Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. I want to join, as the ranking member of the Immigration and Refugee Committee, in support of what the Senator from Illinois has stated. The idea of temporary status has been longstanding. We have extended it in circumstances which do not even compare to the conditions that we have seen now in Lebanon. So I have joined being a cosponsor of that amendment. It can be done administratively, as the Senator from Illinois and others have pointed out. We certainly welcome that. If you look back in the history of that, you will find that legislation in a number of instances was introduced and then the administration moved, and moved rapidly, when it was brought to their attention. That certainly ought to be done now in the most expeditious way. Second, I welcome the opportunity to join the Senator on the humanitarian aid and assistance. We had an opportunity to talk to the representatives of the NGOs on several different occasions over the period of these past days, as well as with the representatives of the Israeli Government. There is a process now to try to extend humanitarian aid and assistance--both from the point of view of the Israeli Government but also in support of U.N. agencies and nongovernmental agencies. There are supplies that are in the area that need to get through. I think that needs focus and attention and support by all of the interested parties. But what we are basically talking about with the Defense appropriations is hopefully there will be a meaningful cease- fire that will take place. What the Senator from Michigan is talking about now is to reflect the concern for Lebanon and what has happened to that country, reflecting the fact that we here ought to extend humanitarian aid and assistance. I commend her. I think this makes a great deal of sense. I hope the amendment will be accepted.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have seen many outrages from this Republican Congress but none that demonstrates such utter contempt for the American people as holding the minimum wage hostage to give tax giveaways to the wealthiest Americans. The Republican leadership is playing a cynical game of politics with the lives of millions of hardworking American families. It may be a political game for Republicans, but it is hard reality for low-wage workers who worry every day if they can pay the bills. The bill is just a bad bargain for minimum wage workers. The minimum wage increase they receive does not have the same benefits as the Democratic proposal--1.8 million fewer workers would benefit because the increase is phased in too slowly. And what's worse, this Republican bill takes money right out of the pockets of more than 1 million tipped workers in seven States. It's a pay cut for maids, waitresses, bellhops, and other Americans who rely on tips to make a living. The Republican bill would boost the bottom line for America's restaurants, while taking money away from hardworking Americans who depend on tips to support themselves and their families. Under current Federal law, restaurant owners can pay their waiters and waitresses as little as only $2.13 an hour, and the rest of their compensation is supposed to come from tips. The same is true for hotel maids, parking attendants, bartenders--all workers who rely on tips to make a living. Federal labor and employment law sets a minimum floor, but States are free to guarantee higher wages for tipped workers. In fact, the Fair Labor Standards Act encourages States to enact laws that are more protective for workers than the Federal law. Seven States--Alaska, California, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington--do not allow a ``tip penalty.'' They guarantee that tipped workers get the full State minimum wage plus any tips they receive. But the Republican bill would take power away from the States by nullifying these State laws providing stronger wage protections for tipped employees than the Federal standard. In fact, the bill would change the minimum wage for tipped workers in these seven States, requiring them to be paid only the Federal minimum wage--not the higher State minimum wage--until the State enacts a law with a tip penalty. Under this bill, tipped workers would see drastic reductions in their take-home pay. A waitress at a family restaurant in Washington State, for example, will see her hourly wages drop by $5.50 an hour. That's almost $11,500 per year. A hotel maid in Oregon will see her hourly wages drop by $5.37 an hour. That's almost $11,200 a year. Now the Republicans have spent a lot of time on the floor today trying to explain why this giveaway for the restaurant industry won't actually hurt American workers. My Republican colleagues--particularly the junior Senator from Oregon earlier this afternoon--accused Democrats of misrepresenting what this bill does. And they supported their claims with a letter authored by the chief lobbyist for the American Restaurant Industry. But the Republicans' claims that the bill is harmless just don't hold water--particularly when you look at this document from the American Restaurant Industry's own website claiming credit for the tip provision and bragging about how much money it will save employers. The Republicans know exactly what this provision does-- it takes money out of workers' pockets. It's a scandalous special interest giveaway to the restaurant industry, and it's outrageous. When we examine other, less partisan analyses, it's clear that the bill would do devastating harm to workers. The Congressional Budget Office says the bill ``would preempt the minimum wage laws of States that exclude tips from being considered as wages in determining if certain employees have been paid the minimum wage.'' The Congressional Research Service says the bill would force the affected States to choose ``between the federal tip credit requirements or the adoption of a law that allows for some form of a tip credit under State law.'' Even the Bureau of Labor and Industries in Senator Smith's home State of Oregon says that this bill will ``trample States' rights and reduce the wages of thousands of Oregonians already struggling to make ends meet.'' I will ask to have all three of these documents printed in the Record. But we don't even have to rely on these respected authorities to know what this bill does. Let's look at the language itself. The bill says, on page 182, that any State that has a minimum wage law requiring that tipped workers be paid the full minimum wage plus any tips they receive ``may not establish or enforce the minimum wage rate provisions of such law, ordinance, regulation, or order in such State or political subdivision thereof with respect to tipped employees.'' It couldn't be more clear. The bill is nullifying State laws. Once these State laws are rendered ineffective, the affected workers will be covered only by the Federal law and will lose thousands from their paychecks, until and unless their State enacts a new law that is more to the restaurant industry's liking. This is despicable--it is truly Robin Hood in reverse, robbing from some of the most vulnerable workers on a bill that gives tax cuts to the rich. Instead of denying more than a million tipped workers the protections of the minimum wage, we should raise the wage and expand the protection. The people who work in our restaurants, carry our bags, and clean our hotel rooms work hard for a living, and they deserve better. Everyone in America knows that after 10 long years without one, minimum wage workers deserve a raise. But this Republican bill is a cynical ploy to strongarm outrageous tax breaks for the wealthy through Congress on the backs of America's hardworking, low-wage workers. Republicans are using minimum wage families as a human shield to smuggle through tax giveaways. It's wrong. It's unfair. It has no place in America. And we're not going to let it happen. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the documents to which I referred in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I believe we have 10 minutes on our side. I yield myself 7 minutes, and 3 minutes to the Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski. I know that the hour is late, but I want to take just a few minutes to speak on this critical piece of legislation. First, I want to thank my colleagues who were instrumental to crafting this bill. Pensions are not an easy subject, and it has been an extraordinary effort over the last two years to develop this compromise legislation, which will help to strengthen retirement security of over 100 million Americans. I thank our leadership for bringing this important bill to the floor today--Senators Frist and Reid. Americans are counting on us to act now, and I thank our leaders for making this possible. I want to thank Chairman Enzi, who has been both tireless, and also a gracious and even-handed leader, both of the HELP Committee and of this conference. I also want to thank Chairman Grassley of the Finance Committee for his leadership and his integrity in this process. And tonight all of us are remembering our good friend and colleague Senator Max Baucus, who has worked so hard over the last few years on this legislation. Our thoughts are with him and his family and the people of Montana in their time of loss. Many other Senators also contributed significantly to this legislation. Senators DeWine and Mikulski have worked to be sure that we address the need of manufacturing companies in this country; Senator Mikulski has been particularly interested in women's retirement security and protections for older workers, as well. Senator Isakson and Senator Lott have continued to press issues important to airlines. And Senator Harkin has tirelessly advocated for older workers in cash balance pensions. There have also been many leaders in the House who made this legislation possible. I particularly thank Majority Leader Boehner for his contributions and leadership. I also thank our staffs, who devoted late nights, gave up vacations and weekends to get the bill done and worked steadily on this issue. Senator Enzi: Katherine McGuire, Greg Dean, Diann Howland, David Thompson, and Ilyse Schuman. Senator Grassley: Kolan Davis, Mark Prater, and John O'Neill. Senator Baucus: Russ Sullivan, Pat Heck, Judy Miller, and Stu Sirkin. Senator Mikulski: Ellen-Marie Whelan and Ben Olinsky. From the Joint Committee on Taxation: Carolyn Smith, Patricia McDermott, and Nikole Flax. And from the Senate Legislative Counsel, Jim Fransen and Stacy Kern. I especially thank my own staff for their tireless efforts: Terri Holloway, Jeff Teitz, Jonathan McCracken, and Laura Capps. Michael Myers, my staff director, helps guide our work on so many issues. And special thanks to Holly Fechner and Portia Wu. Portia brings a mastery of the issues and a dedication to workers that made possible so much that is in this legislation. And Holly is a true leader who had the vision and skills to make it all happen. I thank her for her work on this important bill. This bill is the most important action to safeguard the retirement of hard working Americans in a generation. It will help more than 100 million Americans today as they look forward to a financially secure retirement, and millions more in the future. It means greater retirement security for workers across the economic spectrum--from cashiers to flight attendants, from construction workers to auto workers. The danger has been obvious. More and more firms are dropping their pensions. Half of all American workers