Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just quickly, the proceedings we are going to have--if I can inquire--I use the 3 minutes, and then we are moving toward a series of votes; is that right?

Mr. KENNEDY. Then, I would ask when I have 30 seconds left--Mr. President, I have 3\1/2\ minutes; am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. Three minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. That is correct. Mr. President, I yield myself the 3 minutes. Amendment No. 5088 Mr. President, just for the benefit of the membership, in my hand is the Army manual. In the Army manual are the prohibitions for instructions to all the interrogators of the United States, that they cannot use these kinds of harsh tactics which have been recognized by Members as torture. This amendment says if any country is going to use those similar tactics against those who would be representing the United States in the war on terror--for example, the Central Intelligence Agency; for example, the SEALs; for example, contractors working for the intelligence agency--then they will have committed a war crime. I reviewed earlier in the debate where we have prosecuted Japanese and other war crimes, giving them 10 or 15 years, and even execution when they went ahead with this. That is why this is so important. Now, my good friend, the chairman of the committee, says we cannot do it because it violates the Constitution because it is instructing-- instructing--the President of the United States through the State Department to notify the 194 countries. Well, we thought it was not unconstitutional on the Port Security Act, when we said: When the Secretary . . . , after conducting an assessment . . . , decides that an airport does not maintain and carry out effective security measures, the Secretary . . . shall notify the appropriate authorities of the government of the foreign country. . . . Here is port security. Here is on the pollution issues: The Secretary of State shall notify without delay foreign states concerned. . . . That is the second one. And I have the third illustration in terms of foreign carriers. In 15 minutes we got these cases. And here we are going to say we are going to refuse to protect Americans who are on the cutting edge of the war on terror because we will not let our State Department go on an e- mail and notify the 192 countries because that is unconstitutional? If the chairman of the Armed Services Committee feels that way, we could strike that provision and just say it is the policy of the United States. Then we would not be instructing anyone. Either way, this is about protecting Americans. It is about protecting Americans. I believe those Americans who are out there in the hills and in the mountains of Afghanistan today and tonight, those people who are in the hills and mountains and deserts of Iraq, those people who are out in Southeast Asia or all over the world in order to try to deal with the problems of terrorism ought to know, if they are in danger of getting captured, if any of their host countries are going to perform this kind of procedure and torture on them, they will be war criminals. That is what this amendment is about. I hope it will be accepted. It should be. Mr. President, I yield what time I have to my ranking member.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand we have an hour evenly divided on the amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes on the amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have here before me the Department of Army regulations and rules for interrogating prisoners. In the document I have here, which is the official military document to define permissible interrogation techniques, it outlines certain interrogations which are prohibited and it lists these: forcing the person to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner; applying beatings, electric shock, burns, or other forms of physical pain; waterboarding; using dogs; inducing hypothermia or heat injury; conducting mock executions; depriving the person of necessary food, water, and medical care. Those techniques are prohibited by the Department of Defense. Those techniques are prohibited from being used against adversaries in any kind of a conflict, blatant violations the requirement for humane treatment, and what I would consider to be torture. Certainly the Army and Department of Defense have effectively found that out that these techniques do not work. They have banned them and there has not been any objection to it. What does our amendment say? Well, it says we in the United States are not going to tolerate those techniques if any of our military personnel are captured. But not all of the people who are representing the United States in the war on terror are wearing a uniform. For example, we have SEALs, we have some special operations, special forces, we have CIA agents. We have contractors and aid workers. We have more people around the world looking out after our security interests than any other country in the world. What does this amendment say? Well, if our military personnel are not going to do this those we capture, we are saying to countries around the world: You cannot do this against any American personnel you are going to capture in this war on terror, or in any other conflict. This amendment is about protecting American personnel who are involved in the war on terror. It is saying to foreign countries: If you use any of these techniques, the United States will say this is a war crime and you will be held accountable. How can anybody be against that? This administration has sown confusion about our commitments to the Geneva Conventions, so that protection does not exist now. That protection does not exist now. Restoring that protection is basically what this amendment is all about. I am not going to take much time, but I just want to remind our colleagues about how we viewed some of these techniques in our conflicts in previous wars. On