Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senator from Washington was kind enough on a previous occasion to offer amendment No. 3688. I call for the regular order.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. For any of my colleagues who had the chance last evening to look at the national news, the story that led virtually all of the national networks was the concern that our public health officials and worldwide public health officials have, with regard to the dangers of an avian flu pandemic. We listened to the Secretary of HHS talk about the numbers of Americans who would be affected, some 2 million people. With a pandemic, we would face the potential of closing down airlines, closing airports, dangers in the workplace, health dangers. This is something the Subcommittee on Bioterrorism and Public Health Preparedness has been very concerned about, and I pay special commendation to the chairman of our committee, Senator Burr, who has had a series of hearings not only on the dangers of avian flu and flu generally but also on the dangers of bioterrorism. There are some very important common threats that come from bioterrorism and from an avian flu danger. Obviously the first thing that a nation has to do is to be able to detect these pathogens in countries where they may be developing, and then, secondly, to detect them here at home. That is why development and support for a public health system is so important. Then there is the challenge of containment, to try to contain any of the dangers. And then, obviously, there is the treatment for individuals who are affected. That can be treating individuals who are affected or trying to provide a vaccine for individuals, so the dangers to those individuals are minimized. These challenges all fall under the rubric of the development of a national plan. I will come back to that in a moment. We in the United States have not had that kind of effective plan developed that would be necessary to deal with the central challenge of a public health emergency. This amendment I offer is a simple but vital amendment. It is a linchpin in any kind of battle against the dangers of avian flu. That is, if we are expecting our drug industry to be able to develop the vaccines--and we have given a good deal of flexibility to the Food and Drug Administration in these kinds of emergencies, to provide approval to vaccines that might not have been and probably would not have been given the kind of safety evaluations that other prescriptions drugs would have taken through--we have to ask: Who is going to receive these vaccines or treatments? Primarily, they will be individuals whom we call first responders. What are they going to do? They are going to go into the infected area and try to contain it. It is one thing to invest hundreds of millions and billions of dollars in developing the vaccines and treatments to minimize the health impact of the dangers of avian flu, but if we are going to ask first responders to go in and risk their lives, their health, and the economic stability and security of their families, we ought to be willing to say to these individuals: If you are going to get sick, and you are going to lose your job, or if there is going to be danger to your health as you serve as the frontline defenders for the rest of society, then we are going to compensate you for the loss of income you are going to have as a result of taking this vaccine. That is what this amendment does. It provides for a compensation program for first responders, the people on the front lines of a pandemic. One can say: Is this necessary? All we have to do is look at history, and we will find that when you do not have a compensation program, you do not have volunteers willing to serve as first responders, and willing to take on these challenges. This amendment protects our first responders, and so it protects the rest of society as well. It is a very limited amendment. That is the reason it is so important. You can ask: Is this really an emergency? No one can look at the news last night, and see the lead story on all three networks, saying there is a real danger that is coming at you, and say we ought to treat this as business as usual. That is why I believe this amendment is appropriate to this supplemental. The administration seems to be suffering from a condition that could be called ``CDD,'' competence deficit disorder. Whether in Iraq or Katrina or any other major crisis, the administration has been incompetent, including the issue of dealing with avian flu. Our HELP Committee has analyzed the administration's regular failure to prepare for a flu pandemic, and today we are releasing a report showing that they have failed to take the steps needed to see that America is ready for this national challenge. They have failed to invest in the hospital surge capacity, in needed information technology, and in the public health surveillance and training programs that are needed for an effective response. The endless challenges outlined in the pandemic flu plan are a symbol of the administration's failure. The preparations for avian flu have been in such prolonged disarray that they are releasing their third new plan this week. The Bush administration has known of the need for a plan to prepare for a flu pandemic since the day it took office. But 2001 came and went without a plan, then 2002, 2003, 2004, and almost all of 2005, and still no plan. In each of these years, the warnings of a potential pandemic grew louder but were ignored. This chart shows the warnings that have been offered by health experts around the world. From May 2002, the World Health Organization: Authorities must understand the potential impact and threat of pandemic influenza. This is from the GAO, November 2000: Federal and State influenza plans do not address the key issues surrounding the purchase and distribution of vaccines and antivirals. From the Institute of Medicine in 1992: Policymakers must realize and understand the magnitude of the influenza pandemic. Then we had the series of flu outbreaks: December 2003, outbreak in South Korea; outbreak in Vietnam, 2004; outbreak in 2006 of avian flu in Britain. This chart shows all the outbreaks in the most recent years. What have other nations done on the pandemic? First, let's look at other countries around the world that have developed a comprehensive plan for the pandemic. In October 1997, we had a program by the Japanese; Canada in February 2004; Czechoslovakia in April 2004; February 2005, Hong Kong; March of 2005, Great Britain. I will not include these plans in the Record, but let me show the extent of the British pandemic flu program. I have illustrated this at other times during similar discussions. Here is the Canadian plan. These are enormously comprehensive programs. They are programs that deal with rural areas, urban areas, training programs. And not only are there programs, they are being implemented. Our strategy was issued in November 2005, and it has remained incomplete since then. The administration has sent a second plan to us now. What is it basically that we are trying to do? We are trying to get a comprehensive plan from the administration, a plan that has been implemented. Let me show one other chart. This isn't just what I believe. From the GAO report, November 2000: Federal and State influenza plans do not address the key issues surrounding the purchase and distribution of vaccines and antivirals. From June 2005: The draft plan does not establish the actions the Federal Government would take to purchase and distribute the vaccine during an influenza pandemic. This is from a GAO June 2005 report. That is the current situation. Right now, we have in this legislation resources to pruchase the vaccines in an emergency. But we do not have a compensation program. We have a compensation program in name, but that is all it is. It is not funded. Well, you can say we will try to find a way to fund it in the future. Tell that to the downwinders out in Utah. Tell that to my friend, Senator Hatch, who has been absolutely brilliant in terms of looking after those individuals, whose lives were so affected by the experiments with nuclear materials so many years ago. He, to his credit, developed a compensation program. I