now have no retirement savings plan at their job at all. This bill says to millions of Americans who fear their pensions may disappear that help is on the way. We're helping their pension plans recover and imposing tough new rules to keep them that way. It gives workers a greater voice in planning their retirements instead of just blind faith. It's their money and their hard work, and they should know what's going on. This legislation touches almost every aspect of retirement planning, whether it's a pension, a 401(k) plan or personal savings. We owe it to our workers to give them the best information so they can make the best choices for themselves and this bill makes that possible. The Pension Protection Act will strengthen the financial health of pension plans by doing as much as we can to guarantee that funds will be there to pay for employees hard-earned retirement benefits. It provides opportunities to increase retirement savings by automatically enrolling people in workplace pension plans, and improving the Saver's Credit to help moderate-income workers. Workers who participate in retirement savings plans will have greater access to investment advice to help them manage their retirement savings. It protects the retirement benefits of older workers when companies switch to new types of cash balance pension plans. And it includes specific provisions to strengthen women's retirement security. In addition, it includes clear protections to prevent employees from being stranded by future Enron-type crises because firms force them to invest their retirement savings in company stock. The need for action is clear, and it's gratifying that Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate, have been able to come together to enact these major reforms. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I also agree with the comments of the chairman.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Senator Smith and I have sent a bill to the desk to address the heart-wrenching crisis in Darfur and support the peace process there, and we look for its early consideration. The horrifying violence in the Darfur region of Sudan was recognized by Congress and the Bush administration as genocide over 2 years ago, and it continues unabated today. However, rays of hope for peace can be seen on the horizon. On May 5, the Government of Sudan and the main rebel group, the Sudan Liberation Movement led by Minni Minnawi, agreed to a plan that, if implemented, could bring peace to Darfur. The plan calls for an immediate cease-fire and requires the Government of Sudan to neutralize and disarm the Janjaweed militia, the gunmen supported by the government who have been conducting a bloody campaign to forcibly displace non-Arab tribes from Darfur. The Darfur Peace Agreement is an opportunity we need to seize. To do so, greater international pressure on the Sudanese government will be required in order to improve the prospects of effective implementation. Developments since its signing indicate that the present level of international pressure isn't enough. Three months have passed, but the Sudanese Government has done little to take the most important step in the peace plan--disarming the Janjaweed. Khartoum's past record is not encouraging. It has pledged to disarm the Janjaweed on previous occasions but then failed to follow through. This reluctance is not unexpected in light of the government's cynical use of the Janjaweed to exercise power in the Darfur region. In recent months, the violence in Darfur has spilled over into neighboring Chad. The two governments each support armed groups opposed to the other. Sudanese helicopters and planes attack innocent villagers in Darfur, despite a United Nations order not to fly over Darfur. The African Union Mission in Sudan, which has 7,000 peacekeepers in Darfur, has made a valiant effort to provide security and assist the people of Darfur. Nonetheless, the African Union peacekeepers are not able even to defend themselves, much less the two million refugees and internally displaced persons fleeing the violence. This mission is obviously unprepared and ill-equipped to press for and verify the implementation of the May 5 peace agreement. Sudan appears to be waiting to see whether the international community will again just lament the crisis and make hollow threats, or is now ready and willing to take concrete steps. As one high-ranking Sudanese Government official said to a Boston Globe reporter, ``The United Nations Security Council has threatened us so many times, we no longer take it seriously.'' It is time for the United States and the international community to let the Sudanese Government know that this time we expect Sudan to carry through on its commitments in the Darfur Peace Agreement. Fortunately, the international community has already taken initial actions to support the May 5 Peace Agreement. The African Union and the United Nations are planning for the transfer of peacekeeping responsibilities from the African Union to the United Nations. In addition, NATO has begun planning on how to support a U.N. peacekeeping mission, and the European Union hosted a conference in July on assistance for Darfur. Although the international community has signaled support for the Darfur Peace Agreement, Khartoum has been dragging its heels. In particular, it has not yet agreed to allow a U.N. peacekeeping mission into Darfur. The international community must strengthen its effort to persuade the Sudanese Government to comply with the agreement and permit the U.N. peacekeepers in Darfur. One of the tragic outcomes of the Darfur violence is an alarming humanitarian crisis. More than 3 million people in Darfur are dependent on humanitarian assistance for survival. The violence in Darfur has forced millions to flee from their homes. The U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance reports that significant needs for health, food and water, and sanitation are not being met in Darfur. The World Food Program warns of a $400 million shortfall in the funds it now has for Sudan. Because of the shortages in food relief, the refugees are receiving only partial rations. The children suffer most. One in four children in Darfur die before the age of five. The most needy frequently remain hidden, because insecurity in the region prevents them from making the dangerous trip to international relief centers. The United States has been the largest single donor of humanitarian assistance to the people of Darfur, and we must continue our effort in order to give the people of the region much-needed aid. We must do more to encourage the international community to do so as well. Sadly, the continuation of violence in the region has severely hindered humanitarian aid efforts. In the past 6 months, aid groups in eastern Chad have lost 26 vehicles to armed hijackers. One UNICEF worker was shot and nearly killed. It is unfair to put relief agencies in a situation where they must either risk having their aid workers murdered or raped, or pull out and leave thousands in Darfur to die. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said of this crisis, ``Giving aid without protection is like putting a Band-Aid on an open wound.'' To give peace the best chance of taking hold, peace, the Sudanese Government must be persuaded to implement its commitment to neutralize and disarm the Janjaweed. The Sudanese can be influenced by what the rest of the world does. Sudan is not an isolated, remote land. It is the largest country in Africa, and has significant economic and political ties to the rest of Africa and the world. Now is the time for the United States, in concert with other countries, to act on Darfur. This is why Senator Smith and I have introduced legislation to urge the Sudanese parties to honor their commitment in the peace accord. The bill also helps to address the unmet humanitarian needs in Darfur. At its core, the legislation is intended to encourage greater international pressure on the Government of Sudan to fulfill its obligations in the peace agreement and to allow U.N. peacekeepers into Darfur. In preparing this legislation, we have worked closely with the NGO community of experts. Groups such as the International Crisis Group, Refugees International, Save Darfur Coalition, the Hebrew International Aid Society, the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish World Service, and Physicians for Human Rights have endorsed it. I will ask that the letters of endorsements that I have submitted be printed in the Record. The legislation assigns to the Presidential envoy for Sudan the responsibility for supporting the Darfur peace process and, together with the international community, to press the Sudanese parties to implement the agreed-upon ceasefire and disarm the Janjaweed militia. It calls on the Government of Sudan to immediately allow a U.N. peacekeeping force to enter Darfur and to implement the Darfur Peace Agreement. It calls on NATO to enforce the no-fly zone over Darfur, if requested by the U.N., and to provide airlift, and logistical and intelligence support to the peacekeepers. It calls on the international community to act promptly to meet the outstanding humanitarian assistance needs. We must do our part too. The legislation authorizes $150 million in additional funds for each of the next 5 fiscal years to meet these needs. Under the legislation, the President will report on whether the Sudanese Government is implementing the peace agreement and has agreed to allow a U.N. peacekeeping mission to enter Darfur. If so, then the Presidential special envoy for Sudan will be requested to develop recommendations to advance the peace process. If the Sudanese Government refuses, then the President will impose sanctions targeted on the leaders of Sudan, urge the international community to do the same, and continue to oppose normalization of its relations with Sudan. In addition, the bill requires reports from the Commerce Department identifying companies investing $5 million or more in Sudan and a listing of the assets of Sudanese leaders in the United States and elsewhere. With so much other violence erupting in the world, we must not ignore the crisis in Darfur. Without international action, the genocide will go on. The Sudanese Government will balk or move slowly on disarming the Janjaweed and bringing an end to the violence. Experts estimate that since the conflict in Darfur began in 2004, up to 300,000 people have been killed, and an estimated 1.9 million have been displaced. Every day that we fail to act, those shameful numbers will increase. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Senator Enzi, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and I are introducing the Enhancing Drug Safety and Innovation Act of 2006. The goals of this legislation are to enhance the Food and Drug Administration's authority over the safety of prescription drugs after they are approved; to encourage innovation in medical products; to improve access to clinical trials for patients and ensure that the doctors and patients learn about the results of clinical trials involving the drugs they prescribe and use; and to improve the screening of members of FDA's scientific advisory committees to avoid conflicts of interest. The withdrawal of the drug Vioxx from the market nearly 2 years ago showed us once again that all prescription drugs have risks, many of which we may not know about when a drug is approved or even for years after approval. That is why we need a more effective system to identify and assess the serious risks of drugs, inform health care providers and patients about such risks, and manage or minimize these risks as soon as they are detected. Our bill will require every drug to have a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, when it is approved. For many drugs, the REMS will include only the drug labeling, reports of adverse events, a justification for why only such reporting is needed, and a timetable for assessing how the REMS is working. The FDA will be able to include additional requirements for a drug that poses serious risks, such as by requiring the drug to be dispensed to patients with labeling that patients can understand, that the drug company have a plan to inform health care providers about how to use the drug safely, or that a drug should not be advertised directly to consumers for up to 2 years after approval. If a serious safety signal needs to be understood, FDA can require further studies or even clinical trials after the drug is approved. Enhanced data-collection and data-mining techniques will help identify risk signals earlier and more thoroughly. For a drug with the most serious side effects, FDA will be able to require that its REMS include the restrictions on distribution and use needed to assure its safe use. The FDA will be able to impose any of these requirements at the time a drug is approved, and the agency can also modify the labeling or otherwise alter a drug's REMS after the approval. The drug's manufacturer will propose the REMS, or modifications to it, and the FDA and the company will try to work out an adequate REMS. If the agency and the company cannot agree, the agency's Drug Safety Oversight Board can review the dispute and recommend a resolution to senior FDA officials, who will make the final decision. Civil monetary penalties are added to FDA's traditional enforcement tools to ensure compliance. Drug user fees will be used to review and implement the program. The bill formalizes and makes mandatory what is now only informal and voluntary. Our intent is not to change standards for approving drugs but to ensure that the FDA has the ability to identify, assess, and manage risks as they become known. Better risk management will mean that drugs with special benefits for some patients will remain available, despite their serious risks for other patients, because FDA can better identify the risks and minimize them. The bill helps to improve drug safety in other ways as well. The Reagan-Udall Institute for Applied Biomedical Research will be a new public-private partnership at the FDA to advance the agency's Critical Path Initiative, which is intended to improve the science of developing, manufacturing, and evaluating the safety and effectiveness of drugs, biologics, medical devices, and diagnostics. The institute will be supported by Federal funds and by contributions from the pharmaceutical and device industries. Philanthropic organizations will be able to supplement Federal support. The institute will have a board of directors and an executive director, and will report to Congress annually on its operations. The bill will also expand the public database at NIH to encourage more patients to enroll in clinical trials of drugs. This database would build on the current systems and would include late phase II, phase III, and all phase IV clinical trials for all drugs. A second, publicly available database would include the results of phase III and phase IV clinical trials of drugs, with the possibility that late phase II trials would be added later. Posting of results could be delayed for up to 2 years, pending the approval of the drug or the publication of trial results in a peer-reviewed journal. The public needs to know about the results of clinical trials on drugs. Tragically, such information was not adequately available for the clinical studies of antidepressants in children. Posting information in the clinical trials registry and the clinical trials results database will be requirements for Federal research funding and for drug review and approval by the FDA. Both the FDA and the Inspector General Office of the Department of Health and Human Services would review the content of submissions to the results database to ensure they are truthful and nonpromotional. These Federal requirements would preempt State requirements for clinical trial databases. Finally, the bill will improve FDA's process for screening advisory committee members for financial conflicts of interest. The agency relies on its advisory committees to provide independent, expert, nonbinding recommendations on significant issues. Ideally, committee members should be free of any financial ties to the companies affected by an issue before a committee. But at times, there may be no individual without financial ties to such companies--for example, when the issue involves a rare disease or a cutting edge medical technology. In these cases, the FDA must be able to grant a waiver to allow an individual with essential expertise to serve on the committee. The bill will require the agency to seek qualified experts with minimal conflicts, clarify how it makes waiver decisions, and disclose those decisions at least 15 days before a committee meeting. Our bill is a comprehensive response to drug safety and other important issues involving prescription drugs and other medical technologies. I commend Chairman Enzi and his dedicated staff-- especially Amy Muhlberg--for working closely with us on this proposal, and I urge our Senate colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Senator Smith and I have sent a bill to the desk to address the heart-wrenching crisis in Darfur and support the peace process there, and we look for its early consideration. The horrifying violence in the Darfur region of Sudan was recognized by Congress and the Bush administration as genocide over 2 years ago, and it continues unabated today. However, rays of hope for peace can be seen on the horizon. On May 5, the Government of Sudan and the main rebel group, the Sudan Liberation Movement led by Minni Minnawi, agreed to a plan that, if implemented, could bring peace to Darfur. The plan calls for an immediate cease-fire and requires the Government of Sudan to neutralize and disarm the Janjaweed militia, the gunmen supported by the government who have been conducting a bloody campaign to forcibly displace non-Arab tribes from Darfur. The Darfur Peace Agreement is an opportunity we need to seize. To do so, greater international pressure on the Sudanese government will be required in order to improve the prospects of effective implementation. Developments since its signing indicate that the present level of international pressure isn't enough. Three months have passed, but the Sudanese Government has done little to take the most important step in the peace plan--disarming the Janjaweed. Khartoum's past record is not encouraging. It has pledged to disarm the Janjaweed on previous occasions but then failed to follow through. This reluctance is not unexpected in light of the government's cynical use of the Janjaweed to exercise power in the Darfur region. In recent months, the violence in Darfur has spilled over into neighboring Chad. The two governments each support armed groups opposed to the other. Sudanese helicopters and planes attack innocent villagers in Darfur, despite a United Nations order not to fly over Darfur. The African Union Mission in Sudan, which has 7,000 peacekeepers in Darfur, has made a valiant effort to provide security and assist the people of Darfur. Nonetheless, the African Union peacekeepers are not able even to defend themselves, much less the two million refugees and internally displaced persons fleeing the violence. This mission is obviously unprepared and ill-equipped to press for and verify the implementation of the May 5 peace agreement. Sudan appears to be waiting to see whether the international community will again just lament the crisis and make hollow threats, or is now ready and willing to take concrete steps. As one high-ranking Sudanese Government official said to a Boston Globe reporter, ``The United Nations Security Council has threatened us so many times, we no longer take it seriously.'' It is time for the United States and the international community to let the Sudanese Government know that this time we expect Sudan to carry through on its commitments in the Darfur Peace Agreement. Fortunately, the international community has already taken initial actions to support the May 5 Peace Agreement. The African Union and the United Nations are planning for the transfer of peacekeeping responsibilities from the African Union to the United Nations. In addition, NATO has begun planning on how to support a U.N. peacekeeping mission, and the European Union hosted a conference in July on assistance for Darfur. Although the international community has signaled support for the Darfur Peace Agreement, Khartoum has been dragging its heels. In particular, it has not yet agreed to allow a U.N. peacekeeping mission into Darfur. The international community must strengthen its effort to persuade the Sudanese Government to comply with the agreement and permit the U.N. peacekeepers in Darfur. One of the tragic outcomes of the Darfur violence is an alarming humanitarian crisis. More than 3 million people in Darfur are dependent on humanitarian assistance for survival. The violence in Darfur has forced millions to flee from their homes. The U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance reports that significant needs for health, food and water, and sanitation are not being met in Darfur. The World Food Program warns of a $400 million shortfall in the funds it now has for Sudan. Because of the shortages in food relief, the refugees are receiving only partial rations. The children suffer most. One in four children in Darfur die before the age of five. The most needy frequently remain hidden, because insecurity in the region prevents them from making the dangerous trip to international relief centers. The United States has been the largest single donor of humanitarian assistance to the people of Darfur, and we must continue our effort in order to give the people of the region much-needed aid. We must do more to encourage the international community to do so as well. Sadly, the continuation of violence in the region has severely hindered humanitarian aid efforts. In the past 6 months, aid groups in eastern Chad have lost 26 vehicles to armed hijackers. One UNICEF worker was shot and nearly killed. It is unfair to put relief agencies in a situation where they must either risk having their aid workers murdered or raped, or pull out and leave thousands in Darfur to die. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said of this crisis, ``Giving aid without protection is like putting a Band-Aid on an open wound.'' To give peace the best chance of taking hold, peace, the Sudanese Government must be persuaded to implement its commitment to neutralize and disarm the Janjaweed. The Sudanese can be influenced by what the rest of the world does. Sudan is not an isolated, remote land. It is the largest country in Africa, and has significant economic and political ties to the rest of Africa and the world. Now is the time for the United States, in concert with other countries, to act on Darfur. This is why Senator Smith and I have introduced legislation to urge the Sudanese parties to honor their commitment in the peace accord. The bill also helps to address the unmet humanitarian needs in Darfur. At its core, the legislation is intended to encourage greater international pressure on the Government of Sudan to fulfill its obligations in the peace agreement and to allow U.N. peacekeepers into Darfur. In preparing this legislation, we have worked closely with the NGO community of experts. Groups such as the International Crisis Group, Refugees International, Save Darfur Coalition, the Hebrew International Aid Society, the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish World Service, and Physicians for Human Rights have endorsed it. I will ask that the letters of endorsements that I have submitted be printed in the Record. The legislation assigns to the Presidential envoy for Sudan the responsibility for supporting the Darfur peace process and, together with the international community, to press the Sudanese parties to implement the agreed-upon ceasefire and disarm the Janjaweed militia. It calls on the Government of Sudan to immediately allow a U.N. peacekeeping force to enter Darfur and to implement the Darfur Peace Agreement. It calls on NATO to enforce the no-fly zone over Darfur, if requested by the U.N., and to provide airlift, and logistical and intelligence support to the peacekeepers. It calls on the international community to act promptly to meet the outstanding humanitarian assistance needs. We must do our part too. The legislation authorizes $150 million in additional funds for each of the next 5 fiscal years to meet these needs. Under the legislation, the President will report on whether the Sudanese Government is implementing the peace agreement and has agreed to allow a U.N. peacekeeping mission to enter Darfur. If so, then the Presidential special envoy for Sudan will be requested to develop recommendations to advance the peace process. If the Sudanese Government refuses, then the President will impose sanctions targeted on the leaders of Sudan, urge the international community to do the same, and continue to oppose normalization of its relations with Sudan. In addition, the bill requires reports from the Commerce Department identifying companies investing $5 million or more in Sudan and a listing of the assets of Sudanese leaders in the United States and elsewhere. With so much other violence erupting in the world, we must not ignore the crisis in Darfur. Without international action, the genocide will go on. The Sudanese Government will balk or move slowly on disarming the Janjaweed and bringing an end to the violence. Experts estimate that since the conflict in Darfur began in 2004, up to 300,000 people have been killed, and an estimated 1.9 million have been displaced. Every day that we fail to act, those shameful numbers will increase. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Senator Enzi, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and I are introducing the Enhancing Drug Safety and Innovation Act of 2006. The goals of this legislation are to enhance the Food and Drug Administration's authority over the safety of prescription drugs after they are approved; to encourage innovation in medical products; to improve access to clinical trials for patients and ensure that the doctors and patients learn about the results of clinical trials involving the drugs they prescribe and use; and to improve the screening of members of FDA's scientific advisory committees to avoid conflicts of interest. The withdrawal of the drug Vioxx from the market nearly 2 years ago showed us once again that all prescription drugs have risks, many of which we may not know about when a drug is approved or even for years after approval. That is why we need a more effective system to identify and assess the serious risks of drugs, inform health care providers and patients about such risks, and manage or minimize these risks as soon as they are detected. Our bill will require every drug to have a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, when it is approved. For many drugs, the REMS will include only the drug labeling, reports of adverse events, a justification for why only such reporting is needed, and a timetable for assessing how the REMS is working. The FDA will be able to include additional requirements for a drug that poses serious risks, such as by requiring the drug to be dispensed to patients with labeling that patients can understand, that the drug company have a plan to inform health care providers about how to use the drug safely, or that a drug should not be advertised directly to consumers for up to 2 years after approval. If a serious safety signal needs to be understood, FDA can require further studies or even clinical trials after the drug is approved. Enhanced data-collection and data-mining techniques will help identify risk signals earlier and more thoroughly. For a drug with the most serious side effects, FDA will be able to require that its REMS include the restrictions on distribution and use needed to assure its safe use. The FDA will be able to impose any of these requirements at the time a drug is approved, and the agency can also modify the labeling or otherwise alter a drug's REMS after the approval. The drug's manufacturer will propose the REMS, or modifications to it, and the FDA and the company will try to work out an adequate REMS. If the agency and the company cannot agree, the agency's Drug Safety Oversight Board can review the dispute and recommend a resolution to senior FDA officials, who will make the final decision. Civil monetary penalties are added to FDA's traditional enforcement tools to ensure compliance. Drug user fees will be used to review and implement the program. The bill formalizes and makes mandatory what is now only informal and voluntary. Our intent is not to change standards for approving drugs but to ensure that the FDA has the ability to identify, assess, and manage risks as they become known. Better risk management will mean that drugs with special benefits for some patients will remain available, despite their serious risks for other patients, because FDA can better identify the risks and minimize them. The bill helps to improve drug safety in other ways as well. The Reagan-Udall Institute for Applied Biomedical Research will be a new public-private partnership at the FDA to advance the agency's Critical Path Initiative, which is intended to improve the science of developing, manufacturing, and evaluating the safety and effectiveness of drugs, biologics, medical devices, and diagnostics. The institute will be supported by Federal funds and by contributions from the pharmaceutical and device industries. Philanthropic organizations will be able to supplement Federal support. The institute will have a board of directors and an executive director, and will report to Congress annually on its operations. The bill will also expand the public database at NIH to encourage more patients to enroll in clinical trials of drugs. This database would build on the current systems and would include late phase II, phase III, and all phase IV clinical trials for all drugs. A second, publicly available database would include the results of phase III and phase IV clinical trials of drugs, with the possibility that late phase II trials would be added later. Posting of results could be delayed for up to 2 years, pending the approval of the drug or the publication of trial results in a peer-reviewed journal. The public needs to know about the results of clinical trials on drugs. Tragically, such information was not adequately available for the clinical studies of antidepressants in children. Posting information in the clinical trials registry and the clinical trials results database will be requirements for Federal research funding and for drug review and approval by the FDA. Both the FDA and the Inspector General Office of the Department of Health and Human Services would review the content of submissions to the results database to ensure they are truthful and nonpromotional. These Federal requirements would preempt State requirements for clinical trial databases. Finally, the bill will improve FDA's process for screening advisory committee members for financial conflicts of interest. The agency relies on its advisory committees to provide independent, expert, nonbinding recommendations on significant issues. Ideally, committee members should be free of any financial ties to the companies affected by an issue before a committee. But at times, there may be no individual without financial ties to such companies--for example, when the issue involves a rare disease or a cutting edge medical technology. In these cases, the FDA must be able to grant a waiver to allow an individual with essential expertise to serve on the committee. The bill will require the agency to seek qualified experts with minimal conflicts, clarify how it makes waiver decisions, and disclose those decisions at least 15 days before a committee meeting. Our bill is a comprehensive response to drug safety and other important issues involving prescription drugs and other medical technologies. I commend Chairman Enzi and his dedicated staff-- especially Amy Muhlberg--for working closely with us on this proposal, and I urge our Senate colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and I ask for its immediate consideration. I talked to both managers of the bill, and they are reviewing it.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. I withhold my request.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is a request for a national intelligence estimate on Iraq. We haven't had one now for 2 years. I have talked with the managers. They will review it. It is under consideration. They will let us know. We will have further comments on it later. The managers understand this, and I hope we will have an opportunity to dispose of it a little later.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am going to send an amendment to the desk, and at the appropriate time I will ask for its consideration. The floor managers have the amendment now and are reviewing it. But I wanted to make a brief comment, which I will do at this time, to outline the amendment. And then we will work with the floor managers to see if this might be an acceptable amendment. Mr. President, the amendment I send to the desk would require the Director of National Intelligence to task the intelligence community to prepare an updated National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. The amendment is cosponsored by our Democratic leader, Senator Reid, Senator Biden, Senator Levin, and Senator Reed of Rhode Island. The last time the NIE was updated was in July 2004. According to press reports, it outlined three possibilities for Iraq through the end of 2005. The worst case was civil war. The best case was an Iraq whose stability would remain tenuous in political, economic, and security terms. Much has changed over the last 2 years, and decisionmakers in the executive and legislative branches urgently need an updated NIE. Since 2004, reports from the Departments of Defense and State and comments by administration officials on security and stability in Iraq have been unconvincing, and it is essential to have an objective assessment of Iraq from the intelligence community. Our amendment would require the Director of National Intelligence to provide an intelligence assessment by October 1--2 months from now. If he is unable to do so, he must provide a report outlining the reasons. The intelligence estimate required in our amendment would require an update on eight key issues. The first is sectarianism. We