Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Let me ask further, did not the Senator from Idaho--I know the Senator from New Jersey and myself have indicated that if they wanted to go ahead and have some way that individuals could demonstrate they had a legitimate ownership of that gun, they would be immune from this amendment. That was rejected, as I understand it.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am grateful for the leadership of the Senator from Illinois. That is why the International Brotherhood of Police and the Major Chiefs of Police for the Major Cities strongly oppose this amendment, because it interferes with a police officer's discretion to react as he or she sees fit under extreme emergency circumstances. The International Brotherhood of Police also notes that responsible gun owners who continue to act in accordance with federal, state, and local law are unlikely to have their guns confiscated unless they use or possess the guns in a manner or place that would be prohibited or threatening. That's why they aren't endorsing this amendment. We are here today talking about the increase in availability and accessibility. Today's USA Today is talking about the extraordinary growth in crime that is taking place in communities across this country. And one of the reasons that the police chiefs give is because of the accessibility and availability of what? Guns. So the Senator from Louisiana is saying we want to make these guns in crisis situations more accessible, more available, when you have thugs and those who go out and loot the unfortunate. What possible sense does that make? It makes sense from the NRA's point of view, but when you are trying to have a community that is subject to that kind of violence, that makes no sense whatsoever. Mr. President, we get to the question, well, if people are law- abiding and they own those weapons, guess what? The NRA will not let you list or gather the list for legitimate law-abiding people. They don't want anybody on the list. They won't let you collect names. As the Senator from New Jersey has pointed out, at the time of 9/11 when we had all of those terrorists here, you could find out where they spent the night, you could find out what they charged on their credit cards, you could find out what cars they rented or what hotels they stayed in, but you couldn't find out where they bought their guns. Why? Because of the NRA. They said they won't permit anyone to keep records. This is payoff time, payback time to the National Rifle Association, and it will be payoff time if this goes through. The next time, the Lord only knows, when we have a natural disaster or terrorist attack, when people are at a height of anxiety and places that have these weapons are deserted--not only handguns, but rifles and sometimes even machine guns--we are going to find that the school is out: First responders, leave them alone. Sure we are having strife and violence in the streets, but the Vitter amendment is going to protect the second amendment and leave that alone. That is hogwash, Mr. President. That isn't security. This makes a sham of the Homeland Security bill--a sham of it. And that is what this amendment is. As the Senator from Illinois has pointed out, it is very simple: None of the funds appropriated by this Act-- That means nothing, no first responders-- shall be used for the seizure of a firearm based on the existence of a declaration or state of emergency. If there is any harm out there whatsoever, no first responder can see it. If a gun is lying out there and there is a terrorist who wants to grab it and cause mayhem, the Vitter amendment says the first responder cannot seize it. Go ahead, help yourself, help yourself; go on in that shop and take every rifle and piece of ammunition you want. Why? Because we are first responders. And then come on out and cause havoc. That is what this says, not what some have stated it says. Read the language. The language is clear. That is what it says, and that is why this makes absolutely no sense. We talk about trying to deal with the problems of violence in our communities. We see the proliferation of violence that is taking place, and we are going to make it easier in times of crisis to go out and get more guns when, on the front page of the newspapers, they say this is a contributor to the growth in violence that is taking place in all of our communities in this country. If you want to be in the tank for the NRA, be our guest because that is what this is all about. This amendment makes absolutely no sense in terms of the safety and security of our communities in times of crisis, in times of natural disasters, and in times of potential terrorists in this country. That is the time we need restraint. That is the time we need responsibility. That is the time we ought to follow the first responders who are trained for these kinds of crises, but what we know is those individuals think this amendment makes no sense whatsoever. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KENNEDY. If a situation arose where a home is abandoned, and there are guns--say there were two guns and ammunition available and first responders came in, the house has been abandoned and looters are out there looking around in different buildings, the way I read this amendment is if the first responders get there first and they see these two rifles or additional handguns, the first responders will be prohibited from removing those weapons, preventing them from the possibility of falling into the hands of the looters; am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I wish the Senator from Louisiana had offered this and just said: That is the way we want it in Louisiana. That would be OK. But why he wants to do this so it will affect my State of Massachusetts or other States is something I find unacceptable. I quote here from Superintendent Warren Riley. He was the superintendent of police in New Orleans. He said: Most of the weapons were not taken from the hands of gun owners. Instead, they were seized from empty homes where evacuees left them behind to prevent looters from getting their hands on them. Well, if we accept the Vitter amendment, they won't have that opportunity to do it again. If that was the purpose, for gun owners to be able to have it, then the Vitter amendment should be redrafted. That isn't what his amendment says. Under the Vitter amendment, the police chief and the police chief in Boston or Springfield or Worcester or New Bedford or Fall River or any one of our communities would not be able to provide protection for the citizens of those communities.