welcomed the opportunity to work with him to try to help these people whose health had been absolutely destroyed by exposures, in the national interest, as we developed various nuclear weapons. Here is our majority leader, Senator Frist, who said: Too many health care workers have been deterred from receiving the smallpox vaccine--in part because of the uncertainties about what would happen, and how they would provide for themselves, if they suffered a serious adverse reaction to the vaccine. That states it as clearly and succinctly as one could possibly say it. We do not have a guaranteed compensation program for pandemic flu vaccines in this legislation or in any other place in our health care system. This amendment provides a down-payment for the compensation program. You can say: Well, why should we do that for this particular program? All we have to do is look at other vaccine programs, other public health programs, for swine flu, childhood vaccines, and, after Congress acted, for smallpox. We had a compensation plan for people injured by those experimental vaccines. But for the new ones, we only have an empty sham of a compensation, with no funding. So, Mr. President, that is what this amendment does. It provides some $289 million for the development of that compensation program. It is effectively the same kind of program that has been essential in the past, and it is essential now if we expect our front-line responders to be willing to take experimental vaccines and to risk their lives for the common good of the community that may well be threatened by avian flu or bioterrorism. Individuals who are well trained as front-line responders ought to have the assurance that if they take an experimental drug and they go out there to protect the public, if something is going to happen to them, there will be a compensation fund to compensate them for their health care needs and their immediate needs, if that should turn out to be the case. Nothing more, nothing less. That is essentially what this amendment does. Mr. President, I see our floor managers here. I am glad to accommodate whatever they would like. I would like to get a yea or nay vote at some time. I know they have a full program. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY. That is fine and understandable. I will wait until we hear from the chairman and ranking member. I don't intend to extend the discussion. I think it is pretty understandable. I am glad to wait until the leader lets us know when they want to address it and complete action on it. I will be available.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as the senior Senator from Kentucky knows, the Kennedy-Biden-Leahy amendment sets aside $104.5 million in economic support funds in the supplemental for U.S. nongovernmental organizations for democracy building programs that promote the long- term development of civil society, political parties, election processes, the rule of law, reconciliation activities, and parliament in Iraq. Currently, there are six nongovernmental organizations doing excellent democracy work in Iraq under extremely difficult and dangerous conditions. Our expectation is that $96 million of the funds in our amendment would be allocated among the six organizations in the following way to continue their work in Iraq: IFES would receive $20 million. The International Research and Exchanges Board would receive $6 million. The National Endowment for Democracy would receive $10 million. The America's Development Foundation would receive $16 million. The National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute would each receive $22 million. These funds would be in addition to the $15 million that the administration has requested for these activities in fiscal year 07. In each case, the additional funds are intended to be used by the organizations over the next 18 months to continue their current operations. I understand that each organization will need to submit a proposal to justify the use of funds before they can be made available. Does the Senator from Kentucky agree with this allocation of funds?

Mr. KENNEDY. Does the Senator from Vermont agree with this allocation of funds?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, and the Senator from Vermont for their assistance on this amendment. The amendment provides $104.5 million for American nongovernmental organizations helping Iraqis to create the essential building blocks of democracy. It is cosponsored by Senators Biden and Leahy. Last year, Iraq passed several important milestones on the long road to democracy. However, as important as the two elections and the referendum on the constitution were, they were not decisive, and it is far from clear that democracy is being firmly established in Iraq. The process of building democratic institutions is different and requires patience in developing effective governmental structures, a genuine rule of law, political parties committed to peaceful means, an active civil society, and a free press. Constructive international engagement is essential as well in the case of Iraq. For a country as heavily repressed as long as Iraq, democracy will take even longer to take root. It is far from clear, however, that the Bush administration has a long-term strategy--or even a short-term strategy--to solidify and continue the democratic gains that have been made so far. American nongovernmental organizations such as the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute, the National Endowment for Democracy, IFES, formerly known. as the International Foundation for Election Systems, the International Research and Exchanges Board and America's Development Foundation are well respected in Iraq and throughout the world. Each has substantial operations in Iraq, and their work is essential to the administration's goal of building a stable democracy in Iraq. Yet despite their success so far in helping to promote democracy and the enormous risks their employees take by working in the war zone, the administration has made no long-term commitment to provide funding for their work in Iraq. Each organization operates on pins and needles, never knowing when their funding for Iraq operations will dry up. The American nongovernmental organization IFES has been in Iraq since October 2003. It has provided technical assistance in each of Iraq's elections so far, and it has been asked to provide such assistance for regional and provincial elections scheduled for April 2007. It is also preparing for a possible second referendum on the constitution, and is assisting as well in the enactment and implementation of legislation governing the operations of a new election council for local elections. Inexplicably, funding will run out in June, and the administration has not yet committed any additional funds. None of the funds in this supplemental spending bill are set-aside for it, and none of the meager $63 million requested in the fiscal year 2007 budget for democracy- building is intended for IFES either. Our amendment would provide $20 million to sustain its democracy work in Iraq for the next 18 months, through the end of fiscal year 2007. An independent media is also essential to a successful democracy. A U.S. nongovernmental organization, the International Research and Exchanges Board--IREX is working in Iraq to see that the Iraqi people have independent, professional, high quality news and public affairs information. To create an environment in which a free press can flourish, it is also seeking to establish a legal, regulatory, and policy environment that supports independent media. IREX's funding for these important programs is also running out, and it will be forced to close its operations this summer, which would pull the rug out from under many struggling new press organizations in Iraq. Our amendment would provide $6 million to sustain IREX's democracy work in Iraq for the next 18 months. In addition, the nongovernmental organization America's Development Foundation provides essential aid to support and sustain civil society in Iraq. ADF and its partner civil society organizations in Iraq have provided training and assistance to thousands of Iraqi government officials at the national, regional, and local level on issues such