need an assessment from the intelligence community on whether Iraq is in a civil war now or is descending into civil war, and what will prevent or reverse a deterioration of conditions promoting civil war. The growing sectarian violence, the ruthless death squads, the increasingly powerful privately armed militias, and the administration's decision to send thousands more U.S. troops to Baghdad are alarming and are of concern to the American people. We need an assessment from the intelligence community so we know how to adjust our policy. The second issue the new intelligence estimate should address is security. One of the key elements of that assessment should be the militias. Militias are the engines of civil war. All one needs to do is look at Bosnia or Lebanon. As the violence in Lebanon demonstrates, political parties cannot govern with one hand and use militias to terrorize civilians with the other. It did not work with Hezbollah in Lebanon, it will not work with Hamas, and it will not work in Iraq. Prime Minister Maliki has acknowledged the militia problem, but he has not articulated a clear vision for how to tackle this critical issue. It is time for the new Government to move beyond vague statements and develop a viable strategy to deal with the militias and prevent Iraq from descending into full-scale civil war. On this critical issue, we need to know the intelligence community's assessment of the likelihood that the Government of Iraq will obtain a commitment from the political parties to ban militias. We need to know the extent to which the Government of Iraq has developed and implemented a credible plan to disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate militias into Government security forces. More broadly, we need an assessment from the intelligence community about whether Iraq is succeeding in standing up its own effective security forces and what actions are needed to increase the prospect of that occurring. The third issue is terrorism. We need an assessment from the intelligence community about the extent of the threat from violent, extremist-related terrorism, including al-Qaida, in and from Iraq, and the factors the intelligence community believes will address the terrorist threat. Iraq Prime Minister Maliki told Congress last week that in addition to the challenge of sectarian violence, his country is ``the front line'' against terrorism. Is a majority of the violence in Iraq driven by the insurgency rather than foreign terrorists? Is it still the case that less than 1 percent of the prison population in Iraq are foreign fighters? We need to know the current nature and the extent of the terrorism threat. Just as important, we need the intelligence community's assessment on what we and the Iraqis can do to counter the threat. Fourth, we need an assessment from the intelligence community about whether Iraq is succeeding in creating a stabile and effective unity government, the likelihood that changes to the constitution will be made to address the concerns of the Sunni community, and the actions it believes will increase the prospect of that occurring Fifth is economic reconstruction. We need an assessment from the intelligence community about whether Iraq is succeeding in rebuilding its economy and creating economic prosperity for Iraqis, the likelihood that economic reconstruction in Iraq will significantly diminish Iraq's dependence on foreign aid to meet its domestic economic needs, and the actions the intelligence community believes are needed to increase the likelihood of that occurring. Sixth is the future of Iraq. We need an assessment from the intelligence community of the optimistic, the most likely, and the pessimistic scenarios for the stability of Iraq through 2007. The future of Iraq is difficult to predict, but certainly the assessment provided in 2004 needs to be updated. We need to know what the intelligence community foresees now. Seventh is an assessment of the international presence in Iraq, including whether and in what ways the large-scale presence of multinational forces is helping or hindering Iraqis' chances for success. Eighth, and finally, we need an assessment of the extent to which our operations in Iraq are affecting our relations with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and other countries in the region. A new National Intelligence Estimate is long overdue. John Adams once said: ``Facts are stubborn things.'' It is abundantly clear that the facts matter. They mattered before the war and during the war and they matter now as we try to deal effectively with the continuing quagmire. So, Mr. President, at the appropriate time I will urge our colleagues to accept the amendment. And I will be glad to work with the floor managers if they have ideas about how it can be addressed and further effected. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join Senator Hatch today in introducing this bill to reauthorize the health centers program. The Health Centers Renewal Act reauthorizes the community health center program through 2011. Its goal is to make sure that people across the Nation can obtain the care they need in their community, regardless of their ability to pay. What began in the 1960s as a neighborhood health center demonstration project at two sites--Columbia Point in Massachusetts and Mound Bayou in Mississippi--has flourished beyond expectation in the years since then. It has now grown to more than 1,000 community, migrant, and homeless health centers providing care in every State across the Nation. Health centers are the ``medical home'' today for over 15 million patients--patients who are overwhelmingly low-income, uninsured and minorities. Without health centers in their community, most of these patients would have nowhere to turn for the health care they need. Health centers are truly democratic, and are operated in large part by the patients and communities they serve. We hear a great deal these days about moving toward ``consumer-directed'' health care but in most cases that's a code name for cost-shifting to patients. That's not true of health centers, which are truly consumer-directed. The requirement of a patient-majority for health centers' governing boards makes sure the community has a real voice in the services offered and that the needs of the community are met. This community focus has been essential to the program's success in reducing barriers to good health care and overcoming unfair health disparities. As the number of uninsured and underinsured persons grows each year, the need for health center services increases. More than 40 percent of health center patients have no health insurance and their ranks are increasing. Another 36 percent have coverage through Medicaid or CHIP, and cuts in these programs affect health centers as well. With the growing number of patients who rely on health centers, we must provide the funds needed to open new centers in areas that are underserved and to provide better funding to existing centers to meet the growing demand. Health centers fill a large void by providing quality, cost-effective care in medically underserved areas. Most health centers are located in rural areas or economically depressed inner cities, where poverty is high and the need is great. They truly are part of the community, providing not just health care, but good jobs and other programs that benefit the entire community. Community health centers have proven their value over the past four decades, and this bill will enable them to expand and grow in the years ahead, so that they can continue to provide the quality care that their patients and communities rely on.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join Senator Hatch today in introducing this bill to reauthorize the health centers program. The Health Centers Renewal Act reauthorizes the community health center program through 2011. Its goal is to make sure that people across the Nation can obtain the care they need in their community, regardless of their ability to pay. What began in the 1960s as a neighborhood health center demonstration project at two sites--Columbia Point in Massachusetts and Mound Bayou in Mississippi--has flourished beyond expectation in the years since then. It has now grown to more than 1,000 community, migrant, and homeless health centers providing care in every State across the Nation. Health centers are the ``medical home'' today for over 15 million patients--patients who are overwhelmingly low-income, uninsured and minorities. Without health centers in their community, most of these patients would have nowhere to turn for the health care they need. Health centers are truly democratic, and are operated in large part by the patients and communities they serve. We hear a great deal these days about moving toward ``consumer-directed'' health care but in most cases that's a code name for cost-shifting to patients. That's not true of health centers, which are truly consumer-directed. The requirement of a patient-majority for health centers' governing boards makes sure the community has a real voice in the services offered and that the needs of the community are met. This community focus has been essential to the program's success in reducing barriers to good health care and overcoming unfair health disparities. As the number of uninsured and underinsured persons grows each year, the need for health center services increases. More than 40 percent of health center patients have no health insurance and their ranks are increasing. Another 36 percent have coverage through Medicaid or CHIP, and cuts in these programs affect health centers as well. With the growing number of patients who rely on health centers, we must provide the funds needed to open new centers in areas that are underserved and to provide better funding to existing centers to meet the growing demand. Health centers fill a large void by providing quality, cost-effective care in medically underserved areas. Most health centers are located in rural areas or economically depressed inner cities, where poverty is high and the need is great. They truly are part of the community, providing not just health care, but good jobs and other programs that benefit the entire community. Community health centers have proven their value over the past four decades, and this bill will enable them to expand and grow in the years ahead, so that they can continue to provide the quality care that their patients and communities rely on.