Ted Kennedy

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.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I just want to say a few words on the competitiveness legislation to which Senator Alexander and Senator Ensign referred. My full statement will accompany the bill's introduction later today, but I do want to mention that I am a very strong supporter of the bill. As Senator Ensign and Senator Alexander mentioned, it is the result of a strong bipartisan process. Americans know how to rise to challenges and come out ahead. We've done it before and we can do it again. We were called into action in 1957 when the Soviet Union sent Sputnik into space. We rose to the challenge by passing the National Defense Education Act and inspiring the nation to ensure that the first footprint on the moon was by an American. We increased the commitment we made to math and science and doubled the federal investment in education. Money in itself may not be the answer to everything, but it is a very clear indication of a nation's priorities. Now we are faced with the challenges of globalization, and now we must decide--are we going to get consumed by it, or are we going to embrace the challenge and make sure that every individual, whether in Tennessee or in Massachusetts, is going to be prepared to respond to it; that our States are going to be prepared to respond to it; and that our country is going to be prepared to respond to it? This is critical not only for the sake of our economy, but for the sake of our national security. We need the same bold commitment today that we made four decades ago, in order to help the current generation meet and master the global challenges of today and tomorrow. The National Competitiveness Investment Act is a strong first step in that effort. I will not take the time here to review how America is slipping behind in technology and engineering compared to what is happening in India and in China and other countries. But one brutal fact is that the jobs of the future are going to go to the societies and the economies that are on the forefront of innovation. That is where the economic strength is going to be, and it will directly impact our national security. This legislative effort is a very important downpayment on ensuring that the United States is that society at the forefront of innovation. And the legislation is the result of a good deal of work. The good work of the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, of Senator Bingaman from New Mexico, and the large bipartisan group the Senator from Nevada mentioned. It stems from the work of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine as well as some very important leaders in the private sector who have played an extremely important role in our efforts to keep America on the cutting edge. We are also dealing with other important issues that are before the Senate today. But I agree with my colleagues that these issues related to America's competitiveness are issues that Congress needs to act on as soon as possible. It is extremely important. At a time in Washington when the debate seems to be dominated by partisan politics, it should be reassuring to the American people that we are united in recognizing the importance of investing in America's competitiveness in the years to come. I look forward to working with my colleagues as the bill moves forward to ensure that Congress provides the new investments needed to fully support and build on these important proposals.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, before the Senate tomorrow, we will be dealing with one of the provisions relating to immigration, the amendment dealing with the fence on the southern border of our country. I would like to address the Senate about this issue and about the general issues of immigration. We face a clear choice on the bill between two fundamentally different approaches to immigration. We are talking about the underlying legislation on which the majority leader now has put forth a cloture motion, which we will be voting on tomorrow. We will be unable to have any kind of amendments to it. That opportunity has been foreclosed. I think that is regrettable. I think this would have given us an important opportunity for alternatives that have been debated and accepted in the Senate earlier this year. That is the way we have to deal with it in terms of Senate rules and procedures. That is where we are at the present time. We will vote on this tomorrow. There is no debate about our immigration system being broken and in need of repair. All of us at this point understand that reform is essential. The choice we confront is whether we will answer that call with a decisive vote in favor of comprehensive reform or whether by failing to do so we will defer to the House of Representatives, which has an enforcement-only approach. I listened to Dr. Land today, who is the President of the Southern Baptist Organization--not recognized as being either a Democrat or liberal figure--talk about the morality of this issue and also about the immorality of the House approach. He commented on a joint press conference he read with great particularity and with the language which is the approach of the House of Representatives included in terms of its immigration bill. He was pointing out that any person of the cloth who cares for the least among us, whether it is food, clothing, or a stranger, any act of general humanity, would be accused of aiding and abetting an undocumented and, under their language, he concluded could be both arrested, tried, and convicted. He spoke enormously eloquently about the morality of that particular House legislative approach and its inappropriateness, and compared it to the fugitive slave law wherein innocents were helping free slaves in the mid-1800s. The recent report of the Independent Task Force on Immigration calls immigration the oldest and newest story of the American experience. Immigration has always been part of our history. It is in our blood and genes. In the beginning, immigrants helped to build our country, make it strong, loved America, and fought under our flag with great courage. Over 70,000 permanent residents have fought in Afghanistan and in Iraq. A number have won medals for bravery and courage. Generations of immigrants have settled here, found a nation that rewarded their hard work, respected their religious beliefs, and enabled them to raise their families. Immigrants today are no different. They work hard, they practice their faith, they love their families, and they love America. Today, more than 60,000 immigrants serve in the U.S. military. Many have made the ultimate sacrifice, giving their lives for America on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. That has always been the American story. It is what makes America a land of liberty and progress and opportunity. Reform is a pressing issue today. It is a security issue, an economic issue, a moral issue. The question is, How do we secure our borders effectively to keep out criminals and terrorists who want to harm America and not obstruct the entry of many others who want to continue to benefit our country? How do we deal with 12 million law-abiding, taxpaying, undocumented immigrants and their families in this country? They live beside us, worship in our churches, attend our schools, are part of our communities. They deserve a fair chance to come out of the shadows and contribute fully and legally to our country. U.S. businesses that are unable to find the American workers they need must be able to draw upon workers from other nations. Both native- born and immigrant workers deserve to be free from exploitation, be paid fair wages, receive the protections of our labor and health and safety laws. In May, the Senate met this challenge and passed a comprehensive immigration bill with effective enforcement measures. Enforcement alone and fencing alone will not work. Those who support enforcement only, anti-immigrant approach may think it is good politics, but security experts agree that cracking down harder on illegal immigrants won't result in our regaining control of our borders. Instead they believe the Senate had the right approach. As Tom Ridge, the former Secretary of Homeland Security, recently noted: [T]rying to gain operational control of the borders is impossible unless our enhanced enforcement efforts are coupled with the robust temporary guest worker program and a means to entice those now working illegally out of the shadows in some type of legal status. Instead of following the sound advice of these experts and focusing on solving real problems, the Senate is considering a House bill to order the Department of Homeland Security to build hundreds of miles of fencing along our border with Mexico--a country that is not our enemy, but a close friend, our second largest trading partner. The House bill is unnecessary. Earlier this year, Secretary Chertoff told Judiciary Committee members that he needed about 370 miles of fencing and 461 miles of vehicle barriers and targeted urban areas along the southwest border. The Senate included a provision in our immigration reform bill to do that and on August 2 we agreed, by a vote of 94 to 2, to appropriate $1.8 billion for that purpose. The much longer fence in the pending bill would be a waste of taxpayers' money. The Congressional Budget Office estimated it would cost roughly $3.2 million a mile, which may be 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 $10 million a mile. Under more recent estimates, which take into account the cost of roads, lighting, infrastructure, terrain, and other factors, the costs are even higher. The current estimate also ignores the annual maintenance costs which could be as high as $1 billion a year. The more than 700 miles in fencing that the House proposes but that Secretary Chertoff does not need will result in at least $1 billion in unnecessary spending. Fences don't work. Undocumented inflows have increased by a factor of 10 since fencing was introduced. San Diego's wall has benefited the smuggling industry and increased the loss of immigrant lives by shifting entry to the desert. The track record of the four concentrated border enforcement operations in border States shows that tougher border controls only enrich smugglers, endanger the lives of migrants, and encourage those who overcome the obstacles to settle permanently here in the United States. Testimony we had before our committee recently from some of those who have studied this issue pointed out that up to 60 percent or more of those who come here want to work for a while, make some money and be able to return to their families and to their community to be able to enjoy it. By putting the fence up, we are making sure they are locked in the United States illegally. Recent testimony from the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that the sharp increase in border security funding over the past decade and the near doubling of the number of Border Patrol agents over that time have not kept sizable numbers of illegal migrants from entering the country illegally. The reason? Jobs were the magnet. As long as you have the magnet of jobs, people are going to find ways around the fence, under the fence, and over the fence. Until you have a comprehensive approach that will deal with that issue, as our comprehensive approach does, the idea of putting more fencing is basically going to be ineffective. For example, the Border Patrol budget increased from $263 million in 1990 to $1.6 billion today, a sixfold increase, yet during this period more than 500,000 undocumented immigrants entered the United States each year. In all, nearly 9 million have arrived since 1990. During the same time, the probability that an unauthorized border crosser would be apprehended fell from 20 percent to 5 percent. The United States now spends $1,700 per border apprehension, up from $300 in 1992. Nor will fencing keep out criminals or terrorists. The September 11 terrorists did not come across the Mexican border illegally. They entered the United States with visas. Fences won't stop immigrant workers from coming here to work. Governor Janet Napolitano of Arizona, who knows a lot about borders, recently said: You show me a 50-foot wall and I'll show you a 51-foot ladder at the border. Fences can be outflanked--and not only over land or through underground tunnels. Increased fences prompted smugglers to move migrants in boats and transport them by plane to Canada, with its 4,100 mile largely open border. A recent study of the Pew Hispanic Center found that roughly 40 to 50 percent of the people currently in the United States illegally entered the country legally. We are going to vote on this measure tomorrow in order to stop allegedly illegal immigration coming across the southern border when half of those who are undocumented today come here legally. herefore, you have to deal with that particular issue. That fence issue does not do anything about that problem. Our comprehensive approach does. More fences would do nothing about immigrants who come here legally and then overstay their visas. Unnecessary enforcement measures also harm United States relations with Mexico and other countries. A ``fortress America'' mentality alienates other nations and makes it harder to work with them on other counterterrorism priorities. Already, the ``muro of muerrte,'' the wall of death, is a rallying call for opponents of free trade and other aspects of United States economic agenda in Latin America. Cardinal Mahoney, of Los Angeles, has pointed out, ``as the world's lone superpower and greatest democracy, we possess the resources and ingenuity to solve our immigration problems humanely and without resorting to the construction of barriers and walls.'' The United States is facing a delicate period in its current relations with Mexico. Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador will soon become the President of Mexico after a very close election that challenged Mexico's democracy. Mr. Obrador stated that fencing will increase tension and insecurity at the border. President Bush got it right in May when he declared an immigration reform bill needs to be comprehensive because all elements of the problem must be addressed together or none of them will be solved at all. He got it wrong last week when he indicated that the House fence bill is an acceptable interim measure. We will have the opportunity to vote. I hope the Senate recognizes what it recognized during the course of the 2-week debate, and that is, the comprehensive approach is the approach that will ensure the strongest security at our borders. The law enforcement within our country, in terms of the enforcement of programs and human policy, recognizes that those who worked hard, played by the rules, contributed to their community, have sent their sons and daughters off to war, want to be a part of the American dream, who are willing to pay a penalty and also go to the end of the line, would be able to adjust their status. A comprehensive approach is the way we ought to be going. That is effectively the way everyone who has talked about the overall challenges of the undocumented and illegal immigration believe is the way to go. Sure, we need to do what needs to be done at the border, but it ought to be done in a comprehensive way with these other elements. This legislation does not do so, will not be effective, and should not be accepted.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, families across America are facing serious challenges in today's global economy. The value of their wages is declining, the cost of living is going up, and many of their jobs are being shipped overseas. We must respond to this challenge to ensure that our citizens can achieve the American dream once again. We have the best workers in the world, and we must prepare them to compete and succeed in the global economy. America has long been at the forefront in innovation, invention, and education. But other countries are catching up and surpassing us. We are now ranked 28th out of 40 nations in math education. Since 1975, we have dropped from 3rd to 15th in the world in producing scientists and engineers. A recent report shows that high school and college graduation rates in the United States have dropped below the average for other developed countries. Federal investment in research and development has been shrinking as a share of the economy, and government research programs at the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy all have less funding this year than they did three years ago. At the same time, fast-growing countries like China, Ireland and South Korea are realizing the potential for economic growth that comes with investing in innovation. For example, China's total research and development investments rose from $12.4 billion in 1991 to $84.6 billion in 2003, an average increase of 17 percent a year. Over the same period, the increase in U.S. investment averaged only 4 to 5 percent annually. Study after study tells us that we need major new investments in education and research and development to stay ahead. We cannot just tinker at the margins and expect to master our own destiny in the global economy. We have a responsibility to make the investments that are necessary to our progress--a responsibility to our families, to our economy, to our Nation, and to our national security. Last year, the Council on Competitiveness urged a focus on lifelong skill development--through elementary, secondary and higher education, and workforce training and support, as essential to keeping America on the cutting edge of innovation. The recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' emphasized these recommendations. Two of the report's four major recommendations involved education as the solution to meeting the global challenge. The report set out a broad roadmap for keeping America competitive, but it prioritized investment in education over all other recommendations. The National Association of Manufacturers also issued a report urging renewed focus on education and training to keep American businesses competitive. It is clear that we must act, and today we are taking a step toward putting America back on the right track. I am pleased to join with a bipartisan group of my colleagues today to introduce the National Competitiveness Investment Act. It is a modest proposal, but it represents an important down-payment on the commitment and sustained investment needed to keep America competitive in the years to come. The legislation responds to many of the recommendations in the ``Gathering Storm'' and other recent reports and includes many provisions based on those in the Right TRACK Act, which I introduced earlier this year. The bill takes important steps to encourage innovation in America as a way to create jobs and move our economy forward. It is often federally funded research that primes the pump for technological, medical and scientific breakthroughs, and the bill doubles basic research funding by the National Science Foundation over the next five years. It also puts us on a strong course to doubling basic research funding at the Department of Energy as well. The legislation also creates a President's Council on Innovation and Competitiveness, based on successful models being used in established and emerging economies in Europe and Asia. The council will bring together the heads of Federal agencies with leaders in business and academia to develop a comprehensive agenda to promote innovation. Japan for some time has had a similar council, and Ireland, known as the Celtic Tiger, has already had success in expanding its R&D strength since it established its council last year. The bill also strengthens programs at college and universities to encourage a renewed interest in nuclear science. Massachusetts has long been a leader in nuclear research. There are only three dozen licensed nuclear reactors in the United States, and three of them are located at Massachusetts universities--University of Massachusetts Lowell, Worcester Polytechnic Institute and MIT. These colleges will have a vital role as nuclear science expands, and this bill will help expand their programs and establish new ones to meet the growing demand. These are important investments, but there is more we can do. We should act to renew the research and development tax credit as soon as possible. The incentive provided by the tax credit has led to quality jobs, better, safer products, greater productivity and a stronger, more robust national economy. A growing number of countries who recognize the importance of research and development spending to future economic growth now offer more generous R&D tax incentives than the United States. The top 6 pharmaceutical companies, and American high tech companies like Microsoft, Intel and GE have all opened advanced R&D facilities in India. We must give American companies the certainty that these incentives will continue to be there, so that they can choose to maintain these high-skilled jobs here at home, to keep America at the cutting edge as a leader in innovation in the global economy. These investments also depend on a talented pool of well-trained individuals who can make discoveries and scientific breakthroughs. Jobs in science and engineering are expected to increase 70 percent faster than those in other fields over the next 6 years. To ensure Americans are prepared to hold these jobs, we must improve education at all levels--from the very early years in a child's life all the way through doctoral study and beyond--especially in math, science, engineering and technology. Although international comparisons of student achievement show that the United States is slipping behind other countries, a closer look shows that the picture is more complex. The real problem lies in the serious and pervasive achievement gap in this country between higher income students and lower income students. On the most recent test comparing student achievement in industrialized nations, white students in the United States performed better than the average for all countries in both math literacy and problem solving, while their Hispanic and African American peers did worse. Low-income students in the U.S. performed worse than their high- income peers, and also performed worse than other low-income students in over half of the developed countries surveyed. If we close this achievement gap, and guarantee all children in this country a world-class education, we can put America back at the top of the list. To do so, we should fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act. We must also invest in teachers. The National Competitiveness Investment Act recognizes and responds to the critical need to recruit and train high quality math, science, technology and engineering teachers to teach in the schools with the greatest need so that we can begin to close the achievement gap and ensure that all American students can compete on a level playing field with their peers in other nations. Research shows that having a high quality teacher is one of the most important factors in a child's success in school. But almost half of math classes taught in high poverty and high minority schools are taught by teachers without a college major or minor in math or a related field, such as math education, physics or engineering. The problem is even more serious in middle schools--70 percent of math classes in these schools are taught by a teacher who doesn't even have a minor in math or a related field. The bill provides a 10-fold increase in the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship program at the National Science Foundation to recruit math, science, engineering and technology students and professionals to become teachers in high need school districts. It provides grants to institutions of higher education to create undergraduate programs that integrate the study of math, science, engineering, or critical need foreign language with teacher education, modeled on the successful U-Teach program at the University of Texas. It also helps institutions create part-time master's degree programs to improve the content knowledge and teaching skills of current teachers. In both of these programs, universities would partner with high-need school districts to ensure that these resources will go where they are needed most. The bill expands the Teacher Institutes