as anticorruption, transparency, accountability, fiscal responsibility, whistleblower protection, and the development of nongovernmental organizations. ADF wants to continue its work, but its funding will end in June. USAID supports this work and has a contract pending, but it doesn't have the resources to fulfill it. Our amendment provides $16 million to sustain its work over the next 18 months. Similarly, the National Endowment for Democracy has no clear sense of what the future holds for them in Iraq. Two of the endowment's core grantees--the Center for International Private Enterprise and the Labor Solidarity Center in Iraq--have important democracy promotion functions. Since opening a regional office in Baghdad in October 2003, the Center for International Private Enterprise has worked to build capacity for market oriented democratic reform in Iraq. It has provided training and grant support to approximately 22 Iraqi business associations and chambers of commerce. The Labor Solidarity Center works directly with Iraqi trade unions to develop skills in strengthening independent and democratic trade unions. In addition, the endowment partners with 32 local organizations on the ground in Iraq to promote and sustain civil society projects on political development, raising awareness of women's rights, and encouraging the free flow of information to Iraqi citizens. The endowment wants to continue working directly with the Iraqi people and be able to guarantee continuity in its democracy grants to Iraqi organizations. But no funding is set aside in this bill or in the fiscal year 2007 budget for its programs. Our amendment provides $10 million to sustain the democracy programs of the Center for International Private Enterprise, the Labor Solidarity Center, and the Endowment for Democracy's local partners for 18 months. Similarly, the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic institute--are doing truly impressive work in Iraq under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. The International Republican Institute programs in Iraq have focused on three principal goals: development of an issue-based political party system; establishment of the foundation for a more transparent and responsive government; and the emergence of an active and politically involved civil society. The National Democratic Institute supports a number of democracy programs in Iraq as well, with emphasis on political parties, governance, civil society and women's rights. It has four offices in Iraq to promote these essential building blocks of strong democracy, and it works directly with Iraqi partners and hundreds of local civic organization. Both IRI and NDI want to continue to build these essential links between the government and political parties, in order to enable the government become more responsive and effective in addressing the needs of Iraq's people. Despite the impressive contribution of these two Institutes to democracy in Iraq, neither is guaranteed steady future funding for its programs. The administration's budget provides only $7.5 million for each Institute--enough for just 2 months of operating expenses. Our amendment provides an additional $22 million for each institute's essential democracy programs in Iraq for the next 18 months. The amendment also provides $8.5 million for the U.S. Institute of Peace for its important work to promote reconciliation. This amendment has broad support in the democracy community, and I ask unanimous consent to print letters supporting it in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mr. KENNEDY. Thousands of Iraqis are working hard, often at great risk to themselves, to develop civic groups, participate in political parties and election, and run for and serve in political office. The dramatic pictures of Iraqis waving their purple fingers after voting in past elections remind us of the enormous stakes. Progress to avoid civil war and defeat the insurgency is directly related to progress on democracy-building, and ongoing work on this all-important issue must be a top priority. We must be clear in our commitment to stand by these organizations that are working on the front lines in the struggle for democracy in Iraq every day. We also need to demonstrate to Iraqis and others that we are committed to Iraq's long-term democratic development. We need a long-term plan and a long-term strategy that is backed by appropriate resources. President Bush has called for patience in Iraq. He should heed his own advice. He can't speak about having patience for democracy in Iraq, and then cut funding for the groups that are assisting so capably in its development. Our financial commitment to the organizations at the forefront of the democracy effort must be strong and unambiguous. By failing to guarantee continuity for their programs, we send a confusing signal that can only be harmful for this very important effort. We are now spending more than $1 billion a week for military operations for the war in Iraq. At this rate, it would take the military less than one day to spend the $104.5 million provided in this amendment for democracy promotion. Surely, we can commit this level of funding for democracy programs over the next 18 months. Regardless of whether we supported or opposed the war, we all agree that the work of building democracy requires patience, skill, guaranteed continuity, and adequate resources. It makes no sense to shortchange Iraq's political development. We need a long-term political strategy, and we must back up that strategy with the needed resources, if we truly hope to achieve a stable, peaceful and democratic Iraq. Our amendment provides the resources necessary to ensure continuity in these democracy programs in Iraq. I thank Senators McConnell and Leahy for their hard work on this provision, and I am delighted that it will become part of this legislation. National Endowment for Democracy, Washington, DC, April 24, 2006. Hon. Ted Kennedy, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of the Board of Directors of the National Endowment for Democracy, we are writing to thank you for your commitment to creating a viable and sustainable democracy in Iraq. As you know; the National Endowment for Democracy received the first of several awards from the Department of State in February 2004 to support programs carried out by our four core institutes, the International Republican Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute (NDI), the Center for International, Private Enterprise (CIPE), and the Solidarity Center. In addition, NED directly funds local Iraqi groups focusing on the promotion of women in the democratic process, strengthening an independent media, and increasing youth participation in the political process. After our September 2006 Board meeting, NED will not be able to maintain its current program in Iraq without renewed funding. Should funding for democracy programs in Iraq be available for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2006 and into Fiscal Year 2007, the Endowment will facilitate the development of a nationwide coalition of local groups that crosses geographic, ethnic and confessional lines, which will advocate for political tolerance, accountable governance, rule of law and rational use of national resources. Also, NED will continue to fund CIPE, which has a developed network of over 40 business associations and chambers of commerce. CIPE's program will support Iraqis in building a platform for moderate and market-oriented approaches in Iraq's political process. Further, NED will provide funding to the Solidarity Center to support local Iraqi trade unions in developing policy platforms and advocating for labor legislation, and working with the Iraqi oil unions to develop their capacity to be a force for promoting transparency, anti-corruption, and the rule of law in Iraq's largest economic sector. The Endowment is committed to supporting the Iraqi people in developing a democratic culture and creating institutions that will promote individual rights and freedoms. This will be a long-term endeavor, and we thank you for your continuing support and dedication on this important issue. Sincereely, Vin Weber, Chairman of the Board Richard A. Gephardt, Vice-Chair of the Board.