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise because this week is going to be enormously important for the American people and also enormously important in terms of deciding what kind of country we are. Over the period of these last 4 months, I have had the opportunity, the responsibility given by the Senate, to serve on the pension conference with a number of our colleagues on our side, and a number of our colleagues on the other side. That conference was chaired by our friend and the chairman of our human resource committee, Senator Enzi. He did a splendid job. It took 4\1/2\ months to effectively wind up that conference. There are certainly provisions that are included in the conference that I would not have included. We were meeting as late as 1 o'clock in the morning last Thursday night in order to conclude the conference itself. As would happen in a situation like that, I think there were gaps in the final recommendations which I wish we had addressed, but we will have an opportunity to deal with those issues later this week. It will be enormously important. I am in strong support of the pensions legislation. But, also, later this week we are going to consider legislation that is coming over from the House of Representatives on the estate tax. Attached to that estate tax--it is not a new issue for this body--attached in the House of Representatives has been an increase in the minimum wage, with which I have been involved over a long period of time. Actually, since I came to the Senate, I have been involved in increasing the minimum wage, championing that with many others. Years ago we had Republicans and Democrats who supported the increase in the minimum wage. Now unfortunately--fortunately, in the last vote that we had on the minimum wage, we did have eight Republicans who supported it. We have a clear majority in the Senate for an increase in the minimum wage. The American people overwhelmingly support an increase in the minimum wage. It has not been increased in the last 9 years and over a corresponding period of time we here in the Senate have increased our own pay more than $30,000. We increased our own pay more than $30,000 during that same period of time, but the Senate has refused to address an increase in the minimum wage for the American workers who are at the lowest rung of the economic ladder. Most Americans believe a job ought to get you out of poverty. But those on the other side believe if you have a minimum wage job, you ought to remain in poverty. That is a very big, very major difference. What we have seen across the country, however, is sort of a wildfire of support for increases in the minimum wage. We have had a number of States that have offered the minimum wage increase on the State ballots. We have seen increases in Florida, increases in Nevada. In more recent times we have seen increases in Arkansas, the home of Wal- Mart, and increases in North Carolina. The campaigns for increases in the minimum wage are alive and well in many different States across the country, and they are going to be successful in a number of States. It reminds us how the American people feel. They feel we should have an increase in the minimum wage. What has happened now is our Republican leadership in the House of Representatives has added an increase in the minimum wage to an estate tax cut for the wealthiest individuals in this country. That is what they did, thinking if they put these together maybe those of us who believe in an increase in the minimum wage will go ahead and support this because we are so committed to the rise in the minimum wage. No one in this body is more committed to an increase in the minimum wage than am I, but I am going to fight this fraudulent--I think arrogant--decision by the Republican leadership, disdaining, effectively, and dishonoring hard-working Americans by going about with this gimmick of adding an increase to the minimum wage to legislation on the estate tax. If you look at who is for the increase in the minimum wage, you will see only 22 percent of Americans support the repeal of the estate tax, and 86 percent of Americans support raising the minimum wage. Why, I wonder. It is fair enough to say to whom the benefits are going to go if we consider a piece of legislation. That is a fair enough rule. Who is going to benefit and who is going to lose out? If you look at the estate tax, you will see there will be 8,200 of the richest heirs in the country. Some have called this the Paris Hilton tax giveaway; 8,200 of the richest heirs will receive a tax giveaway close to $1.4 million per estate. The total cost will be $753 billion for the first 10 years of full implementation, according to the Center of Budget and Policy. We are talking about a very modest increase in the minimum wage, to $7.25. But what will happen to those individuals? As long as they are still below the poverty line they are going to be eligible for a number of the programs that we have out there that have been built in to try to help and assist hard-working Americans who are being hard pressed because they don't have adequate income. What we have seen in the most recent 5 years is cuts in Medicaid, cuts in food stamps, cuts in veterans programs, and cuts in unemployment insurance. That has been the record in the past, and that will be the record in terms of the future, trying to make up for that $753 billion. These are the programs, Medicaid programs that, by and large, look after children, long-term care for the elderly, the Food Stamp Program--again, for those who are in very serious need. That is really what we are faced with. What have we seen over the period of these last few years? Let's look at what has been happening to our fellow Americans. We have seen an increase in the total number of Americans living in poverty that has increased by 5.4 million in the United States of America in the last 4 years that there has been no increase in the minimum wage. What does the Republican Senate want to have us do? Have another tax cut for the largest fortunes in this country. What has happened in terms of children over the period of the last 4 years? We have seen a dramatic increase in the number of children who are living in poverty. There are 1.4 million more children living in poverty. There has been no increase in the minimum wage. The list goes on. If you look at what has happened to the purchasing power of the minimum wage, it has actually gone down some 21 percent. Yet the spread between the most wealthy individuals and the most needy individuals has never been more dramatic in the history of this country. We have an opportunity--we will have--to try to do something, hopefully, about an increase in the minimum wage. If it were here before the Senate, there is a majority of the Members of the Senate who support an increase in the minimum wage. But we are not given that opportunity. We are not given that opportunity to just vote on that issue and then vote separately in terms of the increase in the estate tax. No, no; we are not given the opportunity to do that. Republicans say you have to take both or you don't get an increase in the minimum wage. That is a contemptuous attitude--not toward those of us who are for the increase but for those workers, men and women of dignity. They work hard, work long, work in our schools, work to look after our senior citizens, work to clean the great buildings of American commerce--men and women of dignity, and you are saying they can't have what ought to be a right in the richest country of this world: If you work hard and play by the rules, you and your family should not live in poverty. Oh, no. They say: No, you have it wrong over there for an increase in the minimum wage, unless we are going to provide another tax benefit for the most wealthy individuals in the country--then you can have an increase. That is a contemptuous attitude. Beyond that, what this proposal contains is an ingenious proposal, suggested by the restaurant association. They say: People who work for tips in the restaurants, they often make $5.25 an hour. They often make that in tips. So why are we required to pay them? They were able to persuade Republicans--this is strictly a Republican proposal--to say: If they are going to receive tips, you are only required to pay $2.13 an hour. The rest can be made up in tips. That person still effectively gets the minimum wage. But the restaurant doesn't have to pay that. Do you hear me? They don't have to pay the worker the $5.15 an hour. A number of States said that is not fair; that is not really fair. We have, now, seven States that say to the restaurants: You have to pay the full tally. It says minimum wage of $5.15 an hour, you have to pay the $5.15 an hour. The States have said it. Seven States have said that. About 30 States have done somewhat in between, but seven States have said: You have to pay the whole thing. The Congress has said an increase in the minimum wage--a tip is a tip. That goes with the territory. I wonder how many Americans, when they go into the restaurant and they are thinking about being served, try to figure out--I wonder, should I give this person $1 or $2 because they really are only getting $2.13 an hour paid by the restaurant. Of course they don't. If the service is good they give them something to show their appreciation for it. What have our Republican friends said? We don't like the fact that States have made that judgment, that decision. We know more than the seven States that said you have to pay the full fare. We in the Senate of the United States are saying you don't know what is necessary in your State, about paying an adequate sum to those workers. So we, the Congress, are going to tell you, the State, and tell your workers, that we, the Republicans in the Senate and the House of Representatives, are going to say we are going to tell you that you only can pay $2.13. I hope we don't hear any more about the one big solution to all of the problems back home. How many times do we listen to a large solution, a single solution for all the problems back home? How many times do we hear: Let the States make a judgment and decision in order to protect their workers? Here the States have made a judgment, here the States have made a decision, and the Republican Party says: We know better. We know better. We know how to save our constituency a little more money, for them, and a little less for the workers. A wonderful, Republican, ingenious concept tied on to this proposal. At another time, and we will have more time, we will have a chance to get into this in greater detail. I will just conclude. I note, as I gave the figures about the number of families who are living in poverty, and also the number of children in poverty, there has been a different story in one of our neighboring countries. The second strongest economy in Europe is England. No. 1 is Germany, No. 2 is England. Their minimum wage is going to nearly $10 in October-- $9.83. They have increased it now over the last 5 years. Do you want to know something? They have taken 1.8 million children out of poverty with their increase. And they have a strong economy and a more fair economy. But not here. Nine years, eight pay increases for Members of the Senate over 9 years, and we have not been willing to give an increase in the minimum wage. No, if you want that increase, you vote to give the wealthiest individuals another bouquet, another bouquet. How contemptuous can it be? At another time later in this debate--I know we have limited time. There are others who want to speak on the underlying bill. I look forward to addressing the Senate in greater detail on this issue and also on the pension issue, which is going to be extremely important. I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask the Chair, how much time remains?