for the 21st Century program at the National Science Foundation to provide cutting-edge summer professional development programs for teachers who teach in high-need schools. It also creates a summer institute program in the Department of Energy to strengthen the math and science teaching skills of elementary and secondary school teachers. Recruitment and training are the first steps, but we must also do more to see that teachers have an incentive to stay in classrooms once they are there. We should provide financial incentives--through fellowships or salary increases--to teachers who commit to teach in the highest need schools, where the unique challenges make the schools the hardest to staff. I look forward to working with my colleagues as the bill moves forward to add this critical component to the effort. In addition to providing a high quality teacher in every classroom, we must also ensure that children in low income school districts have access to the same college preparatory classes that more affluent school districts are able to provide--and, importantly, that they have the preparation they need to succeed in those classes. To do so, the bill expands access to Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate classes as well as pre-AP and pre-IB courses, especially in high need schools, and creates a program to improve instruction in math for elementary and middle school students and provide targeted help to students struggling with the subject. The bill also addresses the critical need to ensure our education system is preparing students for the challenges they face after graduation from high school. According to a recent study, the Nation loses over $3.7 billion a year in the cost of remedial education and lost earning potential because students are not adequately prepared to enter college when they leave high school. Many States have recognized the need to better align elementary and secondary school standards, curricula, and assessments with the demands of college, the 21st century workforce and the Armed Forces. This bill provides grants to assist States in those efforts. The grants would support state PreK-16 councils that bring together stakeholders from all levels of the education community, from the business sector, and from the military to improve the rigor of elementary and secondary education and prepare students for the postsecondary challenges they will face. These provisions will help spur the development of more rigorous standards and innovative curricula that engages our children in learning to inspire a new generation of scientists and engineers. It will assist states in the work they are doing to create new disciplines in engineering and technology at the elementary school level that allow students to learn the practical applications of math and science. I am proud that the National Center for Technological Literacy at the Museum of Science, Boston is at the forefront of these efforts. In addition to the education programs at the Department of Education and the National Science Foundation, the legislation relies on the resources of the Department of Energy to assist in the effort to improve math and science education. The National Labs at the Department of Energy can have a critical role in these efforts, and so can the more than 300 colleges and universities across the country conducting research supported by the Department of Energy. I appreciate my colleagues' efforts to ensure that the resources of the Department of Energy are used to enhance educational opportunities for children not only in the states that host National Labs, but across the country. It is also becoming increasingly important for students to become exposed to and immersed in critical foreign languages and cultures. In recent years, foreign language needs have significantly increased throughout the public and private sector due to the presence of a wider range of security threats, the emergence of new nation states, and the globalization of the U.S. economy. American businesses increasingly need employees experienced in foreign languages and international cultures to manage a culturally diverse workforce. But if students are to become proficient in these critical foreign languages, they must have access to a sustained course of study, beginning in the early grades. To address these needs, the bill provides grants to enable institutions of higher education and local educational agencies working in partnership to create programs of study in critical foreign languages for students from elementary school through postsecondary education. All of these programs and investments will help prepare our students to compete in the 21st century, but if we are serious about keeping America competitive, there is more we can and must--do. A college degree is fast becoming the price of admission to participation in the global economy. Eighty percent of the fastest growing jobs in this country will require some postsecondary education. A recent study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development shows that in the United States, earnings of people with a post-secondary degree are 72 percent higher on average than for those with only a high school diploma. But with soaring costs and stagnant financial aid, college is increasingly out of reach for students and families. Research shows that 400,000 students a year do not go to a four year college because they cannot afford it. When our troops returned home from World War II, we created the GI Bill and sent them to college to learn the skills they would need in the changing world. The economy reaped an estimated $7 in benefit for every dollar invested in that effort. In recent decades however, Federal grant aid has dwindled and the grants provided don't go as far as they used to. Thirty years ago, 77 percent of the federal assistance provided to students was in the form of grants, but in recent years it's 20 percent. The Pell Grant now covers less than 35 percent of the cost of attending college. To ensure the prosperity of our families and the nation, we must open the doors of college to all by restoring the Pell Grant as the foundation of the student aid system. Earlier this year, Congress squandered an opportunity to significantly increase aid for low income students. The Senate passed a bill that would have immediately increased the Pell grant from $4,050 to $4,500. But this increase was rejected, and the funds instead were used to pay for tax giveaways for the wealthiest Americans. I know many of my colleagues agree that higher education is the key to keeping America competitive, and I look forward to working with them to ensure that the cost of college is not a barrier to full participation in the new economy. We must also do more to address the devastating impacts of the global economy on American workers and their families. American workers are facing global competition that is fundamentally unfair, but this bill does nothing to level the playing field or to help ease the burden of their transition to the global economy. To truly improve our national competitiveness, we must address all aspects of this challenge. We cannot continue to ignore the plight of working Americans. First, we need to level the playing field in the competition for good jobs. Americans have nothing to fear from competition that's fair. But it's not fair when Americans are competing with foreign workers who lack even basic labor standards, like child labor laws, a minimum wage, or the right to organize. And it's not fair when companies cut costs by exploiting and abusing foreign workers. We need to exercise global leadership in promoting fair wages and safe working conditions for workers around the world, reward companies that treat their foreign workforces fairly, and be a strong voice in sanctioning those countries that will not play by the rules Beyond these basic steps to level the playing field, we owe a particular duty to those American workers who are losing their jobs because of trade. We all benefit from the lower prices and variety of products that globalization provides, but many of our most vulnerable workers are paying the price. In the manufacturing sector alone, we've lost nearly 3 million manufacturing jobs since 2001, and service sector jobs are now moving overseas as well. These are good, middle-class jobs, with decent wages and benefits that form the core of the American middle class. Our response to globalization must address the disappearance of good jobs. We must create the good jobs of the future. We must eliminate tax incentives for companies to ship jobs overseas. We must give workers who are at risk of losing their jobs to overseas competition fair warning so that they can plan for their futures. We must strengthen our commitment to help workers who lose their jobs adjust to the new economy, with well-funded training and income assistance programs that ease the transition to new employment. Fulfilling our commitment to American workers also demands that we give them their fair share of the economic growth that globalization brings. We must raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, and give workers a stronger voice in the new economy by protecting their right to organize and form a union. If we truly want to be competitive in the global economy, we need to address these challenges facing the American workforce head on, and give workers greater job security in the present, and better opportunities in the future. I hope that the same bipartisan coalition that has worked together so effectively on this bill can also work together to address these important issues for America's working families. The legislation we are introducing today is not a complete package. It represents only the beginning of a strong commitment that we will need to build on and sustain if America is to remain competitive in the years ahead. I am proud that the bill has strong bipartisan support, and that support is critical to ensuring these proposals become a reality. In 2001, there was strong bipartisan support to significantly increase funding to improve our schools through the No Child Left Behind Act. But President Bush's budget this year would mean a cumulative shortfall of $56 billion in funding since that bill was enacted, and this year he proposed cutting education funding by $2 billion. In 2002, we promised to double NSF funding, but last year's appropriation was only two-thirds the level we agreed to four years ago--nearly $3 billion short of staying on track to that goal. Words alone will not keep America competitive. This legislation must be more than a promise. I look forward to working with my colleagues as the bill moves forward to ensure that Congress provides the new investments needed to fully support these important proposals. Americans know how to rise to challenges and come out ahead. We've done it before and we can do it again. When we were called into action in 1957 with the Soviet Sputnik launch, we rose to the challenge by passing the National Defense Education Act and inspiring the nation to ensure that the first footprint on the moon was by an American. We doubled the federal investment in education. We need the same bold commitment to help the current generation meet and master the global challenges of today and tomorrow. The National Competitiveness Investment Act will start to put America back on track. I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve upon the bill as it moves forward and to expand on these efforts in the months to come.