Mr. KENNEDY. In the 45 seconds remaining, I indicate to the Members of the Senate this amendment has the complete support of all the public health officials and departments virtually across the country; the public health community virtually universally appreciates and understands the importance of this program. It does also have the complete support of the first responders. If we want to do something that is going to help to protect our first responders, in public health emergencies and with the dangers of a pandemic, this is an amendment to do so. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senate is currently debating an appropriations bill that provides $59 billion to continue the Bush administration's failed policy in Iraq. This funding will bring the total bill for the war in Iraq to $320 billion and still counting. Three years ago today, President Bush dressed up in a flight suit, flew out to the aircraft carrier, Abraham Lincoln, and declared ``Mission Accomplished'' in Iraq. Our mission was far from accomplished then, and it is far from accomplished now. In my State of Massachusetts, 47 young men and women have been killed, and more than 2,400 have been killed nationwide. For them, their families and loved ones, the mission is far from accomplished. We all care about our service men and women fighting bravely in Iraq. We obviously want to do all we can to see they have the proper equipment, vehicles, and everything else they need to protect their lives as they carry out their missions. This bill provides the $239 million for body armor and personal protection equipment for the Marines, $890 million for Army up-armored HMMWVs, $271 million for the Marine HMMWVs, and it also provides $10 billion for pay and allowance for service members deployed overseas, and $1.4 billion for enhanced death benefits and traumatic injury protection. The bill also includes the much needed hurricane and disaster assistance in the wake of last year's gulf coast hurricanes, assistance that is critical to rebuild the devastated communities in Louisiana and on the gulf coast. It also includes funding for schools and levees, homes and small businesses, and other measures to rebuild communities and make them whole once again. In Iraq, as we all know, our military forces are performing brilliantly under enormously difficult circumstances. The funds in this bill will help to provide the greater protection they obviously need. They do not want, and the American people do not want, an open-ended commitment in Iraq. What they want is a better and more effective policy worthy of the sacrifice of our troops. They want their leaders to come together, to address the issues they care about. But what they see is a White House focused on personnel changes, not policy changes. If the President spent as much time on his policy as he has on defending Don Rumsfeld, we could make greater progress in Iraq. Unfortunately, the President's repeated failures to see each new threat in Iraq before it is fully emerged has put our troops in constantly greater peril. He disbanded the Iraqi Army with weapons intact and waited a year to begin training the Iraqi security forces. He failed to see the insurgency metastasizing like a cancer throughout Iraq before it was too late. He failed to see the danger of roadside bombs, IEDs, and sent our troops into battle month after month without proper protection. And now he fails to see the possibility that Iraq will succumb to a full-scale civil war. This is the point of the amendment I intend to offer to ensure that the proper planning is underway now to protect our long-term interests in the event that Iraq continues the downward spiral into civil war. Iraq's future and the lives of our troops are perilously close to the precipice of a new disaster, the time bomb of civil war is ticking, and our most urgent priority is to diffuse it. As of last week, we have been in combat in Iraq longer than we were in combat in Korea. At the end of this year we will have been involved militarily in Iraq as long as we were in combat in World War II. If we cannot achieve a military solution within that period of time, it is time for our troops to begin to leave. Iraq is obviously still in great turmoil, and all of us hope the new government about to take office will be able to unite the country. In the vacuum that has existed for so long, militias have taken control of key parts of the country. We are now seeing the kinds of refugee flows that signaled the beginning of the end in Vietnam. Shiites and Sunnis are forced by the continuing violence to flee from their homes and move into separate communities in Iraq or become refugees. With each passing day, the American people are becoming more and more impatient with the administration's continuing incompetence in conducting the war. They do not want our troops to defend the same failed course. They want a realistic plan for our troops to be redeployed out of Iraq. Starting this year, the sectarian violence between Shiite and Sunnis is fueled by the private militias and is now the biggest threat to stability. We spent a very considerable period of time, some 8 years, after the whole peace process started in northern Ireland to have the IRA surrender its arms, decommission their arms, put what they call the ``arms beyond use.'' Finally, it became recognized in northern Ireland that you could not be a political party and have a private army, that the Sinn Fein could not have the IRA in the background. And finally, to the great credit of the Sinn Fein, they gave up the military part of the IRA. According to the international inspectors, General de Chastelain, and others, they have put the weapons beyond use. It has taken almost 8 years to achieve this. But in Iraq, we have a constitution that entitles these political organizations to have militias. It is inevitable that we will have the kind of private militias presenting the biggest threat to stability in Iraq today. General Casey, the commander of our multinational force in Iraq, has said that America will not succeed in Iraq ``until the Iraqi security forces--the police and the military--are the only ones in Iraq with guns.'' We need a clean and effective policy to disarm and disband the Iraqi's militias in order to end the destabilizing impact of these private sectarian armies. The new Prime Minister must act quickly to bring the factions together, and we in Congress need to help this effort any way we can. Hopefully, he and his Cabinet can move rapidly to gain control of the whole country. Their efforts must demonstrate to the Iraqi people that the government will fulfill their basic needs and provide for their security. We need to begin reducing our military forces. Our presence in Iraq inflames the insurgency. The open-ended commitment of our troops has made us a crutch for the Iraqis. It very well may be preventing political leaders from making the tough choices and compromises essential to move the political process forward. The Bush administration has argued that we cannot cut and run from Iraq. However, they seem more than willing to undermine Iraq's transition to democracy. The U.S. nongovernmental organizations doing democracy promotion on the frontlines are about to have their funding slashed, just when the Iraqis need them the most. Last year, Iraq passed several important milestones on the long road to democracy. The two elections and the referendum on the Constitution were significant, but they were not decisive, and it is still far from clear that democracy is being firmly established in Iraq. Obviously, the process of