Mr. KENNEDY. I would like to yield myself 15 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased that we are acting on this bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the Perkins Career and Technical Education Act, and I commend the chairman of our committee, Senator Enzi, for his willingness to have an open, bipartisan process for this legislation. His leadership and the impressive work of his staff helped guide this bill successfully through the conference, and they deserve great credit for their leadership. One of our highest priorities in Congress is to expand educational opportunities for every American. In this age of globalization, every citizen deserves a chance to acquire the education and skills needed to participate in the modern economy, to fulfill their hopes and dreams, raise healthy families, and contribute to their communities. We will be a fairer and stronger America when every citizen takes part. In the global economy, the contributions of every American matter. We must equip all our citizens to compete, not by lowering their pay and sending their jobs overseas but by increasing their skills. Career and technical education does that, by preparing students and adults for 21st century jobs. With this reauthorization, career and technical programs will continue to have a vital role in transforming the lives of students and workers, and we will have a stronger economy as a result. Since the passage of the Smith-Hughes Act in 1917, the Federal Government has recognized the important role of career and technical education in the life of the Nation. As the needs of American business and industry have evolved, the revisions made to the Act over the years have reflected those changes. It is clear that vocational education is no longer the 1950s version. It has evolved from shop classes into courses that use cutting-edge technology and focus on emerging and growing fields that will become the jobs of the future. That is why we now call it career and technical education, and I am pleased to see that change reflected in the new title of this bill. The Perkins Career and Technical Education Act gives both students and adults the academic course work and training they need to be competitive in the job market. The reauthorization of this legislation is especially important, since more and more people are taking advantage of Perkins programs. Between 2002 and 2004, enrollment in career and technical education programs rose by 26 percent nationally. Enrollment in Tech Prep, the Perkins program that supports some of the most creative efforts in the field, rose by more than a third. Nearly all high school students will take at least one career or technical course during their years in school. About half of all high school students and a third of all college students are involved in vocational programs as a major part of their studies. Perkins helps adults as well. In 2004, 6 million adults were enrolled in such programs at community, technical, and other colleges, learning new skills and improving opportunities for employment. About 40 million adults participate in short-term occupational training. Perkins programs do not just help one type of person. New immigrants, struggling adults, women seeking jobs outside the home for the first time--all benefit from the specially designed programs funded by the Perkins Act. These programs help every kind of learner. In 2004, 10 million middle and high school students were taking courses that enabled them to explore a career and be prepared to succeed in the workplace. The students are from many different backgrounds--from rural and urban areas, from schools large and small, and they studied fields such as agriculture, technology, health occupations, skilled trades and business. No matter where they are from, the data are clear. Perkins programs are helping them build a better life. According to the most recent National Assessment of Vocational Education by the Department of Education, students earned almost 2 percent more for each high school occupational course they took. That is about $450 per course based on average earnings of $24,000. That adds up, especially for the 45 percent of all high school graduates who take three or more occupational courses. The data also show that participants in career and technical education at the postsecondary level can benefit from just 1 year's worth of courses. Even those who did not attain a credential still earned between 5 and 8 percent more than high school graduates with similar characteristics. Today, career and technical education students are better prepared for college. Almost two-thirds of all high school graduates of career and technical programs now enter some form of postsecondary education. When these programs are combined with a college prep curriculum, that number rises to 82 percent. That is good progress, but we need to do even more. According to a study released last week by the Department of Education, career and technical education students are less likely to take advanced math courses like trigonometry, precalculus, and calculus compared to other high school students. In college, they tend to earn fewer academic credits, and fewer credits overall. And only one-quarter of career and technical education students graduate with a bachelor's degree--most earn associate's degrees or certificates. That is why the improvements we have made in this reauthorization are so important. We have maintained our commitment to Tech Prep. Students can enroll as early as the ninth grade in high-tech programs that lead to an associate's degree. Tech Prep is a vital bridge that connects high school to college for many students, and I welcome its role in this bill. Our focus is on career and technical education programs that lead to increased graduation rates, professional credentials, apprenticeships, and college opportunities. To do so, we have a strong accountability system that measures the progress that programs are making toward these goals. We have doubled our emphasis on making sure that career and technical education programs reach those who too often have been left out, such as girls, women, and homemakers seeking jobs for the first time. We have also addressed the needs of career and technical education teachers by giving them new opportunities to spend time in the industries they are teaching about. In a world where cell phones and computers become obsolete in a year, these teachers need the best possible training so that they can continue to prepare students for success. They are preparing the next generation for the workforce, and their knowledge-base must be state of the art. This reauthorization is a signal to the millions of Americans who benefit from career and technical education that the Federal Government understands how important these programs are. Massachusetts alone has more than 100,000 students at the secondary and postsecondary level participating in Perkins programs. Our Commonwealth's support of technical training is far-reaching today and is rooted in our longstanding commitment to technical education. At the beginning of the 20th century, Worcester was a national leader in the development of trade and vocational education. Worcester Boys Trade School, founded in 1910, was among the first vocational schools in the Nation, training young men to be machinists, and fulfilling its mission of graduating ``well informed citizens and good workmen.'' Today, Worcester Vocational High School has a waiting list of 300 students. In 2005, 93 percent of its students passed the State assessment. In August, it will move to a new state-of-the-art facility that will accommodate 1,500 day students and 3,000 working adults in afternoon and evening classes. Without Perkins funding, much of this would not have been possible. Perkins also supports high school programs that partner with community colleges and local businesses to provide students with the academic and technical skills they need to continue their education or to compete for high-skill, high-wage jobs immediately. The outcomes of these programs are extraordinary. In Massachusetts, 96 percent of the students in the class of 2006 in career and technical education programs passed the MCAS and earned their competency determination. Already, 90 percent of the class of 2007 have done so. Over the last 2 years, every one of the seniors at Blackstone Valley Tech in Upton has passed the MCAS and graduated on time. Last year, it was recognized as a Vanguard Model School by the Massachusetts Insight Education and Research Institute for its efforts to improve student achievement. It was the first vocational technical school to receive this honor. Because of Perkins, more than 12,000 career and technical education students at risk of failing he MCAS were placed in structured internships at over 5,600 employer sites last year. These internships use work-based learning plans to guide students' learning and productivity on the job, and to measure the impact of the internship on student achievement. Because of Perkins, every community college in Massachusetts has been able to hire instructional support staff and provide adaptive equipment for students with disabilities enrolled in technical education programs. Because of Perkins, career and technical educators throughout the Commonwealth receive needed professional development and gain access to curriculum-related resources, technical assistance, and training in a wide range of activities. Massachusetts's career and technical education programs are impressive, and they are successful because of the Perkins Act. We are proud of the vitality of our career and technical education programs in Massachusetts, and we know they are just a small number of the many strong programs supported by the Perkins Act across the country. I am pleased that we were able to work together with the House to produce this bipartisan legislation. I commend Chairman Enzi, Chairman McKeon, and all the conferees and their staff for their good work on this needed legislation. Special thanks go to Scott Fleming, Beth Buehlmann, Lisa Schunk, and Kelly Hastings with Senator Enzi; Allison Dembeck with Senator Gregg; Meredith Davis with Senator Frist; David Cleary with Senator Alexander; Celia Sims with Senator Burr; Glee Smith with Senator Isakson; Lindsay Morris with Senator DeWine; Lindsay Hunsicker with Senator Ensign; Juliann Andreen with Senator Hatch; Liz Stillwell with Senator Sessions; Jennifer Swenson with Senator Roberts; Mary Ellen McGuire with Senator Dodd; Rob Barron with Senator Harkin; Dvora Lovinger and Robin Juliano with Senator Mikulski; Sherry Kaiman with Senator Jeffords; Michael Yudin with Senator Bingaman; Jamie Fasteau and Jill Feldstein with Senator Murray; Mildred Otero with Senator Clinton; Kristen Romero and Amy Gaynor from Legislative Counsel, Denise Forte, Lloyd Horwich, and Whitney Rhoades on the House Education Committee, and Carmel Martin, J.D. LaRock, and Liz Maher of my staff. I especially recognize Jane Oates, who worked on my staff for 8 years and whose expertise, leadership, and persistence ensured that the committee produced a strong, bipartisan reauthorization. Jane's efforts on Perkins are indicative of how she handles all things in life: always giving 100 percent, always being a voice for the voiceless, always committed to finding a solution. Though Jane has not been directly involved in these last few months of the process, her good work in the early stages of this bill has guided my staff and the rest of the committee through conference and to final passage today. Thank you, Jane, for all you have done for the millions of students who benefit from Perkins every year for showing all of us in the Senate how to get the job done.