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, families across America are facing serious challenges in today's global economy. The value of their wages is declining, the cost of living is going up, and many of their jobs are being shipped overseas. We must respond to this challenge to ensure that our citizens can achieve the American dream once again. We have the best workers in the world, and we must prepare them to compete and succeed in the global economy. America has long been at the forefront in innovation, invention, and education. But other countries are catching up and surpassing us. We are now ranked 28th out of 40 nations in math education. Since 1975, we have dropped from 3rd to 15th in the world in producing scientists and engineers. A recent report shows that high school and college graduation rates in the United States have dropped below the average for other developed countries. Federal investment in research and development has been shrinking as a share of the economy, and government research programs at the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy all have less funding this year than they did three years ago. At the same time, fast-growing countries like China, Ireland and South Korea are realizing the potential for economic growth that comes with investing in innovation. For example, China's total research and development investments rose from $12.4 billion in 1991 to $84.6 billion in 2003, an average increase of 17 percent a year. Over the same period, the increase in U.S. investment averaged only 4 to 5 percent annually. Study after study tells us that we need major new investments in education and research and development to stay ahead. We cannot just tinker at the margins and expect to master our own destiny in the global economy. We have a responsibility to make the investments that are necessary to our progress--a responsibility to our families, to our economy, to our Nation, and to our national security. Last year, the Council on Competitiveness urged a focus on lifelong skill development--through elementary, secondary and higher education, and workforce training and support, as essential to keeping America on the cutting edge of innovation. The recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' emphasized these recommendations. Two of the report's four major recommendations involved education as the solution to meeting the global challenge. The report set out a broad roadmap for keeping America competitive, but it prioritized investment in education over all other recommendations. The National Association of Manufacturers also issued a report urging renewed focus on education and training to keep American businesses competitive. It is clear that we must act, and today we are taking a step toward putting America back on the right track. I am pleased to join with a bipartisan group of my colleagues today to introduce the National Competitiveness Investment Act. It is a modest proposal, but it represents an important down-payment on the commitment and sustained investment needed to keep America competitive in the years to come. The legislation responds to many of the recommendations in the ``Gathering Storm'' and other recent reports and includes many provisions based on those in the Right TRACK Act, which I introduced earlier this year. The bill takes important steps to encourage innovation in America as a way to create jobs and move our economy forward. It is often federally funded research that primes the pump for technological, medical and scientific breakthroughs, and the bill doubles basic research funding by the National Science Foundation over the next five years. It also puts us on a strong course to doubling basic research funding at the Department of Energy as well. The legislation also creates a President's Council on Innovation and Competitiveness, based on successful models being used in established and emerging economies in Europe and Asia. The council will bring together the heads of Federal agencies with leaders in business and academia to develop a comprehensive agenda to promote innovation. Japan for some time has had a similar council, and Ireland, known as the Celtic Tiger, has already had success in expanding its R&D strength since it established its council last year. The bill also strengthens programs at college and universities to encourage a renewed interest in nuclear science. Massachusetts has long been a leader in nuclear research. There are only three dozen licensed nuclear reactors in the United States, and three of them are located at Massachusetts universities--University of Massachusetts Lowell, Worcester Polytechnic Institute and MIT. These colleges will have a vital role as nuclear science expands, and this bill will help expand their programs and establish new ones to meet the growing demand. These are important investments, but there is more we can do. We should act to renew the research and development tax credit as soon as possible. The incentive provided by the tax credit has led to quality jobs, better, safer products, greater productivity and a stronger, more robust national economy. A growing number of countries who recognize the importance of research and development spending to future economic growth now offer more generous R&D tax incentives than the United States. The top 6 pharmaceutical companies, and American high tech companies like Microsoft, Intel and GE have all opened advanced R&D facilities in India. We must give American companies the certainty that these incentives will continue to be there, so that they can choose to maintain these high-skilled jobs here at home, to keep America at the cutting edge as a leader in innovation in the global economy. These investments also depend on a talented pool of well-trained individuals who can make discoveries and scientific breakthroughs. Jobs in science and engineering are expected to increase 70 percent faster than those in other fields over the next 6 years. To ensure Americans are prepared to hold these jobs, we must improve education at all levels--from the very early years in a child's life all the way through doctoral study and beyond--especially in math, science, engineering and technology. Although international comparisons of student achievement show that the United States is slipping behind other countries, a closer look shows that the picture is more complex. The real problem lies in the serious and pervasive achievement gap in this country between higher income students and lower income students. On the most recent test comparing student achievement in industrialized nations, white students in the United States performed better than the average for all countries in both math literacy and problem solving, while their Hispanic and African American peers did worse. Low-income students in the U.S. performed worse than their high- income peers, and also performed worse than other low-income students in over half of the developed countries surveyed. If we close this achievement gap, and guarantee all children in this country a world-class education, we can put America back at the top of the list. To do so, we should fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act. We must also invest in teachers. The National Competitiveness Investment Act recognizes and responds to the critical need to recruit and train high quality math, science, technology and engineering teachers to teach in the schools with the greatest need so that we can begin to close the achievement gap and ensure that all American students can compete on a level playing field with their peers in other nations. Research shows that having a high quality teacher is one of the most important factors in a child's success in school. But almost half of math classes taught in high poverty and high minority schools are taught by teachers without a college major or minor in math or a related field, such as math education, physics or engineering. The problem is even more serious in middle schools--70 percent of math classes in these schools are taught by a teacher who doesn't even have a minor in math or a related field. The bill provides a 10-fold increase in the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship program at the National Science Foundation to recruit math, science, engineering and technology students and professionals to become teachers in high need school districts. It provides grants to institutions of higher education to create undergraduate programs that integrate the study of math, science, engineering, or critical need foreign language with teacher education, modeled on the successful U-Teach program at the University of Texas. It also helps institutions create part-time master's degree programs to improve the content knowledge and teaching skills of current teachers. In both of these programs, universities would partner with high-need school districts to ensure that these resources will go where they are needed most. The bill expands the Teacher Institutes for the 21st Century program at the National Science Foundation to provide cutting-edge summer professional development programs for teachers who teach in high-need schools. It also creates a summer institute program in the Department of Energy to strengthen the math and science teaching skills of elementary and secondary school teachers. Recruitment and training are the first steps, but we must also do more to see that teachers have an incentive to stay in classrooms once they are there. We should provide financial incentives--through fellowships or salary increases--to teachers who commit to teach in the highest need schools, where the unique challenges make the schools the hardest to staff. I look forward to working with my colleagues as the bill moves forward to add this critical component to the effort. In addition to providing a high quality teacher in every classroom, we must also ensure that children in low income school districts have access to the same college preparatory classes that more affluent school districts are able to provide--and, importantly, that they have the preparation they need to succeed in those classes. To do so, the bill expands access to Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate classes as well as pre-AP and pre-IB courses, especially in high need schools, and creates a program to improve instruction in math for elementary and middle school students and provide targeted help to students struggling with the subject. The bill also addresses the critical need to ensure our education system is preparing students for the challenges they face after graduation from high school. According to a recent study, the Nation loses over $3.7 billion a year in the cost of remedial education and lost earning potential because students are not adequately prepared to enter college when they leave high school. Many States have recognized the need to better align elementary and secondary school standards, curricula, and assessments with the demands of college, the 21st century workforce and the Armed Forces. This bill provides grants to assist States in those efforts. The grants would support state PreK-16 councils that bring together stakeholders from all levels of the education community, from the business sector, and from the military to improve the rigor of elementary and secondary education and prepare students for the postsecondary challenges they will face. These provisions will help spur the development of more rigorous standards and innovative curricula that engages our children in learning to inspire a new generation of scientists and engineers. It will assist states in the work they are doing to create new disciplines in engineering and technology at the elementary school level that allow students to learn the practical applications of math and science. I am proud that the National Center for Technological Literacy at the Museum of Science, Boston is at the forefront of these efforts. In addition to the education programs at the Department of Education and the National Science Foundation, the legislation relies on the resources of the Department of Energy to assist in the effort to improve math and science education. The National Labs at the Department of Energy can have a critical role in these efforts, and so can the more than 300 colleges and universities across the country conducting research supported by the Department of Energy. I appreciate my colleagues' efforts to ensure that the resources of the Department of Energy are used to enhance educational opportunities for children not only in the states that host National Labs, but across the country. It is also becoming increasingly important for students to become exposed to and immersed in critical foreign languages and cultures. In recent years, foreign language needs have significantly increased throughout the public and private sector due to the presence of a wider range of security threats, the emergence