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, all of us who know Mary Ryan were saddened by her death on April 25. She was a truly outstanding American diplomat and public servant, and shall be greatly missed. Mary Ryan dedicated her life to public service and to helping others. She joined the Foreign Service in 1966 and went on to serve the American people as a skilled diplomat for 36 years, including service as Ambassador to Swaziland and Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs. She retired as one of the few Americans to achieve the rank of Career Ambassador, and one of the very first women to do so, a major distinction in her profession, but above all, she touched many lives in the State Department. She served as a mentor to generations in the Foreign Service, and many considered her to be the matriarch of America's diplomats. As Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs, from 1993 to her retirement in 2002, she frequently testified before Congress, and provided us with valuable guidance and impressive expertise. Thanks to her leadership, Congress made necessary changes to enable the Bureau of Consular Affairs to improve technology, efficiency and information- sharing. She worked aggressively to develop the TIPOFF terrorist lookout system, which became the basis of our current terrorism data system. She was recognized as a leader on consular issues around the world. Mary Ryan exemplified the best in public service. In a commencement address she delivered some years ago at her alma mater, Saint John's University, she said, ``I ask you what JFK asked the youth of my day to do, to return something to the community which has protected and educated you.'' She encouraged young men and women to ``reject the murderous din of materialism,'' emphasizing, ``There is more to life than the amount of money on your W-2 at the end of the year.'' Mary Ryan lived by those words, and they defined her own career and life. In the immediate aftermath of the bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998, Mary put on a hardhat and climbed through the bombed rubble of the embassy in Nairobi, wanting to know the name and background of each of the victims, both American and Kenyan alike. She dedicated much of her subsequent work to improving the security of our embassies around the world, and offering a more compassionate outreach to the State Department's most valuable assets, its men and women. At a service in honor of one of the Foreign Service Officers who died in the Kenya bombing, Mary Ryan spoke these words: ``She was a beautiful, beautiful person. We are greatly diminished by her loss.'' That was true of Mary as well. She too was a beautiful, beautiful, person, and we will miss her very much.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support the Vitter amendment to stop the Customs and Border Protection agency from using its funds to block the personal importation of prescription drugs from Canada that comply with requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. We all know that drugs distributed in Canada are as safe and effective as drugs distributed in the United States. Each of us has constituents who obtain prescription drugs from Canada. The reason is obvious. They are tired of being gouged by exorbitant U.S. prices for their medicines, when the identical drugs are available in Canada at half the price and are just as safe. Drugs from Canada are certainly a better choice for hard-pressed patients than cutting their U.S. pills in half or taking them every other day to make them more affordable or not taking needed drugs at all. Innovative senior citizens first alerted the Nation several years ago to the opportunity available in Canada by organizing bus trips across the border from many of our Northern States. In Massachusetts, the city of Springfield began using Canadian pharmacies to provide drugs for its city employees and retirees. Springfield's example led the way for other city and State governments across the country to do the same. The Internet revolution vastly expanded the opportunity by enabling patients across America to go to Canada on the internet and save thousands of dollars a year on their prescriptions. The administration should not be using the Customs agency to block patients from getting safe drugs from Canada. Yet recently it has been using the Customs agency to avoid a current requirement that the Food and Drug Administration give special notice to a patient if it detains the patient's imported drug at the border. This amendment should stop that abuse, but this amendment is not the real answer on importation. It is time for Congress to allow safe imports from Canada--and from other developed countries, too. S. 334, the Dorgan-Snowe drug importation bill, will do this, and the Senate needs to act on this bill. Patients will be able to import drugs from exporters in Canada who are registered with FDA and regularly inspected by FDA. Wholesalers and pharmacies will be able to import drugs from other developed countries if they register with FDA and agree to regular inspections by FDA. The imported drugs will fully meet FDA standards for approval and will have FDA-approved labeling. S. 334 also prevents drug companies from blocking imports, as several major drug companies have been doing to shut down the rising tide from Canada. The high price Americans pay today for prescription drugs is unacceptable and unfair. The bipartisan Dorgan-Snowe importation bill is a practical solution to bring drug prices down for patients at no risk to the safety of our drug supply. That is the measure we should have voted on today, but our Republican leadership keeps denying us a debate and a vote on that needed bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation on an intelligence issue, p. 3637. The legislation requires the administration to provide the prewar Presidential daily briefs on Iraq to the Senate Intelligence Committee for its investigation on the way the administration's policymakers used this intelligence in its decision to go to war. I introduced an identical bill, S. 2175, on December 22 last year, but it has not yet been reported out of the Intelligence Committee. It is essential that the Intelligence Committee have access to all the information about prewar intelligence in Iraq for its investigation. With threats looming in North Korea and Iran, we need to learn from the mistakes of the past to ensure that we do not repeat them. The PDBs are extremely relevant to this issue, and Congress should have access to them.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation on an intelligence issue, p. 3637. The legislation requires the administration to provide the prewar Presidential daily briefs on Iraq to the Senate Intelligence Committee for its investigation on the way the administration's policymakers used this intelligence in its decision to go to war. I introduced an identical bill, S. 2175, on December 22 last year, but it has not yet been reported out of the Intelligence Committee. It is essential that the Intelligence Committee have access to all the information about prewar intelligence in Iraq for its investigation. With threats looming in North Korea and Iran, we need to learn from the mistakes of the past to ensure that we do not repeat them. The PDBs are extremely relevant to this issue, and Congress should have access to them.