the issue of waterboarding, the United States charged Yukio Asano, a Japanese officer on May 1 to 28, 1947, with war crimes. The offenses were recounted by John Henry Burton, a civilian victim: After taking me down into the hallway they laid me out on a stretcher and strapped me on. The stretcher was then stood on end with my head almost touching the floor and my feet in the air. They then began pouring water over my face and at times it was impossible for me to breathe without sucking in water. The torture continued and continued. Yukio Asano was sentenced to fifteen years of hard labor. We punished people with fifteen years of hard labor when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II. What about the case of Matsukichi Muta, another Japanese officer, tried on April 15 to 25, 1947, for, among other charges, causing a prisoner to receive shocks of electricity and beating prisoners. Shocks of electricity. He was sentenced to death by hanging. Death by hanging. We could go on. In another case prosecuted from March 3 to April 30, 1948--the Japanese officer was sentenced for exposing prisoners to extreme cold temperatures, forcing them to spend long periods of time in the nude, making the prisoner stand in the cold for long periods of time, hour after hour, throwing water on him and inducing hypothermia. This officer received 15 years of hard labor. Fifteen years. We didn't tolerate those abuses, and we should not tolerate those abuses inflicted on any Americans who are going to be taken in the war on terror. That is what this amendment is all about. It will tell the Secretary of State to notify every signatory from 194 nations, that if any of their governments are going to use any of these techniques on any Americans that are taken in this war on terror, that we will consider this a violation of the Geneva Conventions and that they will be accountable. This is to protect our servicemen and servicewomen, those who are in the intelligence agencies, those performing dangerous duties, those who are not wearing the uniform in their battle against terror. We are putting everyone on notice. We did not make up this list. All these techniques are taken right out of the Defense Department's code of conduct for interrogations. I would take more time and review for my colleagues, where we tried individuals in World War II and sentenced individuals who performed these kinds of abuses on Americans to long periods of incarceration and even to death. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. I did. If you want to yield your time, I wouldn't object to it, but I object if you are calling for equal time.

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

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. President, I want to point out why this is so necessary and so essential. In reviewing the underlying legislation, if you look under the provisions dealing with definitions on page 70 and 71, and then read on, you will find that it is difficult to read that without having a sense of the kind of vagueness which I think surrounds prohibited interrogation techniques. It talks about substantial risks and extreme physical pain. But the statute does not have specifics to define the areas which are prohibited. The techniques in my amendment are the same ones the Department of the Army and, to my best knowledge, our colleague and friend from Arizona has identified. Voting for my amendment would provide those specifics. The President has asked for specificity, but he has refused to say whether Common Article 3 would prohibit these kinds of acts. That has left the world doubting our commitment to Common Article 3 and has endangered our people around the globe--those who are working for the United States in the war on terror. The administration's obfuscation comes at a great risk. This amendment provides the clarity and sends a message to the world that these techniques are prohibited. They are prohibited from our military bringing them to bear on any combatants. We interpret the legislation so that any country in the world that has signed on to the Geneva Conventions, any of those countries that are going to practice activities prohibited by the field manual, that I consider to be torture, are going to be held by the United States interrogation committing a war crime. This is important. It is essential. It is necessary. The general concept was improved without objection a number of years ago in the wake of the Vietnam situation, regarding the definition of war crimes. We ought to restate and recommit ourselves to protecting Americans involved in the war on terror and ensure they will not be subject to these activities. At the present time, without this amendment, it will be left open. If we accept this amendment, it would make it clear it is prohibited. That is what we should do. I withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 1 minute. I want to put in the Record the excellent letter from Jack Vessey, who is a distinguished former Joint Chief of Staff: I continue to read and hear that we are facing a different enemy in the war on terror. No matter how true that may be, inhumanity and cruelty are not new to warfare nor to enemies we have faced in the past. In my short 46 years in the armed forces, Americans confronted the horrors of the prison camps of the Japanese in World War II, the North Koreans in 1950 to 1953, and the North Vietnamese in the long years of the Vietnam War, as well as knowledge of the Nazi's holocaust depredations in World War II. Through those years, we held to our own values. We should continue to do so. The Kennedy amendment does it. That is what this amendment is about. I reserve the remainder of my time. I ask unanimous consent the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Senator support it if we changed it to ``shall,'' that you, the chairman of our committee, will make that request and the President will go ahead and notify and follow those instructions?