of new nation states, and the globalization of the U.S. economy. American businesses increasingly need employees experienced in foreign languages and international cultures to manage a culturally diverse workforce. But if students are to become proficient in these critical foreign languages, they must have access to a sustained course of study, beginning in the early grades. To address these needs, the bill provides grants to enable institutions of higher education and local educational agencies working in partnership to create programs of study in critical foreign languages for students from elementary school through postsecondary education. All of these programs and investments will help prepare our students to compete in the 21st century, but if we are serious about keeping America competitive, there is more we can and must--do. A college degree is fast becoming the price of admission to participation in the global economy. Eighty percent of the fastest growing jobs in this country will require some postsecondary education. A recent study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development shows that in the United States, earnings of people with a post-secondary degree are 72 percent higher on average than for those with only a high school diploma. But with soaring costs and stagnant financial aid, college is increasingly out of reach for students and families. Research shows that 400,000 students a year do not go to a four year college because they cannot afford it. When our troops returned home from World War II, we created the GI Bill and sent them to college to learn the skills they would need in the changing world. The economy reaped an estimated $7 in benefit for every dollar invested in that effort. In recent decades however, Federal grant aid has dwindled and the grants provided don't go as far as they used to. Thirty years ago, 77 percent of the federal assistance provided to students was in the form of grants, but in recent years it's 20 percent. The Pell Grant now covers less than 35 percent of the cost of attending college. To ensure the prosperity of our families and the nation, we must open the doors of college to all by restoring the Pell Grant as the foundation of the student aid system. Earlier this year, Congress squandered an opportunity to significantly increase aid for low income students. The Senate passed a bill that would have immediately increased the Pell grant from $4,050 to $4,500. But this increase was rejected, and the funds instead were used to pay for tax giveaways for the wealthiest Americans. I know many of my colleagues agree that higher education is the key to keeping America competitive, and I look forward to working with them to ensure that the cost of college is not a barrier to full participation in the new economy. We must also do more to address the devastating impacts of the global economy on American workers and their families. American workers are facing global competition that is fundamentally unfair, but this bill does nothing to level the playing field or to help ease the burden of their transition to the global economy. To truly improve our national competitiveness, we must address all aspects of this challenge. We cannot continue to ignore the plight of working Americans. First, we need to level the playing field in the competition for good jobs. Americans have nothing to fear from competition that's fair. But it's not fair when Americans are competing with foreign workers who lack even basic labor standards, like child labor laws, a minimum wage, or the right to organize. And it's not fair when companies cut costs by exploiting and abusing foreign workers. We need to exercise global leadership in promoting fair wages and safe working conditions for workers around the world, reward companies that treat their foreign workforces fairly, and be a strong voice in sanctioning those countries that will not play by the rules Beyond these basic steps to level the playing field, we owe a particular duty to those American workers who are losing their jobs because of trade. We all benefit from the lower prices and variety of products that globalization provides, but many of our most vulnerable workers are paying the price. In the manufacturing sector alone, we've lost nearly 3 million manufacturing jobs since 2001, and service sector jobs are now moving overseas as well. These are good, middle-class jobs, with decent wages and benefits that form the core of the American middle class. Our response to globalization must address the disappearance of good jobs. We must create the good jobs of the future. We must eliminate tax incentives for companies to ship jobs overseas. We must give workers who are at risk of losing their jobs to overseas competition fair warning so that they can plan for their futures. We must strengthen our commitment to help workers who lose their jobs adjust to the new economy, with well-funded training and income assistance programs that ease the transition to new employment. Fulfilling our commitment to American workers also demands that we give them their fair share of the economic growth that globalization brings. We must raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, and give workers a stronger voice in the new economy by protecting their right to organize and form a union. If we truly want to be competitive in the global economy, we need to address these challenges facing the American workforce head on, and give workers greater job security in the present, and better opportunities in the future. I hope that the same bipartisan coalition that has worked together so effectively on this bill can also work together to address these important issues for America's working families. The legislation we are introducing today is not a complete package. It represents only the beginning of a strong commitment that we will need to build on and sustain if America is to remain competitive in the years ahead. I am proud that the bill has strong bipartisan support, and that support is critical to ensuring these proposals become a reality. In 2001, there was strong bipartisan support to significantly increase funding to improve our schools through the No Child Left Behind Act. But President Bush's budget this year would mean a cumulative shortfall of $56 billion in funding since that bill was enacted, and this year he proposed cutting education funding by $2 billion. In 2002, we promised to double NSF funding, but last year's appropriation was only two-thirds the level we agreed to four years ago--nearly $3 billion short of staying on track to that goal. Words alone will not keep America competitive. This legislation must be more than a promise. I look forward to working with my colleagues as the bill moves forward to ensure that Congress provides the new investments needed to fully support these important proposals. Americans know how to rise to challenges and come out ahead. We've done it before and we can do it again. When we were called into action in 1957 with the Soviet Sputnik launch, we rose to the challenge by passing the National Defense Education Act and inspiring the nation to ensure that the first footprint on the moon was by an American. We doubled the federal investment in education. We need the same bold commitment to help the current generation meet and master the global challenges of today and tomorrow. The National Competitiveness Investment Act will start to put America back on track. I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve upon the bill as it moves forward and to expand on these efforts in the months to come.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time is allocated in morning business?

Mr. KENNEDY. For each speaker, is there a time limitation?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, according to reports in Sunday's New York Times and Washington Post, a National Intelligence Estimate prepared last April concludes that the war in Iraq has made the problem of global terrorism worse and that terrorist cells have metastasized and spread across the globe. For more than 3 years, President Bush and the Republican Congress have repeatedly claimed the war in Iraq is making America safer. Now, we learn that the 16 agencies in the intelligence community concluded just the opposite last April--that the Iraq war has become a rallying cry for extremists against the United States and made the war on terror more difficult to win. The American people have the right to hear from our Nation's top intelligence official about the conclusions of the intelligence community in this report. Before Congress adjourns this week, Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte should testify in open session about this report. In addition, an unclassified version of the key judgments and discussion about Iraq in the report should be made available to the public in a way that protects sources and methods. With more than 140,000 American troops on the ground in Iraq and terrorist attacks increasing around the globe, the stakes for the safety of all Americans are enormously high. It is our obligation to hear directly from Mr. Negroponte before adjourning at the end of this week. It is essential that Congress and the American people obtain a fuller understanding about the conclusions of the intelligence community about the impact of the Iraq war. In addition, the President and Vice President must explain statements they have made that are directly at odds with this National Intelligence Estimate. Despite the conclusion of the intelligence community that the war has been a recruitment tool for a new generation of extremists, on numerous occasions since the document was prepared, President Bush has claimed that the war has made America safer. On September 7, President Bush said: We've learned the lessons of 9/11 * * * We've gone on the offense against our enemies, and transformed former adversaries into allies. We have put in place the institutions needed to win this war. Five years after September the 11th, 2001, America is safer--and America is winning the war on terror. On September 11, President Bush said: Saddam's regime posed a risk that the world could not afford to take. The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. Despite the conclusion of the intelligence community 5 months earlier that new threats are emerging because of the war in Iraq, Vice President Cheney said the exact opposite on September 10. He said: We are better off there because of what we've done to date. We are less likely to have a threat emerge against the United States from that corner of the world than would have been the case if Saddam were still there. The American people deserve to know whether the President and Vice President are intentionally misleading us about our safety or whether they are simply ignoring the intelligence community. Clearly, America deserves better from its leaders. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I was saddened to learn that my friend Ann Richards passed away last night after a courageous battle with cancer. She was a wonderful person and an outstanding public servant, and she will be missed. Ann brought delight, excitement, ability, and compassion to public life, and she was an American original. To her public service was a calling, and she dedicated herself wholeheartedly to the goal of building a better future for all Americans, regardless of income, race, or gender. She was a trailblazer in many ways, and she was also one of the last great American characters in politics, someone who projected joy and optimism even in the face of adversity. None of us who were there will ever forget her brilliant keynote address to the Democratic National Convention in 1988. She was truly one of a kind. As Governor of Texas, she fought hard for equal opportunity, appointing more African Americans, Hispanics, and women to State office than the previous two Governors combined. She used her skill and wit to help pass vital legislation in Congress too. I will never forget her hard work on the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Violence Against Women Act, and the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. There will never be another Ann Richards, and we will never forget her.