building democratic institutions will require patience in developing effective governmental structures, a genuine rule of law, political parties committed to peaceful means, an active civil society, and a free press. For a country as heavily repressed for as long as Iraq, democracy will need even longer to take root. It is far from clear, however, that the Bush administration has a long-term strategy--or even a short-term strategy--to solidify and continue the democratic gains that have been made so far. It makes no sense whatsoever to reduce the funds for democracy building. Yet that is exactly what the administration is planning. I have offered an amendment with Senators Biden and Leahy to provide $96 million so that the U.S. nongovernmental organizations can continue their important work of promoting democracy in Iraq. Organizations such as the National Democratic Institute; the International Republican Institute; the National Endowment for Democracy; the IFES, formerly known as the International Foundation for Election Systems; the International Research and Exchanges Board; and America's Development Foundation are well respected throughout the world. Each has substantial operations in Iraq, and their work is essential to the administration's goal of building a stable democracy in Iraq. Yet despite their success so far in helping to promote democracy and the enormous risks to employees working in the war zone, the administration has made no long-term commitment to provide funding for their work in Iraq. Each organization operates on pins and needles, never knowing when its funding for these operations will dry up. We must be clear in our commitment to stand by these organizations and their indispensable work every day on the frontlines in the struggle for democracy in Iraq. We also need to demonstrate to the Iraqi people that we are committed to Iraq's long-term democratic development. We need a long-term plan and a long-term strategy that is backed up by appropriate resources. We need to refocus our policy in Iraq and provide the kind of support that will make a positive difference on Iraq's long road to democracy. We also need to prepare for the worst contingencies. It makes no sense to continue down the path of a failed policy and continue to put our troops in harm's way. Amendment No. 3688, as Modified Mr. President, I would also like to speak for a few minutes on another issue--the pandemic flu crisis which needs urgent action. The amendment that is pending will correct a serious defect in current law on compensation for persons injured by vaccines. The lack of this protection could well doom our effort to protect the Nation against sudden mass epidemics that could result from natural diseases or bioterrorist attacks. The Nation continues to face the danger of a deadly flu pandemic. The clock is ticking, and we have failed so far to take the actions needed to protect our people. This chart shows very clearly the warnings that this Nation has had going back to June of 1992. Policymakers must realize and understand the potential magnitude of an influenza pandemic. Here it is May 2002: Authorities must understand the potential impact and threat of pandemic influenza. That is in 2002. Then, we find the GAO, in 2000, stating: Federal and State influenza plans do not address the key issues surrounding the purchase and distribution of vaccines and antivirals. And we have, in December 2003, an outbreak in South Korea; and, in 2004, an outbreak in Vietnam; and, in April 2006, avian flu in Britain. This is the real danger. Even after these outbreaks, needed preparations still lag. Other nations developed comprehensive plans for responding to flu, but ours was inexplicably delayed. In November, the administration released a plan, but it was incomplete, and a new one has been promised once again. While other nations implement their plans, we wait to see what ours is. The story is the same on the stockpiling of needed medications. Other nations put in their orders for antiviral medications years ago, but again we failed to act. As a result, America is at the back of the line in ordering these needed drugs. As long ago as November 2000, GAO warned that: Federal and state influenza plans do not address key issues surrounding the purchase and distribution of vaccines and antivirals. Here it is June 2005, and the GAO reports: The plan does not establish the actions the federal government would take to purchase and distribute vaccine during an influenza pandemic. There it is, the time from 2000 to 2005, and the administration is lagging. Congress has tried to move forward. In the bill the Senate considers today, Senator Harkin's amendment has added over $2 billion to improve the Nation's readiness for a flu pandemic. Thanks to his leadership, these funds will be used to strengthen our hospitals and public health agencies and increase the Nation's ability to manufacture vaccines. In 2002, with strong bipartisan support, Congress enacted comprehensive legislation to provide a framework for public health preparedness, but the administration still hasn't carried out the basic responsibilities called for in that legislation. The act required an interagency planning council to guide preparedness, but the council was never established. It called on the administration to develop and implement a coordinated strategy for public health preparedness, but this task remains undone. It called for a registry of health professionals who would volunteer their services during a public health emergency, but Hurricane Katrina showed that the system was ineffective. In only one area did the administration and its allies work together to get something done. What was this urgent national priority? A special favor for the drug industry. Our Republican colleagues slipped a sweetheart deal for the drug companies into the Defense appropriations bill late at night at the end of the session last December. The purpose of their tactic was to shield from public debate a provision that would never stand public scrutiny. When I spoke on this issue on the Senate floor last December, not one of my Republican colleagues stood up to defend the provision or the process by which it was included in the bill. The provision allows drug companies to ignore basic safety rules in producing a wide range of drugs and vaccines. Patients injured by shoddy products were given only an empty promise of compensation. It stacks the deck against patients and abrogates basic principles of fairness and judicial review. Supporters of this provision claimed that it was needed because, without it, vaccine makers would not supply the national stockpile. But our committee has obtained the contracts signed between vaccine makers and the Department of Health and Human Services. I have them right here, Mr. President. These contracts clearly show that the drug makers received liability protections long before that scandalous provision was slipped into the appropriations bill. I will reference them. I will not include all of them. I will include the special provisions, the product liability and indemnification clause. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the indemnification clauses from the Department of Health and Human Services contract with Sanofi Pasteur, signed August 19, 2005, and the DHHS contract with Chiron Corporation, signed September 28, 2005.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will use much less time, closer to 20 minutes. I had earlier filed an amendment No. 3688. I ask unanimous consent my amendment numbered 3688 be modified. I send it to the desk.