Mr. KENNEDY. I am just trying to accommodate you. You are saying that this is a constitutional issue. I just offered to try to accommodate the Chairman so we can ensure we are protecting American servicemen from torture--from torture. And the response is: Well, it is going to violate the Constitution. I am interested in getting results. But I hear the Senator say that it is unconstitutional that my amendment says Department of State shall notify other countries that if they are going to torture, they are going to be held accountable, and we are being defeated on the floor of the U.S. Senate because the opponents are saying that is unconstitutional and we cannot find a way to do it. I find this unwillingness to compromise is outrageous. Mr. President, I am prepared to call the roll on this one.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, here is the Army Manual of 2006 printed after the Senate of the United States went on record in accepting the McCain amendment prohibiting torture. In the printed Army Manual is a list of the prohibited activities where any person who is a member of the Defense Department is prohibited to engage in these kinds of activities because they have made a finding that they are basically and effectively torture. Today we have thousands of Americans in the Central Intelligence Agency, Special Forces, the SEALS, and American contractors working for the CIA around the world fighting terrorism. All this amendment does is give notice to each and every country that any country that is going to practice these kinds of techniques on any American will be guilty effectively of a war crime. That is effectively what we have done with the Army Manual, and we ought to protect our intelligence agency personnel, our SEALS, and all of those who are all over the world protecting the United States. Arguments against? It is a violation of the Constitution because it is an instruction to a member of the Cabinet about what they ought to do. Here it is for airports. The Secretary of Transportation shall conduct an assessment with foreign countries. Here it is on voting rights. The Attorney General is authorized and directed to institute suits that are going to be involved in poll taxes. The Secretary of State shall notify without delay foreign states that are involved in pollution. The list goes on. If we can do it for pollution, we can do it for violation of basic and fundamental rights of Americans overseas. This is effectively about what we adopted when we adopted the War Crimes Act, which was virtually unanimous, with not a single vote in opposition. This is basically a restatement. I hope it will be accepted overwhelmingly.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in times of war, our obligation is to protect our Nation and to protect those men and women who risk their lives to defend us. This bill fails that duty. By failing to renounce torture, it inflames an already dangerous world and makes new enemies for America in our war against terror. This puts cause or people and our troops at greater risk. That is why so many respected military leaders oppose this bill. Throughout our history, America has led the world in promoting human rights and decency. We have fought wars against tyranny and oppression. Our enemies have employed tactics that were rightly and roundly condemned by the civilized world. We maintained American strength and honor by refusing to stoop to the level of our enemies. And we should not stoop to the level of the terrorists in the war on terror. I rise to express my profound opposition to this bill both in terms of its substance and the procedure by which it reached the floor. The Armed Service Committee reported out a bill that I supported. That bill was not perfect, but it preserved our commitment to the Geneva Conventions, limited the possibility that detainees would be treated abusively and set up procedures for military tribunals that generally respected the fundamental requirements of fairness. Republican members of the Armed Services Committee then began a process of secret negotiation with the White House that produced a bill that is far worse than the committee bill. Indeed, we have continued to see changes in that bill as it has been moved toward the floor in a rush to achieve passage before the Senate recesses for the election. This rush to passage to serve a political agenda is no way to produce careful and thoughtful legislation on profound issues of national security and civil liberties. At this point, most Members of this body hardly know what they are being asked to approve. The bill as it now appears on the floor works profound and disastrous changes in our law. This legislation sets out an overly broad definition of unlawful enemy combatant. This definition would allow the President to pick up anyone citizen and legal residents included anywhere around the world, and throw them into prison in Guantanamo without even charging or trying them. These people would never get a day in court to prove their innocence. There is no check whatsoever on the President's ability to detain people in an arbitrary manner. We already know that our military has made mistakes in detaining people. We are currently holding dozens of people at Guanatanamo who we know based on the military's own records are not guilty of anything. Yet they have not been let go. This legislation also makes a distinction between citizens and lawful permanent residents. Citizens cannot be subject to military