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, during the August recess, one of my constituents, Michael Mulroy, of Fairhaven, wrote a very thoughtful article that was printed in the New Bedford Standard-Times on August 15 in its ``Your View'' feature. Mr. Mulroy's article eloquently describes the restorative and wondrous nature of the ocean and questions the wisdom of placing wind farms and other large-scale industrial projects at sea. He urges us to ``look upon the ocean with reverence.'' As someone who is committed to preserving the natural beauty of Massachusetts and its magnificent coastal waters, I was moved by Mr. Mulroy's inspiring article, and I believe many of our colleagues will be inspired by it as well. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today marks the fifth anniversary of the vicious attack on America by al-Qaida terrorists. Despite the passage of time, Americans still vividly recall with enormous pain and sorrow that dark and somber day. We honor the nearly 3,000 innocent Americans who lost their lives that day. We recall the brave firefighters and first responders who sacrificed their lives so that others could live. We vividly remember the images on television of the Twin Towers crumbling before our eyes. We could see from our office windows the plume of smoke rising from the Pentagon, and we realized that but for the grace of God and courage of the passengers on flight 93, the Capitol buildings and many of us could have met that same fate. We recall the pledge by all Americans that this type of attack will never, ever occur again. We recall how all of us in Congress came together in common purpose. And we recall the enormous outpouring of support from the entire world, which stood by us and reassured us, saying so eloquently, ``Today, we are all Americans.'' More than 200 sons and daughters of Massachusetts perished in that tragedy. I will ask that their names be printed in the Record. Today, more than ever, our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families and friends whose lives were changed forever on that tragic day. Although their loved ones will never be brought back, I hope the words of Abraham Lincoln will provide a measure of solace on this anniversary--``We here highly resolve that those dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the list of names to which I referred to be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would welcome the opportunity to make some brief comments on this amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend my colleagues from North Dakota and Colorado and others who are supporting this amendment. In many respects, this gives real focus to what I think is part of the dilemma that we are facing in our battles with al-Qaida and the issues of security. A number of us opposed the resolution to go to war in Iraq. I did. I said it was the best vote that I cast in the U.S. Senate. And I did it primarily as a result of listening to military commanders in the Armed Services Committee. We had testimony--although he didn't testify personally--from General Zinni. We listened to General Hoar of the U.S. Marine Corps, actually from my own State of Massachusetts. We listened to General Wesley Clark and General Nash--a number who have been combat commanders. If you look back in terms of the history and the testimony of those military commanders, virtually all of them were saying to the Armed Services Committee that we ought to keep our focus on what was really the challenge: Osama bin Laden, al-Qaida, and Afghanistan. That was the testimony before the Armed Services Committee. I will not take the time now to repeat the series of statements and comments that were made by the President and the Secretary of Defense. I remember the testimony of the Secretary of Defense before the Armed Services Committee when he talked about weapons of mass destruction. He was asked at that time by the ranking minority member, Senator Levin. His response was they were north, south, east, and west of Baghdad. That was where the weapons of mass destruction were. That is the testimony of the Secretary of Defense. We remember all of those comments. We saw the Nation move and shift thinking that there were weapons of mass destruction, and al-Qaida was the primary force in bringing about 9/11. Of course, there wasn't adequate intelligence to justify that. Even the President admitted that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Even the bipartisan 9/11 Commission's thorough examination shows very clearly that those were the representations made by the Vice President of the United States. During that period of time, the combat commanders who testified understood where we were going--the real challenge was finding Osama bin Laden. We saw the extraordinary efforts that were made by the military, all of which had this Nation focused on trying to get al- Qaida. The world was supporting the United States. The world understood that the United States had been assaulted and attacked. The world intelligence community was coming together and saying we are going to help the United States of America find the person who perpetrated the 9/11 attack in the United States. All of that was happening all over the world. Then what happened? The judgment and the decision was made in the White House: Well, we have the role of going over there to Afghanistan, so we are going into Iraq. The rest is history. In spite of the fact that Osama bin Laden was on the run, despite the fact that the intelligence reports showed that he was just within hours of almost getting captured, the diversion of both troops and diversion of focus, the diversion of intelligence went to Iraq. Now we have an amendment to try to get us back in focus on the primary individual who was the organizer of 9/11. I share the concerns that have been stated by both Senators and the frustration when the judgment and decision was made by the Pentagon that they no longer had the priority of going after bin Laden. We all understand the complexities of trying to find him in the mountainous areas around Afghanistan's border and into Pakistan. We all understand those complexities and those difficulties and the political problems and all the rest. But, nonetheless, we had the world combined to find him and bring him to account. We have failed to do so. I think this amendment brings the Senate, in hopefully a bipartisan way, to say we want to give focus and attention to finding and bringing to justice Osama bin Laden. Listening to Senators, I am mindful that at the end of this year we will have been fighting the war in Iraq longer than we fought in World War II. Understand that we took on the Germans in western Europe, north Africa, the Japanese in the Far East, mobilizing 12 million to 14 million people over this period of time. And we will have by the end of the year--we are now in September--we have been fighting in Iraq longer than we fought in World War II--28 million people. We virtually occupied with air supremacy over the whole country--the top third of it and the lower third of it was a heavy embargo, violations of embargoes. But the amount was $14 billion a year in terms of the military, and we now have servicemen still weighted down over there. I agree with those who said the service men and women have done their job. The politicians haven't done theirs with regard to Iraq. That doesn't get away from the point that our focus has been diverted to Iraq. We have seen the number of al-Qaida grow. According to the National Security Project, in 2001 it was 20,000. In 2006, it is 50,000. The number of al-Qaida terrorist attacks 5 years before 1991 was 3. But now the number 5 years since 9/11 is 30. We have the growth happening all over the world and no accounting for Osama bin Laden. This is what has happened with al-Qaida. The number of significant global terrorist attacks reported by the U.S. State Department in 2003 was 175. The number exceeded 3,000 in 2004, and 11,000 in 2005. Look at the growth. We are weighted down in Iraq, and Osama bin Laden is out there someplace. This amendment makes a great deal of sense. I thank both my colleagues for doing something. This is a small amount of resources which are asked for. Look at what we are spending, more than $200 million a day in Iraq. I believe this is $20 million--$200 million a day we are spending in Iraq. Do we realize that if we weren't spending $200 million a day--and over $350 billion has been expended--what we could have done with regard to homeland security? How could we have protected Americans with those resources more effectively? How could we have gone after al-Qaida more effectively? How could we have enhanced the security of the American people more effectively? This has been a catastrophic miscalculation on the part of the administration, and the amendment of the Senators is trying to give focus and attention and priority to where we ought to give focus and attention and priority. I commend them for doing something. I hope this amendment will be accepted and embraced and passed overwhelmingly.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. I listened with great interest to both of my friends and colleagues in their comments. As I understand, the amount included in the Senator's amendment is $200 million to be expended over a 2-year period?

Mr. KENNEDY. And the Senator mentioned a figure, and it is my understanding we are spending $200 million a day, virtually, in Iraq at the present time. I think that gives some proportion as to requested resources--$200 million a day in Iraq and $200 million over a 2-year period for this effort. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I had filed an amendment on behalf of myself and the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, amendment No. 4857, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we know that vast numbers of Americans are increasingly concerned about their economic future. More than half of all workers describe themselves as ``worried'' or ``stressed'' about the state of the economy, and growing numbers of workers fear they will not be able to meet, much less surpass, the standard of living of their parents. One of the primary factors contributing to these fears is the worsening crisis in the Nation's retirement system. The cornerstones of retirement security--private pensions, private savings, and Social Security--are increasingly at risk. Far too many working Americans will face retirement with little in their pocket--and with nothing to show for their long years of loyal service and hard work. The pension reform legislation enacted this year will help companies keep the pension promises they have already made to workers, but we need to do much more to encourage employers to provide adequate retirement benefits to their hardworking employees. Today, less than half of all private-sector employees have any retirement plan at all at work, and the number of workers with a secure defined-benefit pension plan has been cut in half since 1980. Employer-provided retirement plans are essential for retirement security for working families. Workers are far more likely to save money for retirement through an employer-offered pension than if they are left to save on their own. Unfortunately, instead of encouraging more companies to provide good retirement benefits to their employees, current Federal contracting rules actually discourage many private companies from helping their employees save for retirement. The competitive bidding process for contracts favors private employers who shortchange their workers on retirement benefits. Firms that provide no retirement benefits or only meager benefits often win bid to perform Government work even when the cost savings from their bid are attributable solely to the lack of retirement benefits they provide. This unfair policy creates a dangerous race to the bottom in which private sector companies compete against each other to see who can provide the fewest benefits to their workers. As a result, the bidding process is actually increasing the number of Americans whose retirement security is in jeopardy. That is both illogical and unconscionable. In addition, this skewed