Mr. KENNEDY. Perhaps the cruelest feature of this infamous provision is that it includes a sham compensation program with no funding. We have seen the danger of this approach before because a similar compensation program went unfunded decades ago. People in communities downwind from the atomic test sites in Nevada received IOUs instead of payments to ease the cost of their radiation injuries. Senator Hatch led the fight to see that the ``downwinders'' received what they deserved, and he was right to do so. We must not repeat the same mistake. The lack of an effective compensation program also doomed efforts to vaccinate first responders against smallpox. Senator Frist recognized this. This is what he said: Too many health workers have been deterred from receiving the smallpox vaccine--in part because of the uncertainties about what would happen, how they would provide for themselves if they suffered a serious adverse reaction to the vaccine. If we have a bioterrorism attack, and we have new breakthrough drugs and vaccines, we have to provide a compensation program for the first responders. How do we expect them to go out and risk their lives--they may become sick or something worse could happen to them--if they are not even compensated for missing a day or two or a week or a month from work? We have seen that you have to have a compensation program if you want a vaccination program to be effective. The right approach is a program that protects drug companies that make pandemic flu vaccines or needed biodefense treatments and that provides a real compensation to injured patients. That approach follows the successful examples of the past, in the cases of swine flu, children's vaccines, when the Government set up a reasonable way to compensate the injured. In this appropriations bill, we have an opportunity to see that the promise of compensation for first responders injured by experimental flu vaccine is not an empty one. The amendment which I have and that is pending provides $289 million for the compensation program. These funds will give first responders the assurance they need that the Government is not making an empty promise on compensation. Slipping a special favor to the drug industry in last year's spending bill without debate was wrong. But denying compensation to our health care heroes would be even worse. The Senate should act to fulfill the promise to compensate those who keep us safe from pandemic flu if they are injured when they bravely volunteer to accept an experimental vaccine. I hope the Senate will accept those amendments. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this amendment No. 3716 provides $96 million for American non-governmental organizations helping Iraqis to create the essential building blocks of democracy. It also requires the Secretary of State to provide Congress with its short and long-term plans to strengthen democracy at the regional, provincial, and national levels in Iraq. Last year, Iraq passed several important milestones on the long road to democracy. However, as important as the two elections and the referendum on the constitution were, they were not decisive, and it is far from clear that democracy is being firmly established in Iraq. The process of building democratic institutions is different and requires patience in developing effective governmental structures, a genuine rule of law, political parties committed to peaceful means, an active civil society, and a free press. Constructive international engagement is essential as well in the case of Iraq. For a country as heavily repressed as long as Iraq, democracy will take even longer to take root. It is far from clear, however, that the Bush administration has a long-term strategy--or even a short-term strategy--to solidify and continue the democratic gains that have been made so far. American non-governmental organizations such as the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute, the National Endowment for Democracy, IFES, formerly known as the International Foundation for Election Systems, the International Research and Exchanges Board and America's Development Foundation are well respected in Iraq and throughout the world. Each has substantial operations in Iraq, and their work is essential to the administration's goal of building a stable democracy in Iraq. Yet despite their success so far in helping to promote democracy and the enormous risks their employees take by working in the war zone, the administration has made no long-term commitment to provide funding for their work in Iraq. Each organization operates on pins and needles, never knowing when their funding for Iraq operations will dry up. The American non-governmental organization IFES has been in Iraq since October 2003. It has provided technical assistance in each of Iraq's elections so far, and it has been asked to provide such assistance for regional and provincial elections scheduled for April 2007. It is also preparing for a possible second referendum on the constitution, and is assisting as well in the enactment and implementation of legislation governing the operations, of a new election council for local elections. Inexplicably, funding will run out in June, and the administration has not yet committed any additional funds. None of the funds in this supplemental spending bill are set-aside for it, and none of the meager $63 million requested in the fiscal year 2007 budget for democracy- building is intended for IFES either. Our amendment would provide $20 million to sustain its democracy work in Iraq for the next 18 months, through the end of fiscal year 2007. An independent media is also essential to a successful democracy. A U.S. non-governmental organization, the International Research and Exchanges Board, IREX, is working in Iraq to see that the Iraqi people have independent, professional, high quality news and public affairs information. To create an environment in which a free press can flourish, it is also seeking to establish a legal, regulatory, and policy environment that supports independent media. IREX's funding for these important programs is also running out, and it will be forced to close its operations this summer, which would pull the rug out from under many struggling new press organizations in Iraq. Our amendment would provide $6 million to sustain IREX's democracy work in Iraq for the next 18 months. In addition, the non-governmental organization America's Development Foundation provides essential aid to support and sustain civil society in Iraq. ADF and its partner civil society organizations in Iraq have provided training and assistance to thousands of Iraqi government officials at the national, regional, and local levels on issues such as anti-corruption, transparency, accountability, fiscal responsibility, whistleblower protection, and the development of non-government organizations. ADF wants to continue its work, but its funding will end in June. USAID supports this work and has a contract pending, but it doesn't have the resources to do so. Our amendment provides $16 million to sustain its work over the next 18 months. Similarly, the National Endowment for Democracy has no clear sense of what the future holds for them in Iraq. Two of the endowment's core grantees--the Center for International Private Enterprise and the