commissions and their flawed procedures. Yet lawful permanent residents, those green card holders who are on the path to citizenship, could be sent to military commissions. Green Card holders must obey our laws, pay taxes, and register for the draft. They are serving our country in Iraq. They have an obligation to protect our laws, and they deserve the protection of those same laws. The Geneva Conventions were adopted in the wake of the horrific atrocities during World War II. These conventions reflect the international consensus on how individuals should be treated in times of war. They set a minimum floor of humane treatment for all prisoners, military and civilian alike. This floor is known as Common Article 3 because it is common to all of the conventions. Yet this bill also gives the President authority to decide what conduct violates Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Again, the President's authority to define the meaning of Common Article 3 is virtually unreviewable. He is required to publish his interpretation in the Federal Register, but the administration has already made clear that it will not make public which interrogation tactics are being used. Moreover, the bill expressly states that the Geneva Conventions cannot be relied upon in any U.S. court as a source of rights. The President's interpretation may well likely escape judicial review, as well. As the final method of concealing its activities, the administration has stripped the courts of their ability to review the confinement or treatment of detainees. The administration won a provision that eliminates the ability of any detainee anywhere in the world to file a habeas corpus petition challenging the justification for or conditions of his or her confinement. The provision applies to all existing petitions and would require their dismissal, including the Hamdan case itself. There is no justification for stripping courts of jurisdiction to issue the great writ of habeas corpus, which has been a foundation of our legal system with roots in the Magna Carta. The availability of the Great Writ is assured in the Constitution itself, which permits its suspension only in times of invasion or rebellion. This provision of the bill is most likely unconstitutional. The administration has pursued a strategy to defeat accountability since it first began to take detainees into custody. It chose Guantanamo and secret prisons abroad because it thought U.S. law would not apply. It fought hard to prevent detainees from obtaining counsel and then argued that U.S. Courts lacked jurisdiction to hear detainees' complaints. It sought the prohibition on habeas corpus petitions adopted in the Detainee Treatment Act and then urged courts to misconstrue it to wipe out all pending habeas cases. This new effort to prohibit habeas petitions is a continuation of this effort to escape judicial scrutiny. The bill also for the first time in our history would authorize the introduction of evidence obtained by torture in a judicial proceeding. Our courts have always rejected this type of evidence because it is inconsistent with fundamental notions of justice, and also because it is unreliable. We know that detainees were subjected to harsh interrogation techniques, and made statements as a result. Under this legislation, if those statements were made before the passage of the McCain Amendment last winter, then they are admissible. The Congress is saying for the first time in our nation's history that statements obtained by torture are admissible. This fact, alone, is a stunning statement about how far we have strayed from our bedrock values. It defines conduct that can be prosecuted as a war crime in a very narrow way that appears designed to exclude many of the abusive interrogation practices that this administration has employed. While some have argued that cruel and inhumane practices such as waterboarding, induced hypothermia and sleep deprivation would surely be covered, the White House and the Republican leadership have refused to commit to this basic interpretation of the bill. We tried to improve this bill. A number of amendments were offered and should have been adopted. I offered an amendment that responds to the lack of clarity about which practices are prohibited by the bill. Because the administration has refused to commit itself to stop using specific abusive interrogation procedures, our commitment to the standards of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is in doubt. That puts our own people at risk. As military leaders have repeatedly stated, our adherence to the Geneva Conventions is essential to protect our own people around the world. America has thousands of people across the globe who do not wear uniforms, but put their lives on the line to protect this country every day. CIA agents, Special Forces members, contractors, journalists and others will all be less safe if we turn our backs on the standards of Common Article 3. The bill as it has reached the floor would diminish the security and safety of Americans everywhere and further erode our civil liberties. I strongly oppose this bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, now we have 4 minutes that can be equally divided between those in favor and those in opposition; am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes. Let us review where we in the Senate have been on the issue of immigration. Last May, we passed by 63 votes, with 1 favorable vote missing, a comprehensive measure to