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support this bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act. Thirteen months have passed since our committee first approved the bill, and I commend Chairman Enzi for his leadership and perseverance in bringing it before the Senate today. The reauthorization renews our commitment to raising the skills of the American workforce and helping workers compete in the job market. The bill will increase opportunities for workers to find new or better jobs, enable them to hold the good jobs of the future, and help the Nation maintain its leadership in the global economy. The bill strengthens the so-called one-stop system, which is a comprehensive service delivery system for job-seekers and employers. The system is a lifeline for workers who have lost their jobs and need assistance and training to get back on track. It creates stronger partnerships with businesses to recruit new workers and train current workers, so that many more people can be served. It improves opportunities for career ladders and enables job training centers to work with local leaders and businesses to meet the changing needs of their community. The services that one-stops deliver are needed now more than ever as Americans struggle to adjust to the forces of globalization transforming our society and our workforce. The bill also encourages local service providers to continue their training programs until employees are self-sufficient, so that a support system will be in place to help workers qualify for better- paying jobs that will enable them to provide for themselves and their families. In addition, the youth program in the bill will continue to work with both in-school and out-of-school youths to help them obtain the education and the job experience they need to succeed in the future. The bill pays particular attention to the needs of people with disabilities. Workforce training programs must coordinate with vocational rehabilitation programs to provide many more opportunities for those with physical or mental challenges. Through vocational rehabilitation, they can obtain the training, counseling, support and job opportunities they need in order to have independent, productive, and fulfilling lives. For millions of these Americans, vocational rehabilitation is the difference between dependence and independence, between lost potential and a productive career. The bill also contains the Adult Literacy Act, which funds critical programs for states to assist adults in obtaining the basic reading, writing and English language skills they need in order to participate fully in the workforce and in society. In December, the Department of Education released the results of the most recent National Assessment of Adult Literacy, and the facts are alarming. Only a quarter of college graduates could read a document well enough to be considered proficient. Adults in Massachusetts are struggling: 26 percent scored at or below basic the level in document literacy and 46 percent scored at the lowest levels in quantitative literacy. Improving these skills is a key component of job training, and we need to do more to for those who recognize their need to improve these skills in order to improve their lives. The Workforce Investment Act has improved the quality of job training and strengthened connections between employers and training providers. In 2004, every State met or exceeded its performance level for getting participants into employment. The national average was 80 percent of job seekers who entered employment. Currently, there are not enough skilled workers in Massachusetts in key industries such as health care, education, community and social services, and the sciences. Workforce investment boards across the State have been doing their part to fill these needs. For example, the Northshore Workforce Investment Board works with 15 long-term care facilities in the region to train workers in basic and clinical skills. Statewide, the Extended Care Career Ladder Initiative has trained over 6,500 workers in over 140 facilities. Wages increase as these workers move up the ladder, and the facilities are able to retain skilled employees and save on personnel costs. With the extraordinary needs of people looking for jobs, people struggling to keep their jobs and the new needs of employers, the Workforce Investment Act and the services it provides are in high demand. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has continued to underfund and undermine these programs. We need to invest adequate amounts in job training, so that more Americans can take advantage of these opportunities. The Senate's passage of this reauthorization today is a strong sign of support for the workforce system and the programs that help millions of American workers find new and good jobs. Our bipartisan effort in the Senate enabled us to reach a worthwhile consensus on these provisions, and I urge our colleagues in the House to pass this bipartisan package as well. Today's skill deficiencies and the skill demands of tomorrow will require a significant new investment in education and job training. This bill will help workers obtain the training they need to meet the employment priorities of their community, and in doing so will strengthen the entire American workforce and its ability to compete in the global marketplace. It deserves to be enacted as soon as possible.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues in introducing the Student Debt Relief Act to lower college expenses for millions of families and help ensure that cost is not a barrier to a college education. Earlier today, my colleagues and I released a report on ``The College Cost Crunch,'' which contains detailed information showing that students and their families in every State are struggling with skyrocketing college costs and rising student loan debt. The report makes clear that the American dream is at risk unless college becomes more affordable. Parents and students know how important a college education is in our rapidly changing world, and they're willing to make immense sacrifices in order to afford it. But that sacrifice is getting harder and harder as college costs go up and as student debt increases as well. It is unacceptable in this era when higher education in the United States is becoming more important, that it is also becoming more and more expensive. As the report shows, the cost of attending a public 4- year college has increased 32 percent since 2000, while median family incomes have increased by only 6 percent over the same time period. Today, the cost of attendance is over $12,000 at public colleges and over $26,000 at private colleges, and federal student aid has not kept pace with these rising costs. The maximum Pell grant covered 51 percent of the cost of college in 1986, but it covered only 35 percent of the cost last year. As a result, families and students are borrowing more than ever from the federal government and from private banks to finance higher education. Sixty-two percent of undergraduates at 4-year colleges are borrowing to finance their educations. The average student graduates with over $19,000 in student loan debt. We need to solve this debt crisis now before it spirals even farther out of control. Ensuring access to college is key to our opportunity, our economy, and