Labor Solidarity Center in Iraq--have important democracy promotion functions. Since opening a regional office in Baghdad in October 2003, the Center for International Private Enterprise has worked to build capacity for market oriented democratic reform in Iraq. It has provided training and grant support to approximately 22 Iraqi business associations and chambers of commerce. The Labor Solidarity Center works directly with Iraqi trade unions to develop skills in strengthening independent and democratic trade unions. In addition, the endowment partners with 32 local organizations on the ground in Iraq to promote and sustain civil society projects on political development, raising awareness of women's rights, and encouraging the free flow of information to Iraqi citizens. The endowment wants to continue working directly with the Iraqi people and be able to guarantee continuity in its democracy grants to Iraqi organizations. But no funding is set aside in this bill or in the fiscal year 2007 budget for its programs. Our amendment provides $10 million to sustain the democracy programs of the Center for International Private Enterprise, the Labor Solidarity Center, and the Endowment for Democracy's local partners for 18 months. Similarly, the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic institute are doing truly impressive work in Iraq under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. The International Republican Institute programs in Iraq have focused on three principal goals: development of an issue-based political party system; establishment of the foundation for a more transparent and responsive government; and the emergence of an active and politically involved civil society. The National Democratic Institute supports a number of democracy programs in Iraq as well, with emphasis on political parties, governance, civil society and women's rights. It has four offices in Iraq to promote these essential building blocks of strong democracy, and it works directly with Iraqi partners and hundreds of local civic organization. Both IRI and NDI want to continue to build these essential links between the government and political parties, in order to enable the government to become more responsive and effective in addressing the needs of Iraq's people. Despite the impressive contribution of these two Institutes to democracy in Iraq, neither is guaranteed future funding for its programs. The administration's budget provides only $7.5 million for each Institute--enough for just two months of operating expenses. Our amendment provides an additional $22 million for each institute's essential democracy programs in Iraq for the next 18 months. Thousands of Iraqis are working hard, often at great risk to themselves, to develop civic groups, participate in political parties and election, and run for and serve in political office. The dramatic pictures of Iraqis waving their purple fingers after voting in past elections remind us of the enormous stakes. Progress to avoid civil war and defeat the insurgency is directly related to progress on democracy-building, and ongoing work on this all-important issue must be a top priority. We must be clear in our commitment to stand by these organizations that are working on the front lines in the struggle for democracy in Iraq every day. We also need to demonstrate to Iraqis and others that we are committed to Iraq's long-term democratic development. We need a long-term plan and a long-term strategy that is backed by appropriate resources. President Bush has called for patience in Iraq. He should heed his own advice. He can't speak about having patience for democracy in Iraq, and then cut funding for the groups who are assisting so capably in its development. Our financial commitment to the organizations at the forefront of the democracy effort must be strong and unambiguous. By failure to guarantee continuity for their programs, we send a confusing signal that can only be harmful for this very important effort. We are now spending more than $1 billion a week for military operations for the war in Iraq. At this rate, it would take the military less than 1 day to spend the $96 million provided in this amendment for democracy promotion. Surely, we can commit this level of funding for democracy programs over the next 18 months. Regardless of whether we supported or opposed the war, we all agree that the work of building democracy requires patience, skill, guaranteed continuity, and adequate resources. It makes no sense to shortchange Iraq's political development. We need a long-term political strategy, and we must back up that strategy with the needed resources, if we truly hope to achieve a stable, peaceful and democratic Iraq. Our amendment provides the resources necessary to ensure continuity in these democracy programs in Iraq, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Amendment No. 3600

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to let me know when there is 3 minutes remaining.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as she is exiting the Chamber, I wish to commend my friend and colleague, the Senator from New York, for an excellent statement and comment about what is really at play here at noontime in the Senate; that is, a choice between meeting our responsibilities to the service men and women who are serving bravely and gallantly in Iraq and Afghanistan and also meeting our responsibilities to protect our country at our border. I have listened to her on many different occasions, and she spelled out the choice as clearly and as passionately as I have ever heard the case made. I thank her for her excellent and eloquent comments. Mr. President, we are getting close to decision time on this particular amendment. Just to review very briefly where we are on the issues that are before us, I think all of us in this Chamber understand that we are making progress on an extremely difficult and complex issue; that is, the issue on immigration reform. There are strong emotions, strong feelings, and strong beliefs on a variety of different aspects of immigration reform, but one which I believe has total support in this body is that what we do need to do is be able to control our borders, and to be able to do that, we have to be able to make the investment which is going to be necessary to secure our borders. Many of us believe that just in and of itself trying to establish just a border or just a fence in one part of the country is not going to do it. All we have to really do is look at history. We understand that 10 years ago, about 40,000 illegals were coming into the United States. Since that time, we have spent over $10 billion on border security, we have increased the number of border guards by 300 percent, and now we have some 400,000 coming into the United States. It is going to take tough border security, but it is going to take something more in terms of law enforcement in this country for those who are eligible to be able to work and separating out those who are ineligible and also to be able to develop a program of earned citizenship for individuals who are here because they want to provide for their families, to work hard, to play by the rules, and to serve in the Armed Forces. They are prepared to pay a penalty, and they are prepared to go to the back of the line