try to deal with a complex and difficult issue. The House of Representatives passed this bill, but they refused to meet with the Senate of the United States. The House of Representatives held 60 hearings all over the country at taxpayers' expense--millions and millions of dollars. What do they come up with? After all the pounding and finger-pointing, they came up with an 800- mile fence. Listen to Governor Napolitano: You show me a 50-foot fence, and I will show you a 51-foot ladder. This is a feel-good bumper-sticker vote. It is not going to work. Why? Because half of all the undocumented come here legally. They don't come over the fence. Do you hear us? This is going to cost $9 billion. Listen to what Secretary Chertoff said about this issue. Secretary Chertoff said: ``Don't give us old fences. Give us 20th century solutions.'' Tom Ridge, the former head of Homeland Security, said the same thing. This is a waste of money. Let us do what we should have done in the first place. Let us sit down with the House, the way this institution is supposed to work, rather than just take what is served up by the House of Representatives that said take it or leave it. That is what they are saying to the Senate. We have had a good debate which resulted in a comprehensive measure. Let us have a conference with the House. But let us reject this bumper- sticker solution. It isn't going to work. It is going to be enormously costly.

Mr. KENNEDY. In May, the Senate passed a historic bipartisan bill that bolsters national security, ensures economic prosperity and protects families. The House passed a very different bill. The logical next step would have been to appoint conferees and begin negotiating a compromise. But, instead of working to get legislation to the President's desk, the House Republican leadership frittered away the summer, embarking on a political road show featuring 60 cynical onesided hearings, and wasting millions of precious taxpayer dollars. Repeatedly, the American people have told us that they want our immigration system fixed, and fixed now. They know this complex problem requires border security, a solution for the 12 million undocumented, and a fair temporary worker program for future workers. All security experts agree. So what does the Republican leadership have to show for its months of fist pounding and finger pointing? All they have is old and failed plan--a fence bill. It makes for a good bumper sticker, but it is not a solution. It is a feel good vote that will do nothing but waste $9 billion. The fence proposal we have before us: Goes far beyond what Secretary Chertoff needs; it doubles the size of the fence we have already approved. From 370 miles to 850 miles. It is also expensive. Estimates range from $3 million per mile. And it will not work. Fences will not stop illegal overstayers--who account for 40-50 percent of current undocumented population, or the many who continue to come here to work. What the Republican leadership does not seem to get is that comprehensive immigration reform is all about security. The American people want realistic solutions, not piecemeal feel-good measures that will waste billions of precious taxpayer dollars and do nothing to correct a serious problem. Sacrificing good immigration policy for political expediency and hateful rhetoric is not just shameful--it is cowardly. Let us be frank. This is about politics not policy. I urge my colleagues to choose good policy over political expedience and oppose this cloture motion.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome the decision of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee conferees to support the Senate's request for a new National Intelligence Estimate on conditions in Iraq. Earlier this week, the American people were shocked to learn about an assessment from the intelligence community which unequivocally concluded that the war in Iraq is creating a new generation of terrorists. It was especially shocking, given the administration's repeated insistence that we are winning the war on terror and that America is safer because of the war in Iraq. That 5-month-old assessment addressed the impact of the Iraq war on the global threat of terrorism, outside of Iraq's borders. But what about Iraq itself? What is the collective assessment of the intelligence community about the prospects for success in Iraq versus the likelihood of full-scale civil war? The President insists that we are winning in Iraq but, remarkably, the intelligence community has not prepared a National Intelligence Estimate on conditions inside Iraq for more than 2 years. That must change. America is in deep trouble in Iraq, and it's mystifying that an Intelligence estimate focusing on the internal situation in Iraq has not been prepared since July 2004. We know that the President is determined to convince the American people that we are winning the war and that America is safer, but what does the intelligence community believe? The recent revelations about the April 6 estimate underscore the value and importance of obtaining the collective wisdom of the intelligence community to inform our policy judgments and to ensure that the American people have the facts, not just the political spin of the White House. Stopping the slide into full-scale civil war is our greatest challenge and highest priority in Iraq. The continuing violence and death is ominous. The UN reports that more than 6,500 civilians were killed in July and August alone. Militias are growing