterparts. Many Americans--even physicians--want to believe such disparities don't exist, but ignoring them only contributes more to the widening gap between the haves and have-nots. It's a scandal that people of color have greater difficulty obtaining good health care than other Americans. Your health should not depend on the color of your skin, the size of your bank account, or where you live. In a Nation as advanced as ours and with its state-of-the-art medical technology for preventing illness and caring for the sick, it's appalling that so many health disparities continue to exist. That's the reason why I am introducing the Minority Health and Health Disparity Elimination Act as part of our effort to eliminate these unacceptable disparities. The bill provides grants to communities to increase public awareness about access to health care and disease prevention. It writes the Centers for Disease Control's Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health program into law, so that this successful program can involve all communities in closing the health care gap. Greater diversity in the health care workforce is also a key part of ending these disparities. African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and other minorities account for only 6 percent of the nation's doctors and 7 percent of nurses and dentists, even though they are almost one-third of the U.S. population. The disparity in the health workforce must be closed, not just to fulfill our commitment to equality of opportunity, but because of the impact it has on health care. Studies demonstrate that minority health professionals are more likely to care for minority patients, including those who are low-income and uninsured. The Minority Health and Health Disparity Elimination Act reauthorizes the Title VII healthcare workforce diversity programs, and supports the Centers of Excellence at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and institutions that educate Hispanic and Native American students. A diverse health care workforce is essential for a healthy country. Emphasizing workforce diversity does not mean that health care workers of all races should not be prepared to work with diverse patients. We must also make a more serious effort to train culturally competent health care professionals and work towards creating a health care system that is accessible for the more than 46 million Americans who speak a language other than English at home. The bill creates an Internet clearinghouse to help increase cultural competency and improve communication between health care providers and patients. It also supports the development of curricula on cultural competence in health professions schools. Language barriers in health care obviously contribute to reduced access and poorer care for those who have limited English proficiency or low health literacy. The legislation recognizes the importance of this issue for the quality of our health care system and provides funds for activities to improve and encourage services for such patients. The Minority Health and Health Disparities Research and Education Act enacted into law in 2000 created the National Center for Minority Health and Health Disparities. The legislation I am introducing today reauthorizes this important Center and strengthens its role in coordinating and planning research that focuses on minority health and health disparities. It further strengthens research in health care quality by establishing a grant program for healthcare delivery sites and public-private partnerships to evaluate and identify best practices in disease management strategies and interventions. In addition, the bill promotes the participation of racial and ethnic minorities and other health disparity populations in clinical trials and intensifies efforts throughout the Department of Health and Human Services to increase and apply knowledge about the interaction of racial, genetic, and environmental factors that affect people's health. Finally, the bill reinforces and clarifies the duties of the Office of Minority Health and Health Disparity Elimination and encourages greater cooperation among federal agencies and departments in meeting these serious challenges. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this needed legislation when we return to session after the election recess.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, unfortunately, serious and unjustified health disparities continue to exist in our Nation today. Over 45 million Americans have no health insurance and often don't get the health care they need, or else they receive it too late. We know that persons who are uninsured are more likely to delay doctor visits and needed screenings like mammograms and other early detection tests, which can help prevent serious illness and death. The Institute of Medicine estimates that at least 18,000 Americans die prematurely each year solely because they lack health coverage. Some of the most shameful health disparities involve racial and ethnic minorities, and typically they are more likely to be uninsured. African Americans have a lower life expectancy than whites, and are much more likely to die from stroke, and their uninsurance rates are much higher than for their white counterparts. Many Americans--even physicians--want to believe such disparities don't exist, but ignoring them only contributes more to the widening gap between the haves and have-nots. It's a scandal that people of color have greater difficulty obtaining good health care than other Americans. Your health should not depend on the color of your skin, the size of your bank account, or where you live. In a Nation as advanced as ours and with its state-of-the-art medical technology for preventing illness and caring for the sick, it's appalling that so many health disparities continue to exist. That's the reason why I am introducing the Minority Health and Health Disparity Elimination Act as part of our effort to eliminate these unacceptable disparities. The bill provides grants to communities to increase public awareness about access to health care and disease prevention. It writes the Centers for Disease Control's Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health program into law, so that this successful program can involve all communities in closing the health care gap. Greater diversity in the health care workforce is also a key part of ending these disparities. African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and other minorities account for only 6 percent of the nation's doctors and 7 percent of nurses and dentists, even though they are almost one-third of the U.S. population. The disparity in the health workforce must be closed, not just to fulfill our commitment to equality of opportunity, but because of the impact it has on health care. Studies demonstrate that minority health professionals are more likely to care for minority patients, including those who are low-income and uninsured. The