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, the Senate's exercise of its advice and consent power when it considers nominees to the Federal bench is one of our most important constitutional responsibilities. We are conferring on men and women the power to interpret and apply our laws for the rest of their lives. It is the last opportunity any of us have to sit in judgment of them. Our task is not to evaluate a nominee based on politics but, rather, to consider other important criteria. We start with the essential elements of professional excellence and personal integrity, but we must also evaluate the likelihood that nominees will be fair and openminded judges who bring compassion and understanding of the history and fundamental values of America to the bench. In considering a nomination to our Federal courts of appeals, we must exercise special care. The Supreme Court accepts few cases out of the thousands of cases it is asked to hear every year. The Federal appellate courts are almost always litigants' last hope for justice from our legal system. For those who seek relief from race and sex discrimination at work or at school, for criminal defendants who have been wrongfully deprived of their liberty or sentenced to death, or for those who seek to protect our liberties, the circuit courts of appeals are almost always their last hope for justice. The record of Jerome Holmes demonstrates that he is not a nominee we can afford to entrust with the judicial power of the United States. His professional qualifications are not in dispute, but he has taken extreme public stances on issues that regularly come before our courts. These stances suggest that he will not approach these issues with an open mind or fairly apply the law in these areas. Perhaps most troubling are Mr. Holmes' strong and repeated statements denouncing affirmative action. Just last week, this body reauthorized the Voting Rights Act, one of America's greatest achievements in the effort to overcome centuries of racial oppression. During that debate, numerous Senators had the occasion to revisit the legacy of racially motivated violence, discrimination, and disenfranchisement that oppressed so many in this country. We had the occasion to reflect on the need for strong and complete remedies for those centuries of discrimination that would eliminate it root and branch. Affirmative action is an effective and necessary remedy that must be available if we are to provide opportunity for all, by breaking down persisting barriers and making it possible for all Americans to demonstrate their abilities and fulfill their potential. Yet Mr. Holmes has repeatedly denounced affirmative action as both immoral and unlawful. Shortly after the Supreme Court struck down the University of Michigan's affirmative action program for undergraduates but upheld the law school's program, Mr. Holmes wrote: The court did not go far enough: Affirmative action is still alive. He lamented that the Court ``missed an opportunity to drive the final nail in the coffin of affirmative action.'' He called affirmative action a ``quota system'' and accused it of perpetuating a society in which ``race unfortunately still matters.'' He referred to scholarships for minority students as ``constitutionally dubious and morally offensive.'' We know that race does still matter in our society, which is the very reason lawful affirmative action programs are needed. They guarantee opportunity for minority students who, because of discrimination and its legacy, might otherwise never be able to excel. We all hope for the day that individuals will not be denied opportunity because of race, but until we reach that day, affirmative action programs are part of the solution, not the problem. Mr. Holmes' extreme statements make it impossible to believe that he will approach affirmative action cases with an open mind. He says he will fairly apply our Nation's affirmative action laws, which have helped--and continue to help--women and racial minorities overcome centuries of discrimination, but his bland assurances are far from sufficient to overcome his record. His views on our criminal justice system are also disturbing. He has put on a set of ideological blinders to ignore the invidious racial discrimination that persists in criminal trials and sentencing. When a defense lawyer in Oklahoma had the courage to suggest that African Americans accused of committing crimes against Whites in Oklahoma City could not receive a fair trial, Mr. Holmes delivered a swift rebuke. Not only did he dismiss the effect of racial bias, he also chastised the defense lawyer for even raising the issue, contending that he had undermined the public's confidence in the judicial system. The problem of racial bias in juries is an important issue in the criminal justice system that merits discussion and recognition that we should be seeking effective remedies, not blaming the messenger. By approving this nominee, the Senate would send a message that we don't care about the racial disparities in our criminal justice system. If we confirm an appellate judge who ignores the realities of such disparities, we cannot expect the public--especially minorities--to believe that they will get a fair day in court. The fact that Mr. Holmes stated these views while serving as deputy criminal chief of a U.S. attorney's office only reinforces my concern about his ability to separate his extreme personal ideologies from his actions as a judge if we confirm his nomination. Mr. Holmes' aggressive support for the death penalty raises special concern. He said that the statement society sends through the death penalty ``is not materially diminished by the fact that . . . mistakes are made'' in imposing the death penalty. Unlike Mr. Holmes, most death penalty supporters appreciate the severity of a death sentence. It is irreversible punishment, which means that we must do everything in our power to reduce the possibility of mistakes. Many death penalty advocates have supported expanded use of DNA testing and other tools to avoid mistakes in capital punishment cases. Taking an extreme position yet again, Mr. Holmes has no respect for these concerns. He is more interested in the symbolism of the death penalty than the fact that an individual life will end. Because the Supreme Court hears so few death penalty cases, appellate courts often have the final word on the life and death of criminal defendants. We should not support the confirmation of a Federal judge who has so little respect for this grave responsibility. The Senate has supported the overwhelming majority of President Bush's judicial nominees. I have voted for the confirmation of dozens of judges with whom I have ideological differences. However, the nomination of Jerome Holmes is different. I do not believe that he will serve on the Federal bench with a fair and open mind. I, therefore, cannot support the confirmation of Jerome Holmes to the Tenth Circuit, and I urge the Senate to oppose his nomination. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, one of the principal obligations of government should be to enable families to grow and prosper and bring new life into the world. Our policies and our actions should be aimed at helping all families thrive in this great land of opportunity. Surely, we can agree that Congress should do all it can to help young women make choices that will help them be part of such thriving families. In this land that cherishes individual rights and liberties, a woman has the constitutional right to make her own reproductive decisions, and I support that right. But abortion should be rare, as well as safe and legal. For that reason, being pro-choice also means helping women choose whether to become pregnant and providing them with support so they can make choices about their pregnancy that are not determined by their inability to afford or care for a child. Congress and the administration can take a number of constructive steps to enhance choice and help to reduce the number of abortions. Unfortunately, time and time again, this Republican Congress and this Republican administration have turned their backs on women who need our help. If Congress were serious about reducing abortions, we would be expanding family planning. But the administration and the Republican Congress have refused to increase funding for these important programs. A serious effort to create a true culture of life would also include providing additional options to teenagers who become pregnant, such as by supporting adoption and foster care. But last year this Congress limited the number of children eligible for foster care and reduced assistance to States for their foster care systems. Another way to reduce abortions is to promise a pregnant teenager that she and her child can rely upon some basic minimum of health care. For a third of all mothers and babies in America, that means Medicaid. Medicaid also provides the prenatal and pediatric care that children need to be healthy. But earlier this year, the administration proposed $13.5 billion in budget cuts to Medicaid. A further source of help to young women who are pregnant is through the maternal and child health services block grant, which serves 27 million women and children. Here, too, an administration that calls itself pro-life should be doing all it can to provide services to infants. But the President's budget proposes only $693 million for a program that was funded at $730 million just 3 years ago. If the administration wanted to reduce abortions, it would promise women that their infants will not go hungry. But President Bush has proposed cuts to the WIC Program that would reduce services across the program and cut out of the program entirely as many as 850,000 mothers and children. Abortions would be rarer if young mothers could depend upon childcare. This Congress has underfunded childcare by $10.9 billion. The result is that 600,000 fewer children will have their childcare subsidized. In short, there are many constructive steps that Congress could take today to reduce teenage pregnancy and promote a true culture of life. Instead, the Republican leadership has decided to play politics with the health of young women. The bill we are debating today does nothing to stand by young women in their time of need. It does nothing to prevent unwanted pregnancies. It does nothing to reduce abortions by letting women know that their infant will be fed, have good health care, and be cared for. It does not even prevent minors from crossing State lines to obtain an abortion. Instead, it threatens prison time to anyone who helps them to do so, even if the person providing assistance is a compassionate grandparent or aunt or uncle or even a member of the clergy. Congress ought to have higher priorities than turning grandparents into criminals. I believe parental involvement is extremely important to teenagers' lives, and never more so than when a minor must make an extraordinarily difficult decision. But the Federal Criminal Code is not the right tool to improve communication and trust between parents and their daughters. Constructive steps that would actually work to make abortion rare are contained in the Menendez-Lautenberg amendment on teenage pregnancy prevention. It calls for comprehensive sex education, not misleading abstinence-only programs. It increases the authorization for afterschool programs that encourage academic achievement, such as Trio, GEAR UP, and 21st Century Community Learning Centers that help keep teenage girls out of trouble. It increases funding for the Carol White Program, which encourages young women to become involved in sports, since we know that young women who participate in sports are far less likely to become pregnant. Why aren't we spending our time helping young women succeed instead of denying them help in their time of need? The answer is that real solutions would unite us at a time when Republicans want to divide us. I urge all of those who want to make abortion rare to rethink our shopworn slogans and pat answers. The way to foster a culture of life is not through a culture of war.