to our values as a nation. It affects opportunity, because each year 400,000 qualified students do not go to a 4-year college, because they cannot afford to do so. It affects our economy, because we need to equip all of our citizens with a college education to compete effectively in the global economy. It affects our values, because high college costs and high student debt are discouraging young Americans from taking lower paying public service jobs, from buying homes, and even from getting married and starting a family. On July 1, to make matters even worse, students and families face one of the biggest student loan interest rate hikes in the history of the program--almost 2 percentage points in a single year. Our bill deals with these issues in several ways. First, it provides mandatory funding for an immediate increase in the maximum Pell grant from $4,050 to $5,100, with additional increases each year. The bill also reforms the current student loan programs and uses the savings to pay for additional increases in need-based aid. This proposal--known as the Student Aid Reward Act, or the STAR Act-- generates $13 billion over 10 years for new Pell grants--at zero cost to the government and taxpayers--by encouraging schools to use the more efficient Direct Loan Program instead of the guaranteed loan program. The bill cuts student loan interest rates in half--to 3.4 percent for students and 4.25 percent for parents. This change will save average borrowers nearly $4,000 in interest payments over the life of their loans. The bill gives borrowers the option to help keep loan payments manageable by tying the payments to income level and capping the payments at 15 percent of a borrower's income. This provision will enable young people to pursue their passions in public service careers such as teaching and social work, without worrying about making ends meet as they repay their debt. The bill also extends and expands a popular college tuition tax deduction, which Republicans allowed to expire at the end of last year. The IRS estimates that nearly 4.7 million students and families took advantage of the deduction in 2004, which allowed them to deduct up to $4,000 in tuition expenses from their taxes. In Massachusetts, these changes would help thousands of students. If the Pell grant is increased to $5,100, Massachusetts would receive $63 million in new Pell grant aid. 4,700 additional students would receive grants, and the average grant would increase by more than $620--from $2,329 to $2,950. If student loan interest rates are cut in half, students in Massachusetts would save $3,470 over the life of their loans. With more options to make loan payments contingent on income, new teachers in Massachusetts, who earn $34,000 a year, would have a reduction of 22 percent in their monthly loan payments, and after 10 years, their loans would be forgiven. Congress needs to act now to make education a priority and do more to help struggling students and families. But the administration and the Republican Congress have other priorities. Earlier this year, they perpetrated the biggest raid on student aid in the history of the program--stripping $12 billion from the program to offset tax giveaways for the wealthiest Americans. If we returned tax rates for the wealthiest Americans to their levels when President Bush took office, we could pay for this entire proposal, and pay for other priorities for struggling middle class families as well. Some of these proposals pay for themselves by cutting wasteful bank subsidies from the student loan programs and directing those funds to help students afford college. Report after report has shown that the Direct Loan Program saves taxpayer money. It is time for the Republican Congress to stand up to their friends in the lending industry and do what's right for students and families and the Nation. We also need new investments in education if we are serious about reviving the American dream of a college education. When Congress passed the G.I. bill after World War II, the Nation reaped a benefit of $7 for every $1 invested in sending our returning troops to college. We need that kind of investment again to assure prosperity for our families and our Nation in the years ahead. The Student Debt Relief Act is a good step in the right direction, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I ask unanimous consent that our report and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues in introducing the Student Debt Relief Act to lower college expenses for millions of families and help ensure that cost is not a barrier to a college education. Earlier today, my colleagues and I released a report on ``The College Cost Crunch,'' which contains detailed information showing that students and their families in every State are struggling with skyrocketing college costs and rising student loan debt. The report makes clear that the American dream is at risk unless college becomes more affordable. Parents and students know how important a college education is in our rapidly changing world, and they're willing to make immense sacrifices in order to afford it. But that sacrifice is getting harder and harder as college costs go up and as student debt increases as well. It is unacceptable in this era when higher education in the United States is becoming more important, that it is also becoming more and more expensive. As the report shows, the cost of attending a public 4- year college has increased 32 percent since 2000, while median family incomes have increased by only 6 percent over the same time period. Today, the cost of attendance is over $12,000 at public colleges and over $26,000 at private colleges, and federal student aid has not kept pace with these rising costs. The maximum Pell grant covered 51 percent of the cost of college in 1986, but it covered only 35 percent of the cost last year. As a result, families and students are borrowing more than ever from the federal government and from private banks to finance higher education. Sixty-two percent of undergraduates at 4-year colleges are borrowing to finance their educations. The average student graduates with over $19,000 in student loan debt. We need to solve this debt crisis now before it spirals even farther out of control. Ensuring access to college is key to our opportunity, our economy, and to our values as a nation. It affects opportunity, because each year 400,000 qualified students do not go to a 4-year college, because they cannot afford to do so. It affects our economy, because we need to equip all of our citizens with a college education to compete effectively in the global economy. It affects our values, because high college costs and high student debt are discouraging young Americans from taking lower paying public service jobs, from buying homes, and even from getting married and starting a family. On July 1, to make matters even worse, students and families face one of the biggest student loan interest rate hikes in the history of the program--almost 2 percentage points in a single year. Our bill deals with these issues in several ways. First, it provides