Minority Health and Health Disparity Elimination Act reauthorizes the Title VII healthcare workforce diversity programs, and supports the Centers of Excellence at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and institutions that educate Hispanic and Native American students. A diverse health care workforce is essential for a healthy country. Emphasizing workforce diversity does not mean that health care workers of all races should not be prepared to work with diverse patients. We must also make a more serious effort to train culturally competent health care professionals and work towards creating a health care system that is accessible for the more than 46 million Americans who speak a language other than English at home. The bill creates an Internet clearinghouse to help increase cultural competency and improve communication between health care providers and patients. It also supports the development of curricula on cultural competence in health professions schools. Language barriers in health care obviously contribute to reduced access and poorer care for those who have limited English proficiency or low health literacy. The legislation recognizes the importance of this issue for the quality of our health care system and provides funds for activities to improve and encourage services for such patients. The Minority Health and Health Disparities Research and Education Act enacted into law in 2000 created the National Center for Minority Health and Health Disparities. The legislation I am introducing today reauthorizes this important Center and strengthens its role in coordinating and planning research that focuses on minority health and health disparities. It further strengthens research in health care quality by establishing a grant program for healthcare delivery sites and public-private partnerships to evaluate and identify best practices in disease management strategies and interventions. In addition, the bill promotes the participation of racial and ethnic minorities and other health disparity populations in clinical trials and intensifies efforts throughout the Department of Health and Human Services to increase and apply knowledge about the interaction of racial, genetic, and environmental factors that affect people's health. Finally, the bill reinforces and clarifies the duties of the Office of Minority Health and Health Disparity Elimination and encourages greater cooperation among federal agencies and departments in meeting these serious challenges. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this needed legislation when we return to session after the election recess.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to applaud the Senator from Virginia for his amendment in the Defense authorization bill. This amendment clarifies the President's authority to employ the Armed Forces inside the United States to restore public order when domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the State authorities are not able to enforce the laws and protect the legal rights of its people. Late August last year, New Orleans and gulf coast residents saw the devastation nature can sow. We are now in another hurricane season. Communicable diseases like SARS and avian flu are still real risks. No one needs reminding that bin Laden and al-Qaida are still out there. We need to clarify the applicability of this law to modern problems. This is a task that uniquely belongs to Congress. It is Congress's responsibility, according to the Constitution, to make rules ``for the government and regulation'' of the Armed Forces. Senator Warner's provision takes a real step in the right direction.

Mr. KENNEDY. As I understand the amendment, it defines when the President can call on the Armed Forces if there is a major public emergency at home. The amended statute now lists specific situations in which the troops can be used to restore public order. This includes natural disasters, epidemics or other serious public health emergencies, and terrorist attacks or incidents that result in domestic violence to such an extent that State authorities are unable to maintain public order. These were not mentioned specifically before. While the amendment does not grant the President any new powers, it fills an important gap in clarifying the President's authority to respond to these new kinds of emergencies. The amendment defines the kind of situations in which the President can employ the Armed Forces to restore public order. In our system, responsibility for law enforcement and the maintenance of public order normally lies with the State and local authorities. The Armed Forces can and should enter this arena only in extreme ergencies. The amendment explains that the trigger for the employment of Armed Forces is a condition, which may result from a terrorist attack or a natural disaster, that makes it impossible for regular law enforcement agencies to enforce the laws.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I believe my amendment No. 5088 is at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, do I have additional time? How much time have I used?

Mr. KENNEDY. I would like to yield myself 5 more minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it will be quite surprising to me if the Senate is not prepared to accept this amendment. I look back at the time that we actually passed the War Crimes Act of 1996. At that time it was offered by Walter B. Jones, a Republican Congressman. It was offered in response to our Vietnam experience, where American servicemen--including one of our own colleagues and dear friends, Senator McCain--had been subject to torture during that period of time. When this matter came up, both in the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States, it passed in the Senate of the United States without a single objection. It passed the House by voice vote. This is what it says, under War Crimes, chapter 118: Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime . . . And it talks about the circumstances-- . . . as a member of the armed forces of the United States or a national United States. It is in Title 18 so those out of uniform are subject to the code. So that is the CIA. Those are the SEALS. Those are the people involved now in our war on terror. Then it continues along to define a war crime as a violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. That provision protects against cruel treatment and torture. It prevents the taking of hostages. It prohibits outrages upon personal dignity. Those are effectively the kinds of protections that act affords. We heard a great deal from the administration, from the President, that he wanted specificity in the War Crimes Act and the Geneva Conventions in terms of what is permitted and what is not permitted. He felt those terms are too vague. Well, on that he is right. There is confusion in the world. There is confusion in the world about our commitment to the Geneva Conventions and what we think it