privatization policy is fundamentally unfair to Federal workers who lose contracts simply because they receive decent benefits. Valued Federal employees are losing their jobs because they cannot compete on an unfair playing field with employers who are shortchanging their workers. Defense workers are particularly at risk. Now, this year alone, the Department of Defense is putting more than 10,000 civilian employees at risk of unfair termination--more than any other Federal agency--and it has announced plans to increase this number in the future. Thirty-five percent--35 percent--of civilian Defense employees are veterans. Hundreds more are active reservists currently serving in the Iraq war. The least we can do for these dedicated and patriotic Americans is to let them compete on a level playing field to save the jobs they come home to after their service to their country. The amendment Senator Hatch and I are offering will protect these workers by preventing contractors from winning bids for Government work solely because they provide inadequate retirement benefits to their employees or no retirement benefits at all. Our goal is obvious: to protect hard-working Federal employees from unfair competition. They should not lose their jobs because they cannot compete with private contractors on an unlevel playing field. The amendment does not dictate the retirement benefits that employers must provide or require contractors to change their existing benefits. It simply levels the playing field for Federal employees and contract employees by excluding costs related to retirement from a privatization review. All the amendment does is prevent contractors from winning bids solely because they offer inferior retirement benefits. The underlying bill already includes provisions to level the playing field for health care benefits. We need to do the same for retirement benefits. Our bipartisan amendment is an issue of basic fairness. It is fair to private sector workers who will otherwise lose their retirement benefits in a ``race to the bottom.'' And it is fair to Federal employees who will otherwise lose their jobs to unfair competition. I strongly urge my colleagues to support our amendment. Mr. President, just a few additional comments. The question that is raised is, is this going to add complicated accounting procedures? The answer is, quite clearly, no. We have seen, for example, that when we eliminated the current health issues out of the contracting, that worked out very easily and worked out in a way to ensure a greater fairness. As I mentioned, a great percentage of these workers are both men and women who have been in the military; a great percentage of them are both in the Reserve and the Guard. It is an unusually high percentage of them because we know that preference is given, and legitimately so, when there is an opening in the contracting for veterans. So there is a particularly and disproportionately high number of these workers who have served their country in the service, in the Reserves, and in the National Guard. This is really what we are doing. I have the good opportunity to be with my chairman, Senator Enzi, chairman of our conference on pensions. We worked very closely with the members of the Finance Committee, Senators Grassley and Baucus, in an often tedious conference. We spent a great deal of the time on retirement benefits and on what is happening to those benefits for workers. We have seen the results. Savings are way down. We are going to have to give focus and attention to the issues on Social Security. Pensions are the third part of that stool, which is absolutely essential in terms of a secure retirement. In so many instances, those pension rights, as we read in the newspapers every day, are increasingly threatened, and increasingly at risk, and increasingly lost. I agree with Senator Hatch and others that it would be poor policy for us to have as a matter of Federal preference competitions. These Federal employees have certain kinds of retirement benefits, and that is being held against them in a competition in which they otherwise would be successful. That will obviously result in companies that want to do business with the Federal Government getting rid of their pension plans, and it will disadvantage those who are working in the Federal employment system. Mr. President, I commended our colleagues previously for taking into consideration the current health issues and comparisons. We are talking about retirement benefits. I think the case is strong and, hopefully, we can take this to conference and have the opportunity to explore it. I have talked to both the chairman and the ranking minority member over the last few days. I believe the staffs are familiar with the issue. Hopefully, we can accept this and take it to conference. Senator Hatch and I would be glad to respond to additional questions. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, like others, I have had the good opportunity to listen with great interest during the course of the afternoon about the nature of the resolution which is before us which questions the serious judgments of the Secretary of Defense in bringing us to where we are. He is the principal architect of the Iraq policy. I have listened to others talk about the general nature of the threat in terms of our national security. In most recent times, we have an excellent Department of Defense study, some 63 pages long. We referenced it yesterday. It talks about the principal challenges we are facing in Iraq. I will briefly mention parts of it. It talks about sustained ethnosectarian violence is the greatest threat to security and stability in Iraq; breaking the cycle of violence is the most pressing immediate goal of the coalition in Iraqi operations; conditions that could lead to civil war exist in Iraq, specifically around Baghdad; concern about civil war with the Iraqi civilian population has increased in recent months. It goes on and talks about both Shia and Sunni death squads are active in Iraq and responsible for the significant increase in sectarian violence; militias--small, illegally armed groups--operate openly and often with popular support; civilian casualties increased by approximately 1,000 per month since the previous quarter; executions in particular reached new highs in the month of July; and rising sectarian strife defines the nature of violence in mid-2006. Now we have to ask ourselves: How could all of this come to pass? Who was the architect that brought us to this situation? Clearly, it is because of the persistent, stubborn insistence of those who believe that we ought to stay the course, the principal architects being the Secretary of Defense and the President of the United States. As has been mentioned here time in and time out, America was struck by al-Qaida, not Saddam Hussein. All of us gathered together to support the attacks that took place in Afghanistan and the isolation of Osama bin Laden and the belief, as has been pointed out earlier in the course of the afternoon, we had a real opportunity to catch and to punish and to bring to justice the individual that was the principal architect of 9/11. But instead, the administration moved military units and moved focus out of that search for Osama bin Laden into Iraq--into Iraq. It was Osama bin Laden who was the architect, not Saddam Hussein, and as a result, we have effectively taken our eye off the principal author of terrorism. Even as the President of the United States spoke yesterday, 17 times he mentions Osama bin Laden. He was the one who was the architect. We should have been after him for the last 4 years. Instead, we have been weighted down with the resulting conditions that I described earlier, and the principal architect of that is the Secretary of Defense. He was wrong when he represented that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that threatened the United States. He was wrong about the connection of al-Qaida to 9/11, as was demonstrated by the 9/11 Commission. He was wrong about the insurgency being just a group of dead-enders. He was wrong about the administration of Abu Ghraib. He has just been continuously wrong, and we have the current situation which is outlined not by those of us who are supporting this resolution but by the Department of Defense. Let's look at what the military does to its soldiers when they have failures in the performance of their duty. Here we have just mentioned, and it has been discussed over the course of the afternoon, the series of blunders by the Secretary of Defense--a series of blunders. Let's look at how the military treats its people. In 2003, the Navy fired 14 commanding officers. In October of that year, the commanding officer of a Prowler aircraft squadron lost his job after one of his jets skidded off a runway. The Navy cited a ``loss of confidence'' when they made the decision to dismiss him. In December of 2003 and January of 2004, the commanding officers of the submarine Jimmy Carter and the frigate USS Gary were both fired because of ``loss of confidence.'' In 2004, the Navy fired the captain of the USS John F. Kennedy aircraft carrier for running over a small boat in the Persian Gulf. The Navy didn't hide the incompetence or gloss over the facts. It responded decisively. It stated plainly it had ``lost confidence'' in the captain's ability to operate the carrier safely. He was the eleventh commanding officer of the Navy to be fired that year. In February 2004, the commanding officer of the frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts was fired for a ``loss of confidence'' after he spent a night off the ship during a port visit to Ecuador. For military officers in the Navy, the message is clear: If you fail, you are fired. The message to the civilian leadership of this administration is equally clear: If you fail, there are no consequences, no accountability, even if more than 2,600 Americans lose their lives. It is time for the Department of Defense to run a tighter ship at all levels of command, including the civilian leadership. Those leaders at the Pentagon should be held at least to the same standard of accountability to which military officers in the Navy are held. Secretary Rumsfeld must be held accountable for the massive failures in Iraq. Civilian control of the military is one of the great cornerstones of our democracy. But what if the civilian leaders don't know what they are doing and mindlessly lead our troops into battle unprepared? Clearly, there must be accountability for this breathtaking incompetence which has put our soldiers in daily danger and weakened American national security. In a hearing by the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2004, former Defense Secretary Harold Brown described the key to accountability: At each level, the question is a loss of confidence. And in the Navy, the loss of confidence goes with grounding your ship. At a higher level, the loss of confidence has to be determined on a basis that is somewhat broader, the full performance. And I think that applies at the highest military levels. And it applies at the level of the Secretary of Defense and his staff. That is what this resolution is all about. The Bush administration has had its chance, and it has failed the basic test of competence. It is more focused on the spin of war than the real war in Iraq. There is broad agreement among military experts, Members of Congress of both parties, and the overwhelming majority of the American people that we need to change course in Iraq. We need this administration to face up to its mistakes and correct them. A good place to start would be for the President to replace Secretary Rumsfeld. It is long past time for Secretary Rumsfeld to go, and I urge the Senate to pass this resolution.