mandatory funding for an immediate increase in the maximum Pell grant from $4,050 to $5,100, with additional increases each year. The bill also reforms the current student loan programs and uses the savings to pay for additional increases in need-based aid. This proposal--known as the Student Aid Reward Act, or the STAR Act-- generates $13 billion over 10 years for new Pell grants--at zero cost to the government and taxpayers--by encouraging schools to use the more efficient Direct Loan Program instead of the guaranteed loan program. The bill cuts student loan interest rates in half--to 3.4 percent for students and 4.25 percent for parents. This change will save average borrowers nearly $4,000 in interest payments over the life of their loans. The bill gives borrowers the option to help keep loan payments manageable by tying the payments to income level and capping the payments at 15 percent of a borrower's income. This provision will enable young people to pursue their passions in public service careers such as teaching and social work, without worrying about making ends meet as they repay their debt. The bill also extends and expands a popular college tuition tax deduction, which Republicans allowed to expire at the end of last year. The IRS estimates that nearly 4.7 million students and families took advantage of the deduction in 2004, which allowed them to deduct up to $4,000 in tuition expenses from their taxes. In Massachusetts, these changes would help thousands of students. If the Pell grant is increased to $5,100, Massachusetts would receive $63 million in new Pell grant aid. 4,700 additional students would receive grants, and the average grant would increase by more than $620--from $2,329 to $2,950. If student loan interest rates are cut in half, students in Massachusetts would save $3,470 over the life of their loans. With more options to make loan payments contingent on income, new teachers in Massachusetts, who earn $34,000 a year, would have a reduction of 22 percent in their monthly loan payments, and after 10 years, their loans would be forgiven. Congress needs to act now to make education a priority and do more to help struggling students and families. But the administration and the Republican Congress have other priorities. Earlier this year, they perpetrated the biggest raid on student aid in the history of the program--stripping $12 billion from the program to offset tax giveaways for the wealthiest Americans. If we returned tax rates for the wealthiest Americans to their levels when President Bush took office, we could pay for this entire proposal, and pay for other priorities for struggling middle class families as well. Some of these proposals pay for themselves by cutting wasteful bank subsidies from the student loan programs and directing those funds to help students afford college. Report after report has shown that the Direct Loan Program saves taxpayer money. It is time for the Republican Congress to stand up to their friends in the lending industry and do what's right for students and families and the Nation. We also need new investments in education if we are serious about reviving the American dream of a college education. When Congress passed the G.I. bill after World War II, the Nation reaped a benefit of $7 for every $1 invested in sending our returning troops to college. We need that kind of investment again to assure prosperity for our families and our Nation in the years ahead. The Student Debt Relief Act is a good step in the right direction, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I ask unanimous consent that our report and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Chair let me know when there is 30 seconds left, please?

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. Amendment No. 4543

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Bill of Rights is our Nation's greatest accomplishment. It has been our great fortress against the passions and politics of every era. It has been our great beacon to the rest of the world, demonstrating that we value our liberty more deeply than power or riches. And it is fitting that such a document, which describes the rights inherent to a free people, has not been amended-- not once--in its entire 217 years. The Founders knew that the first amendment of the Bill of Rights would allow all manner of speech, including some speech that was contemptible. They were no strangers to fiery rhetoric. Most of them began their public lives not only by making speeches but by engaging in other expressive conduct, such as hanging King George's tax collectors in effigy and dumping tea into Boston Harbor. The breadth of the first amendment is not an accident; it is an essential part of the Founders' design. For the 217 years that followed the adoption of the Bill of Rights, we have managed to preserve every word. Every generation of leaders-- until today--considered the Bill of Rights to be sacred and recognized that they could not claim to be protecting our freedoms by curtailing them. And the past 217 years have proved that we can survive civil wars and world wars, fascism, communism, economic collapse and all manner of civil strife--all without diluting the Bill of Rights. So why are we addressing flag burning? I completely agree that flag burning is a contemptible and malicious act, calculated to outrage rather than persuade. But flag burning occurs infrequently and can usually be punished under existing laws. We are being asked to undermine the foundation of our democracy in order to squash a gnat. We might be forgiven for focusing on this small problem if we were not inundated with great ones. If the Senate wants to improve our Nation, why don't we turn today to legislation that would reduce the vast numbers of children who go to bed hungry each night? If the Senate wants to prevent despicable behavior, why don't we hold comprehensive hearings on the billions of tax dollars that have been stolen and squandered by companies hired to rebuild Iraq? If the Senate wants to keep faith with our veterans, why don't we leave the Constitution alone and work to improve our VA hospitals? The inescapable answer is that our Republican leaders' priorities are being driven by election year politics. But this is even more than a case of misplaced priorities. It is playing politics with our most fundamental freedom. Doing so opens up a Pandora's box, and if our cherished Bill of Rights is further diluted by future generations, that loss of liberty will trace its heritage to this Senate. Let me end with the words of our national anthem, the ``Star Spangled Banner''. As every schoolchild knows, the first stanza ends with these words: O say does that star spangled banner yet wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave? This amendment may protect our star spangled banner, but that flag will wave over a land that is a little less free and a little less brave. I urge this Senate to find the courage to leave the Bill of Rights intact. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have said it before and I will say it again--the quality of health care in America is in critical condition. Forty-six million Americans lack health insurance. That is over 10 percent of the people in this country. It is time to focus on revising our health care system to meet the needs of patients by extending coverage and raising the standard of care. Incremental steps can make a difference. A recent op-ed article in the Boston Globe by Cleve Killingsworth, president and CEO of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, highlights an informative nationwide study by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement of Cambridge, MA, in which 3,000 acute-care hospitals across the country were asked to follow specific practical guidelines proven to save patients' lives. The study, conducted over 18 months, showed that over 122,000 lives had been saved when hospitals implemented just a series of basic safety precautions to improve patient care. Blue Cross Blue Shield has worked effectively to improve health care in Massachusetts, and I commend Mr. Killingsworth for his impressive leadership and for bringing this important study to our attention. I believe that my colleagues will be especially interested in these practical steps to improve the quality of hospital care and their life- saving potential, and I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Killingsworth's important article be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Older Americans Act has been a lifeline for senior citizens across the country for 40 years, and all of us want it to continue to fulfill its important role in the years ahead. Like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the Older Americans Act is part of our commitment to care for the nation's seniors in their golden years. This year, the first of the members of the baby boom generation will be eligible for the act's services. One in nine Americans are over age 65 today. By the year 2030, the number will be one in five. It is clear we need to get our priorities right in this reauthorization. That means starting now to put the infrastructure in place to provide services to baby boomers who retire. This bill takes some of the necessary steps. It requires State and local agencies to acknowledge the changing demographics and to plan ahead. I hope Congress will continue to build on these efforts in the coming years and provide increased funds for the important programs in this act. Our bill also encourages civic activities by seniors. Numerous examples exist of successful volunteer programs involving seniors, such as Senior Corps, Experience Corps, and Family Friends, and we need to build on these successes. The members of the new generation of older Americans obviously want to be engaged in their communities after they retire, and it is essential to draw on their experience and knowledge in constructive ways. The bill is also intended to encourage good nutrition, healthy living and disease prevention among seniors. The Meals on Wheels program, enacted in the 1970s, is one of its greatest successes, and Massachusetts has been in the forefront of the effort to provide community-based nutrition services to the elderly. Our State program coordinates 28 nutrition projects throughout the State to deal with poor nutrition and social isolation of seniors. Our bill will expand the ability of programs such as Meals on Wheels to reach all older individuals who need better nutrition. According to the Census Bureau, 6.7 million persons aged 55 or older will be living in poverty by 2008, a 22 percent increase since 2000. By 2015, the number will increase to 9 million if the current trend continues. The Older Americans Act also provides essential opportunities for employment of older Americans through the Senior Community Service Employment Program, which offers job training for seniors and involves them in the communities which they love, and which also love them. Last year, the program supported 61,000 jobs and served 92,000 people. Congress created this program to provide older adults with community service opportunities. We recognized that senior citizens are especially valuable assets to the communities in which they live. Through community service, older adults are also provided with the job training they need to become self-sufficient in the workforce. Unfortunately, in recent years the focus on community service has blurred, and many of us are concerned about the administration's lack of interest in maintaining this important aspect of the program. Older Americans today provide 45 million hours of valuable service to their communities, particularly in senior centers, public libraries, and nutrition programs. Overall, our bill maintains the emphasis on community service and enables the program to continue to serve older Americans efficiently and well. As this bill moves forward, it is essential that community service remain paramount and that any attempts to weaken this program be defeated. This is a good bipartisan bill and I support its passage.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Older Americans Act has been a lifeline for senior citizens across the country for 40 years, and all of us want it to continue to fulfill its important role in the years ahead. Like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the Older Americans Act is part of our commitment to care for the nation's seniors in their golden years. This year, the first of the members of the baby boom generation will be eligible for the act's services. One in nine Americans are over age 65 today. By the year 2030, the number will be one in five. It is clear we need to get our priorities right in this reauthorization. That means starting now to put the infrastructure in place to provide services to baby boomers who retire. This bill takes some of the necessary steps. It requires State and local agencies to acknowledge the changing demographics and to plan ahead. I hope Congress will continue to build on these efforts in the coming years and provide increased funds for the important programs in this act. Our bill also encourages civic activities by seniors. Numerous examples exist of successful volunteer programs involving seniors, such as Senior Corps, Experience Corps, and Family Friends, and we need to build on these successes. The members of the new generation of older Americans obviously want to be engaged in their communities after they retire, and it is essential to draw on their experience and knowledge in constructive ways. The bill is also intended to encourage good nutrition, healthy living and disease prevention among seniors. The Meals on Wheels program, enacted in the 1970s, is one of its greatest successes, and Massachusetts has been in the forefront of the effort to provide community-based nutrition services to the elderly. Our State program coordinates 28 nutrition projects throughout the State to deal with poor nutrition and social isolation of seniors. Our bill will expand the ability of programs such as Meals on Wheels to reach all older individuals who need better nutrition. According to the Census Bureau, 6.7 million persons aged 55 or older will be living