means. There is a good deal of confusion in the world in the wake of what happened at Abu Ghraib. There we found out that these harsh interrogation techniques had been used. Sure, we have had 10 different reviews of what happened over there. What we always find out is it is the lower lights, the corporals and the sergeants who are the ones being tried and convicted. Those in the higher ranks are not. No one has stood up and said clearly, those are violations of the Geneva Conventions. So we have Abu Ghraib, which all of us remember. And it has caused confusion. We have the circumstances in Guantanamo--the conduct of General Miller, who brought these harsh interrogation techniques to Guantanamo at Secretary Rumsfeld's direction. When the Armed Services Committee questioned his whole standard of conduct, he moved toward early retirement to avoid coming up and facing the music. This caused confusion about our commitments to the Geneva Conventions. Then you had the Bybee memorandum, which was effectively the rule of law for some 2 years, which permitted torture, any kind of torture, and it said that any individual who is going to be involved in torturing would be absolved from any kind of criminality if the purpose of their abusing any individual was to get information and there was no specific intent to have bodily harm for that individual. This caused confusion about our commitments to the Geneva Conventions. That was the Bybee amendment. Finally, Attorney General Gonzales had to repudiate that or he never would have been approved as the Attorney General of the United States. That is the record in the Judiciary Committee. I sat through those hearings. I heard the Attorney General say they were repudiating the Bybee memorandum on that. This is against a considerable background of where we have seen some extraordinary abuses. Then we have tried to clarify our commitment. We have the action in the Senate of the United States, by a vote of 90 to 9, accepting Senator McCain's Amendment to prohibit cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment; to make the Army Field Manual the law of the land; to say we are not interested in torture. Senator McCain understands. He believes that waterboarding is torture. He believes using dogs is torture. This is not complicated. We don't have to cause confusion. We have it written down on this list of prohibited techniques. It is not my list of prohibited techniques, but it is written down by the Department of Defense. This amendment says if a foreign country is going to practice these kinds of behavior against an American national who is out there in the war on terror and is being picked up, we are going to consider this to be a war crime. This is about protecting Americans. I don't understand the hesitancy on the other side, not being willing to accept this amendment. Let's go on the record about what we say is absolutely prohibited and what we know has been favored techniques that have been used by our adversaries at other times. Let's go on the record for clarity. Looking back in history, at the end of World War II and otherwise, we are all familiar with the different examples where these techniques-- frighteningly familiar to the series of techniques used in Iraq and Guantanamo--and are often frequently used against Americans. I am reminded--I gave illustrations: electric shocks, waterboarding, hypothermia, heat injury. We all remember the 52 American hostages who were held in the U.S. Embassy in Iran. They were subjected to the mock executions.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I hope we could accept this amendment. I yield myself 1 more minute. It basically incorporates what the Senate did several years ago with war crimes. It is trying to respond to what the President says. He wants specificity about what is going to be prohibited and what will not be. The Department of Defense has found these areas to be off limits for the military. All we are saying is if other countries are going to do that to Americans, they are going to be held accountable. This is about protecting Americans. That is the least we ought to be able to do for those who are risking their lives in very difficult circumstances. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to inquire of the Senator from Virginia, and I yield myself 3 minutes. As I understand, one of the reasons this amendment is being rejected is because of the burden that it is going to place on our State Department to notify the 194 countries that we expect, if these techniques are used against Americans, they would be considered a war crime. That is a possible difficulty for us? That is a burden for our State Department? Or, rather is he objecting because, we can't foresee all of the different kinds of techniques that might be used against individuals and therefore we shouldn't list these. We list them in the Army Field Manual specifically. They are not pulled out of the air; they are listed specifically in the Army Field Manual. That is where they come from. And a number of the Members on the other side of the aisle have said that those techniques are prohibited. So we have taken the Department of Defense list and incorporated it. Then the last argument is that: Well, if it is rejected, we don't want this to be interpreted as a green light for these techniques. There must be stronger arguments. Maybe I am missing something around here. With all respect, I have difficulty in understanding why the Senator from Virginia, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, does not address the fundamental issue which is included in this amendment, and that is this amendment protects Americans who are out on the front lines of the war on terror, the SEALS, the CIA, others who are fighting, and it gives warning to any country: You go ahead with any of these techniques and you are committing a war crime and will be held accountable. Now, if I could get a good answer to that, I would welcome it, but I haven't heard it yet. With all respect, I just haven't heard why the Senator is refusing and effectively denying--opposition to this amendment is denying that kind of protection. I read, and it was when the Senator was here, when we found out that similar kinds of techniques were used against Americans in World War II, and we sentenced offenders to 10, 15 years and even executed some. Now we are saying: Oh, no, we can't list those because it is going to be a bother to our State Department, notifying these countries. My, goodness. There has to be a better reason that we are not going to protect our service men and women from these kinds of techniques. We are saying to those countries: If you use these techniques, you are a war criminal. What are those techniques? They are in the Department of Defense listing. That is what they are. How often are they used? I gave the illustrations of how they were used repeatedly, whether it has been by Iran or whether it has been by Japan, or any of our adversaries in any other war.