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes. Just for the information of the Members, I intend to ask for the yeas and nays at the conclusion of the debate. Mr. President, the Kennedy-Reid amendment requires the Secretaries of Defense and State to determine every 3 months whether Iraq is in a civil war and to outline a plan to protect our troops in the event of a civil war. Under our amendment, if the administration determines that Iraq is not in a civil war, the amendment requires a description of the efforts by our Government to avoid civil war in Iraq, a plan to protect our troops in the event of a civil war, and a strategy to ensure that our troops don't take sides. If the determination is that Iraq is in a civil war, the amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to explain the mission of our troops and the duration, his plan to protect our troops, and a strategy to ensure that they don't take sides in a civil war. At every step of the way, this administration has missed the threat to our troops, and the American people have seen it time and again. They saw it when the Bush administration disbanded the Iraqi Army after the fall of Saddam Hussein but allowed thousands to walk away with their weapons. They saw it when the Bush administration waited a full year to begin training the new Iraqi security forces. They saw it when the White House failed to see the insurgency spreading like a cancer throughout Iraq. They saw it when the Bush team failed to see the danger of roadside bombs and improvised explosive devices, yet sent our troops on patrol day after day, month after month, year after year. They saw it when the White House failed to provide the proper armor for our troops until the Congress demanded it. Unfortunately, the administration's repeated failure to see each new threat in Iraq has put our troops and our security in greater peril. Today, once again, the administration refuses to recognize another seismic shift in Iraq--the dangerous prospect that we are drawn into a deadly and divisive civil war. While the President and Dick Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Rice are out on the campaign trail claiming progress in Iraq, military leaders and experts are urging the White House to heed the disturbing warning signs in Iraq. General Abizaid acknowledged the clear danger when he told the Senate Armed Services Committee on August 3: I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I have seen it, in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war. General Pace, at the same hearing, agreed about the threat of the civil war. He said: I believe that we do have the possibility of devolving to a civil war, but that does not have to be the fact. Others think that a civil war may have already begun. Former Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi said in March that Iraq is probably in ``an early stage of civil war.'' The British Ambassador to Iraq wrote in August: The prospect of a low-intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy. Our colleague from Nebraska, Senator Chuck Hagel, concurred, saying in August: We, in fact, are in probably a low-grade, maybe a very defined, civil war. General William Nash, who commanded our troops in Bosnia after that country's civil war ended, stated on March 5: We are in a civil war now; it is just that not everybody has joined in. These leaders see what is really happening in Iraq, not just the White House spin. Indeed, the September 1 report prepared by the Department of Defense on civility and security in Iraq reaffirms what the American people already understand, the conditions of civil war exist. Violence in Iraq is spiraling out of control, and staying the course is not a viable option. This is what the Department of Defense report says: Concern about civil war within the Iraqi civilian population and among some defense analysts has increased in recent months. Conditions that could lead to civil war exist in Iraq. Rising sectarian strife defines the emerging nature of violence in mid-2006. Sustained ethnic and sectarian violence is the greatest threat to security and civility in Iraq. Sectarian tensions increased over the last 3 months, demonstrated by the increased number of executions, kidnappings, attacks on civilians, and internally displaced persons. Civilian casualties increased by approximately 1,000 per month since the previous quarter. Assassinations, in particular, reached new highs in the month of July. The Baghdad coroner's office reported that 1,600 bodies arrived in June, and more than 1,800 bodies in July, 90 percent of which were assessed to be the result of executions. Sectarian violence is gradually spreading north into Diyala Province and Kirkuk as Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish groups compete for provincial influence. Both Shia and Sunni death squads are active in Iraq, and are responsible for the most significant increases in sectarian violence. Militias and small, illegally armed groups operate openly and often with popular support. The threat posed by Shiite illegal armed groups, filling perceived and actual vacuums, is growing. The security situation is currently at its most complex state since the initiation of Operation Iraqi Freedom. That is all from the report prepared by the Defense Department. These facts are at odds with the administration's statement about civil war. Sectarian divisions are increasing. Militia violence and death squad activity is increasing. The number of Iraqis fleeing the violence is increasing. Yet the President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, and Secretary of State continue to deny the possibility of civil war. As long as the administration continues to deny the plain truth, America will be behind the curve and unable to adjust to the current realities on the ground and protect our troops. Most important, our amendment requires the administration to say what we are going to do about it. How are we going to advance America's interests in Iraq in a time of civil war? How are we going to protect our troops from getting drawn ever deeper into an endless sectarian conflict? An article in Newsweek magazine on August 14 indicates that although the Bush administration insists that Iraq is a long way from civil war, some inside the White House and the Pentagon have begun some contingency planning. The American people and our men and women in uniform want to know what that means. What is the role of our troops in a civil war? What is our mission? How long will it take? What are the rules of engagement? How do we prevent our troops from taking sides? As long as we are on the ground in the conflict, our troops run the risk that they will be perceived as helping one side against another. The administration should level with the American people about their planning to protect our troops. We all agree that the Iraqis need to make political compromises necessary to stop the violence and civil war. That is plan A. But what is plan B? What is the contingency plan? What is the plan to protect our troops? That is the purpose of our amendment this evening. The amendment is needed to ensure proper planning in the event of civil war. Instead of attacking those who want to change our course, President Bush ought to deal with the hard, cold facts. This Defense Department report underscores the fundamental truth that our brave troops are being let down by the administration and we need to find a way to succeed. The administration needs to look at all of the facts and honestly address the question of civil war for the sake of our military and the American people. This legislation creates a continuing obligation to ensure that analysis on civil war is done regularly. The facts in the administration's report say one thing about civil war, but the conclusion about civil war says another. We need an honest assessment about the conditions and a clear plan to protect our troops. Our soldiers and the American people deserve more from the administration. Together, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State need to set the White House political agenda aside and directly and thoughtfully address this ominous threat. The administration acts as if the mere discussion of a civil war is defeatist. They have it exactly backward. This amendment is an effort to make sure that the administration confronts and deals with the facts on the ground in Iraq and recognizes the emerging threat before it consumes our troops. We must do better. This administration owes it to the American people. Even more important, dealing with reality is essential and necessary to protect the lives of our brave soldiers. Iraq's future and the lives of our troops are close to the precipice of a new disaster. The timebomb of civil war is ticking, and our most urgent priority is to defuse it. For the sake of our men and women in uniform and the stability of Iraq, all Americans are anxious for success, but we need to be realistic and smart enough and humble enough to understand that even our best efforts may not prevent a civil war from overtaking events in Iraq. We need to begin planning now for this possibility. Such planning is not an admission of defeat. It is essential and necessary for protecting the lives of our service men and women in Iraq who are performing so admirably today under such enormously difficult circumstances. Benjamin Franklin said as long ago as the 18th century: By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail. This was sound advice then, it is sound advice now. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, one can argue about the definition of a civil war, but what I am talking about is the concern of the commanders on the ground in Iraq. This is what GEN Rick Sanchez, former commander of the multinational forces in Iraq, said on January 7: The country is on the verge of civil war. GEN Peter Pace on March 13: Everything is in place if they want to have a civil war. Ambassador Khalilzad is concerned about the threat, March 7: The potential is there for sectarian violence to become a civil war. General Abizaid before the Armed Services Committee on August 3: I believe the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I have seen it in Baghdad, and if not stopped, it is possible Iraq could move toward civil war. General Pace the same day: I do believe we have the possibility of devolving into civil war. Here we have Newsweek magazine, August 14: The Bush administration insists Iraq is a long way from civil war but the contingency planning has already begun. . . . Now, the Senator from Alaska says let's look at the most recent report from the Defense Department that we received September 1. Let's look at it. What does it say? Concern about civil war within the Iraqi civilian populations among defense analysts increased in recent months. Conditions that could lead to civil war exist in Iraq. And it continues: Conditions that could lead to civil war exist in Iraq, specifically in and around Baghdad. Concerns about civil war within the Iraqi civilian populations increased in recent months. All we are asking for is a plan to protect our troops. What are the rules of engagement if there is a civil war? That is the issue. That is the question. That is the information they ought to have, the families ought to have, and the American people ought to have. That is what this amendment is all about. The White House evidently is concerned, according to news reports. Generals on the ground are concerned about it. The Defense Department's own report is concerned about it. All we want to do is let Congress know and let us have the kind of planning that is going to provide the greatest protection for American troops on the ground should there be a civil war. Rules of engagement--that is all this amendment does. And it does seem to me when we are talking about plans--we heard a great deal of debate about policy today. This is about a plan to protect American troops. That is what this amendment is.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in the 30 seconds, refer to page 3 of my amendment. If there is not a civil war, we are still asking for the strategy to protect American troops. If there is a civil war, the strategy ought to be how are we going to protect the Armed Forces of the United States. This is a plan about how to protect American troops if there is a civil war, plain and simple. The White House is concerned about it. Newspapers have published that they are concerned about it. We ought to be able to get it, and the members of the Armed Forces ought to be entitled to that information. We missed too many opportunities in the past. Let's not miss this one.