in poverty by 2008, a 22 percent increase since 2000. By 2015, the number will increase to 9 million if the current trend continues. The Older Americans Act also provides essential opportunities for employment of older Americans through the Senior Community Service Employment Program, which offers job training for seniors and involves them in the communities which they love, and which also love them. Last year, the program supported 61,000 jobs and served 92,000 people. Congress created this program to provide older adults with community service opportunities. We recognized that senior citizens are especially valuable assets to the communities in which they live. Through community service, older adults are also provided with the job training they need to become self-sufficient in the workforce. Unfortunately, in recent years the focus on community service has blurred, and many of us are concerned about the administration's lack of interest in maintaining this important aspect of the program. Older Americans today provide 45 million hours of valuable service to their communities, particularly in senior centers, public libraries, and nutrition programs. Overall, our bill maintains the emphasis on community service and enables the program to continue to serve older Americans efficiently and well. As this bill moves forward, it is essential that community service remain paramount and that any attempts to weaken this program be defeated. This is a good bipartisan bill and I support its passage.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to commend the exemplary work of Tim Leshan, who is leaving the National Human Genome Research Institute at the National Institutes of Health to become the director of government relations and community affairs at Brown University. For the past 5 years, Mr. Leshan has served the National Human Genome Research Institute with great distinction. As branch chief of policy and program analysis at the Institute, he provided focus and leadership in numerous areas of public policy on genetics. He served as the congressional liaison during the completion of the Human Genome Project and the International HapMap project, and was the Institute's planning and evaluation officer. As liaison to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the White House, he has facilitated contacts between the director of the Institute and numerous Federal, State, and international policy makers. Mr. Leshan has guided policy development for the Institute on issues relating to genomic medicine, intellectual property, and regulation of genetic tests. He has also facilitated the resolution of complex policy issues for all of NIH with respect to the National Library of Medicine's PubChem database, and provided technical assistance to the House and Senate appropriations committees and authorizing committees. He also had a particularly important leadership role in the development of legislation against genetic discrimination and on privacy protections for genetic information. He has provided impressive technical advice to many of us in the Senate in drafting legislation on genetic nondiscrimination and health disparities. One of Tim's major regrets as he leaves the Institute is not having seen the passage and signing of genetic nondiscrimination legislation. Hopefully, action on that legislation will be completed before the end of the current session of Congress, and I am sure Tim will be there at the signing as a principal adviser for all of us on the bill. Before joining the Institute, Mr. Leshan was the director of public policy for the American Society for Cell Biology, where he cofounded the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, and staffed the Joint Steering Committee for Public Policy. Earlier, Mr. Leshan had worked in government relations at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and also at Duke University. Through his contributions to public policy, health, and privacy, Mr. Leshan's work has exemplified the best of government service, and the impact that such dedicated service can have for the Nation as a whole. I extend my warmest wishes to Mr. Leshan in his new responsibilities at Brown University, and on behalf of the Congress and the country gratitude for his outstanding service to NIH, Congress, and the country.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment to ensure that the Defense Department invests in critical basic research and maintains the workforce it needs to stay globally competitive. Our military is first in the world because of the quality and training of our personnel and the technological sophistication of our equipment and weaponry. But many of our Nation's best civilian scientific minds in the Defense Department are nearing retirement age, and our uncertain commitment to basic research funding makes it harder to attract a new corps of scientists to do this research. Our amendment that the Senator from Maine and I are offering includes an additional $5 million for the Department's SMART Scholars Program which is essentially an ROTC program for its civilian scientists. The amendment will more than double the funding level provided last year and provide more than 100 full college scholarships and graduate fellowships in science, technology, engineering, and math. Our amendment also adds $40 million to the Department's funding of basic research in science and technology to ensure that its investment in the field is maintained and our military technology remains the best in the world. The amendment is supported by more than 60 of the most prestigious institutions of higher education in the Nation. Advances in military technology often have their source in the work of civilian scientists in Department of Defense laboratories. Unfortunately, a large percentage of these scientists are nearing retirement. Today, nearly one in three DOD civilian engineers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics is eligible to retire. In 7 years, 70 percent will be of retirement age. It is distressing that the number of new doctoral level scientists being produced by our major universities each year has declined by 6 percent since 1997. Many of those who do graduate are ineligible to work on sensitive defense matters, since about a third of all science and engineering doctorate degrees awarded at American universities go to foreign students. It is unlikely that retiring DOD scientists can be replaced by current private industry employees. About 5,000 science and engineering positions are unfilled in private industry in defense-related fields. The Department of Labor estimates that by 2012, more than 40 percent of jobs in science and engineering occupations will be unfilled. We face a major math and science challenge in both higher education and in elementary and secondary education. We are tied with Latvia for 28th in the industrial world in math education, and that is far from good enough. We have fallen from 3rd in the world to 15th in producing scientists and engineers. Clearly, we need a new National Defense Education Act of the size and scope passed nearly 50 years ago. At