in strength and continue to operate outside the law. Death squads are rampant. Reports of torture in official detention centers remain widespread. Kidnappings are on the rise, and so are the numbers of Iraqis fleeing the violence. More than 140,000 American troops are on the ground. It's essential that we obtain--and obtain soon--a candid and comprehensive assessment from the intelligence community on whether Iraq is in or is descending into civil war and what can be done to stop the sectarian violence that is spiraling out of control. The stakes are enormously high for our troops and our national security, and completing a new NIE on Iraq should be one of Director Negroponte's highest priorities. After our Senate amendment requiring a new estimate was approved to this bill on August 3, Director Negroponte agreed to ask the intelligence community to prepare it. Certainly nobody has an interest in unnecessarily rushing the intelligence community. But it has been more than 2 years since an NIE on Iraq was prepared, and that's too long. It has been nearly 2 months since Mr. Negroponte announced his decision to ask the intelligence community to prepare a new assessment, yet the the first step--determining the scope of the issues to be covered--is still not finished. With Iraq on the brink of a full-scale civil war, preparation of this intelligence assessment cannot be delayed any longer. With more than 140,000 Americans under fire every hour of every day in Iraq, it's wrong to slow-roll this assessment. For the sake of our men and women in uniform, the intelligence community must move forward, and it must move forward soon. Earlier today I sent a letter to Mr. Negroponte with Senators Rockefeller, Biden, Levin, Reid, and Reed urging him to move forward and indicating that preparation and completion of this intelligence assessment cannot be delayed any longer. As the intelligence community finalizes the terms of reference for the new Iraq National Intelligence Estimate, Mr. Negroponte should be mindful of the specific provisions in this conference agreement, which urge him to follow the parameters set out in the Senate amendment to this bill. Under the amendment, the following issues would be included in the new National Intelligence estimate in Iraq: The prospects for controlling severe sectarian violence that could lead to civil war; the prospects for reconciling Iraq's ethnic, religious, and tribal divisions; an assessment of the extent to which militias are providing security and the extent to which the Government of Iraq has developed and implemented a credible plan to disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate the militias into the government security forces and is working to obtain a political commitment to ban militias; an assessment of whether Iraq is succeeding in creating a stable and effective unity government, and the likelihood that the government will address the concerns of the Sunni community; and the prospects for economic reconstruction and the impact it will have on security and stability. It is obviously important that we obtain an open and honest assessment from the Director of National Intelligence, particularly on the question of civil war, and my colleagues and I look forward to such an assessment. It is also our view that an unclassified summary, consistent with the protection of sources and methods, should be made available when the estimate is completed. We continue to believe the National Intelligence Estimate should be as thorough and comprehensive as possible. To this end, we would also benefit significantly by having it include the following areas: An assessment addressing the threat from violent extremist- related terrorism, including al Qaeda, in and from Iraq, including the extent to which terrorist actions in Iraq are targeted at the United States presence there and the likelihood that terrorist groups operating in Iraq will target U.S. interests outside Iraq; an assessment of whether, and in what ways, the large-scale presence of multinational forces in Iraq helps or hinders the prospects for success in Iraq; a description of the optimistic, most likely, and pessimistic scenarios for the stability of Iraq through 2007; and an assessment of the extent to which the situation in Iraq is affecting our relations with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and other countries in the region. The war in Iraq continues to be an immense strategic blunder for our country, and having the most thorough and comprehensive National Intelligence estimate possible will greatly inform the ongoing debate about our options for the future. A new National Intelligence estimate is long overdue. As John Adams said, ``Facts are stubborn things.'' It is abundantly clear that the facts matter on Iraq. They mattered before the war and during the war, and they matter now, as we try to deal effectively with the continuing quagmire. I urge my colleagues to support this conference agreement, and I look forward to obtaining the new National Intelligence estimate on Iraq and to obtaining it soon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the letter to which I referred printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, I see the floor leader. I will take 2 or 3 minutes, then, because I see half a dozen of our friends here.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is entirely appropriate that we take these few moments on the floor of the Senate to listen carefully and take the measure of an extraordinary Senator, Senator Jim Jeffords. In these next several weeks, this Nation is going to be focused in many, many States on trying to select who is going to represent them in the Senate. And if the people of those States just took a few moments to listen to the eloquence of this Senator, they would know what the standard should be in selecting someone to represent them in this body. It is Jim Jeffords. He sets the standard. So we thank Jim Jeffords for his service--his service to the State of Vermont and his service to all of our States and to the country. We thank him for that service. We also thank the people of Vermont for their wisdom in selecting this extraordinary talent and giving him the kind of support that they gave over a long and distinguished career, especially in those times when he was willing to take positions and stand up on issues as a matter of conscience. They understood their native son. They respected him, and they supported him. So thank you to the voters of Vermont. Thank you to his family, Elizabeth that Senator Jeffords mentioned, Laura, and Leonard--a family that gave him great support. I think those of us who have been fortunate enough to know that family and meet that family understand what a strong influence it has been in terms of his service. And thank you, Senator Jeffords, for that simple eloquence that we heard from you today on the floor of the Senate, going back into the history of our country, providing inspiration as we listen to you talk about the history of the Nation, mentioning with great pride the role of Vermonters in the time of the Civil War--and his understanding of history, talking about the Greatest Generation, which were inspiring figures to him and many of us continuing to the present. He typically understated his own achievements and accomplishments. I think many of us on this floor are well familiar with them. I certainly am as someone who has had the good opportunity to serve with him on the Education Committee. I know the difference that he has made in the education of children in this country, particularly those with special needs, accomplishments which are memorable and historical. He mentioned just causally his interest in the education of the children here in the District of Columbia. A number of us who are here on the floor now remember Jim Jeffords speaking in our caucus not many years ago how that we, as members of the Senate who happen to either live here in the District or work here, even though we are working in this body, have a responsibility for the education of the children here. He was the inspiration of a program, a literacy program called ``Everybody Wins!'' And Jim Jeffords led a number of us to Brent School here near the Capitol to read with the second and third graders each week to ensure that those children were going to have an opportunity to learn to read. It was just a simple illustration, once again, that Jim Jeffords does not just talk the talk, he walks the walk. And on so many different times, he has been there doing just that. So, Jim, we admire your service. You have demonstrated here--and we do not understand perhaps well enough--that you can speak with a quiet and soft voice, but you speak with a great passion and a compelling argument, and with a simplicity and effectiveness that has enriched and enhanced the quality of life and opportunity, particularly for children but also for all Americans. It is a distinguished career, and it is one I know that you should be--and are--proud of. All of us have had our own lives enriched and inspired because of our friendship with you and the type of Senator you have been.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, could I inquire of the Chair, do we have a limited period of time? I see a number of our colleagues here. I am just inquiring of the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, more and more seniors are waking each day and learning they've fallen into the dreaded ``donut hole''--the gap in prescription drug coverage that leaves them with large drug costs to pay by themselves until coverage resumes. As a result, millions of seniors can't afford the drugs they urgently need, even though they're paying for Medicare coverage. It's important to have a full accounting of how many seniors are affected, so that Congress and the public can make sensible choices about Medicare. Senator Menendez and I intend to introduce legislation to require Medicare to track and publicly report how many enrollees fall into the donut hole, and how much they are spending themselves for their needed prescriptions. We wouldn't be facing this problem if the administration and the Republican Congress had cared more about seniors than about drug industry profits when Medicare prescription drug coverage was enacted. They refused to let Medicare negotiate drug prices, which the Veterans Administration is allowed to do for veterans. Instead of allocating adequate Federal funds to the drug benefit, they made sure that HMOs received large overpayments, which enable them to force Medicare beneficiaries into their plans by offering extra benefits, while still allowing the plans to make large profits. It's long past time to correct this glaring defect in Medicare drug coverage. Once we have up-to-date information on the damage being done by the donut hole, we can correct the problem and give seniors the Medicare coverage they deserve. I ask by unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.