the very least, however, the legislation before us needs to do more to maintain our military's technological advantage. In 2004, over 100 ``highly rated'' SMART Scholar applications were turned down because of insufficient funding. Our amendment provides enough funds to support every one of those talented young people who want to learn and serve. Our amendment also deals with the critical need to provide the basic research dollars that enable science and technology graduates and students to pursue their research. Basic research investments by the Defense Department in science and technology a generation ago helped the United States win the Cold War. But funding for basic research has fallen by more than 10 percent in the past decade. Investing in basic research and attracting the best minds to science and engineering are as important today as they have ever been. Almost every day, you can pick up the paper and see yet another high- performing company setting up an R&D shop in India or China. Those countries get it. They know how important basic research is to their prospects for growth. But this Congress and this President ignore how important it is to invest in our talent and our research capacity. China now graduates over 2\1/2\ times the number of engineers and computer science majors as the United States. We still have an edge in dollars invested, but our average annual investment growth in R&D is far less than China and other countries. These countries are increasing their government investment in science and technology, but our Federal research investment is stagnating as a share of the U.S. economy. It has plateaued at 1.1 percent of GDP. We are still ahead of most other nations, but they are catching up. In combined Federal and private R&D, the fastest growing countries such as Ireland and Singapore are clearly challenging us. Yet the President's proposed budget reduces Defense Department basic research, and this authorization bill does little to increase it over last year's appropriation, even though we know we have to increase it. The Defense Science Board recommends that funding for science and technology reach 3 percent of total defense spending, and the administration and Congress have adopted this goal in the past. But the President's budget cuts science and technology funding by 18.6 percent and falls well short of this goal. The board also recommends that 20 percent of that amount be dedicated to basic research. Again, the administration's budget falls short: basic research accounts for only 12.6 percent of total science and technology funding. Our leading economic and scientific thinkers are telling us we need to invest in these areas to stay globally competitive. The National Academy of Sciences, the Council on Competitiveness, and others say it is wrong to ignore the need to increase investment in basic research. Nobel prize-winners such as American physicist Steven Chu say that we need to increase Federal investment in long-term basic research because ``there are growing signs that all is not well.'' The Internet, the laser, MRIs, global positioning systems-all came from basic research at the Department of Defense. We can't forget that this type of research leads to the kinds of innovations that can generate millions of jobs and major new economic activity. Our global competitiveness deserves high priority, and our amendment provides it. The goal is to see that American innovation grows and that we continue to attract and retain the best and the brightest men and women to these critical fields in math and science. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this needed amendment to provide more scholarships to math and science students and to increase our Federal commitment to basic research at the Department of Defense.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 4 minutes. I listened very carefully to the Senator from New Hampshire talk about flextime. Flextime is something that those of us on this side of the aisle support. But that is not what is in the bill. That is not what is in the bill. The Federal Government has what they call core time--core agency hours. That means that they have to work from 11 to 2 or 11 to 3, and then the other hours they can make the judgment whether they want to use that, in terms of flextime. That is the kind of proposal that makes some sense. That is what we would support. But that is not in this legislation. The person who decides whether Mrs. Smith is going to get the time off to go to see her child's play or to see the ballgame is going to be the employer--period. Make no mistake about it. That is the way it is written here on page 4 of their legislation. If we are talking about providing a degree of flextime--we have been through this; we understand what it is--flextime is not the time that is allocated just by the employer when the employer makes the sole judgment and decision, as they do under the Enzi proposal--No. 1. No. 2, the Senator from New Hampshire says, let's let that person work 50 hours a week this week and maybe 30 hours a week the next week. Here it is on page 4, which says: in which more than 40 hours of the work requirement may occur in a week of the period, except that no more than 10 hours may be shifted between the 2 weeks involved. That means you can work 50 hours 1 week and 30 hours at the present time. What is the current law? The current law is, if you work 50 hours 1 week and then 30 hours the second week, you get the overtime for the 10 hours here. Do you think that is in the Enzi proposal? No. It is not there. They have eliminated it. You work the extra hours and you don't get the extra pay. Some deal--some deal for someone. That is called flextime. If you can sell that, you can sell the Brooklyn Bridge. This is what you are doing. Instead of giving the person the overtime, as has gone on under the Federal Labor Standards Act, that has been eliminated. There is something else that the women of the country who are concerned about equal pay for equal work ought to understand. In the legislation under the Enzi amendment, because of the fact that you raise the exemption for companies that will be covered from $500,000 to $1 million, and because you eliminate the Federal Labor Standards Act protection for those who are involved in interstate commerce--that is all spelled out on page 13--that means 10 million workers will not have the protections of the minimum wage or the Federal Labor Standards Act, which means that the equal pay for equal work protections that are there for 4 to 5 million women will not be there. Does America understand the difficulty we have had in this Chamber trying to get equal pay for equal work, let alone equal pay for comparable work? We have been able to get it under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and that is being eliminated for 4 to 5 million women.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. I reserve the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I have a final question. Would the Senator agree with me that the time for talking has ended and the time for action ought to be now?