and wait their turn for up to 11 years before they would even be eligible for citizenship. The immigration debate will continue along, and we will get back to it here in the Senate, but there is broad agreement on doing more in terms of our border security. There is some difference in how that should be shaped, but we ought to recognize that we need the resources, we need the $2 billion which is before the Senate. What is completely unacceptable is the tradeoff between trying to deal with and seal our borders and to see a reduction in the support for our military and the armed services in both Iraq and Afghanistan. A number of us have worked very hard to increase in more protective humvees and the up-armoring of the humvees over the last 3\1/2\ years. I serve on the Armed Services Committee. We have had 12 different estimates from the Defense Department on the requirement for up-armor humvees, and after each and every time, they have raised the requirement in order to protect troops. We have added resources, both in the Armed Services Committee and here on the floor, to ensure that we are going to provide the best protection that the humvees can provide when they are up-armored. Now we are faced with an amendment which would reduce the resources for up- armoring humvees, something I believe is completely unacceptable. The tradeoff is completely unacceptable. We need both. We have read and Americans have understood that we need to do a great deal more on armor for our troops. We are all familiar with the stories of American servicemen going through dumpsters in Iraq to get strips of steel and metal and strapping those onto their vehicles because we weren't providing sufficient body armor either to individuals or to the trucks that are used in convoys over there. Nonetheless, the proposal that is being offered by the Senator from New Hampshire would reduce the funds available for the kinds of protective armor which is so essential for individuals and for their vehicles. The IED, as we have heard from General Casey, as we have heard from General Abizaid, and as we have heard from the commanders in the field, is the primary threat to American service men and women. Who of us has not watched the news virtually every single night and not seen the smoking ruins of some vehicle where young, brave, courageous American men have lost their lives? Those are primarily destroyed by IEDs. We have not done the kind of research into IEDs necessary in order to master the technology so our servicemen will have a defense. In the very beginning, IEDs were being set off with simple signals, but we were unable to jam them because it interfered with our military's communications. We have an opportunity. We have sent men and women to the Moon and brought them back, but we are unable to develop the electronics to set off the IED before it can hurt our troops coming down the road. I don't understand it. But I know that we haven't utilized to the extent we should the entrepreneurship, the ideas, and the innovation in the private sector in terms of electronics to be able to advance this whole area of technology. We have finally established a very interesting important task force to try to bring in the best minds in defense and the private sector together to solve this problem. But we are going to be cut back on that for border security. What possible sense does that make? Those are a few of the very top priorities but there other priorities that will be affected, including training the Iraqi security forces to upgrade their skills so they can stand up and Americans can stand down. This amendment would cut that program, as well as training programs in Afghanistan. Why in the world, if we have made assessments that these programs are justified, are necessary, that are included in the supplemental, is it possibly justified to say: Well, those weren't really accurate, those really didn't reflect the need? We can chip away at any number of those programs because we need border security. It is a bad choice. I would like to take note, particularly of some of the smaller dollar items but, nonetheless, items which are of enormous importance and consequence. Family support counseling: We have read about the explosion in the number of divorces that have taken place among our service men and women who are returning from Iraq. It is now four or five times the national average of those in their generation because of the stress experienced by these individuals, both those who go to Iraq and, sadly, those who are left behind. So we provide assistance in terms of family support counseling, which is so important, so necessary. And all of us are familiar with the stories of children who are missing their father and may have difficulties in school. We also hear of the families who have difficulties in adjusting to the fact that parents are away for a long time, come home for a brief time, and then are sent back to Iraq; come home for a brief time, and then are sent back to Iraq again. This puts enormous pressure on families who see these enormous potential dangers to the lives and well-being of their loved ones. So the resources in here to help with support counseling are very important. This amendment would reduce those services. This amendment would also reduce the help and assistance, particularly, for patient transportation, medical services, and rehabilitation services, particularly for those severely wounded. The fact is, we have made some progress in the advancement of technology for helmets, so we have less injuries to the brain and to the head than we have seen in previous wars. And we have also made improvements in body armor. But as a result we have seen the extraordinary trauma in the extremities, and many servicemen have lost their limbs--legs and arms. We have some special provisions in this legislation to give greater focus and attention, direction and support, to programs that deal with these injuries. I do not understand why, if we are talking about getting $2 billion for border security--which I strongly support--we ought to put at risk any of these programs. That is what this amendment will do. We know we have to do something to protect our borders. We know we need to make the improvements which are outlined in both the amendments of Senator Reid and Senator Gregg, which are areas I certainly support, but we should not do it at the cost of these essential programs which are absolutely necessary for those individuals who are fighting on the front line and risking their lives every single day in a dangerous part of the world, and their families. It is the wrong choice to make, to put any of these programs at risk in order to support the $2 billion. We ought to be able to support that. We ought to add that and it should be a part of this Nation's obligation for the future. I just remind ourselves of a recent excellent report by a Nobel laureate, Professor Stiglitz, at Columbia, whose estimate is that this war in Iraq--just in Iraq--is going to cost $1 trillion--$1 trillion-- before the end of it. A Nobel laureate estimating it will cost $1 trillion. We are being asked here for just about $2 billion to provide vital support services to those men and women who fight this war. It seems to me we have seen extraordinary expenditures already to date. I had my reservations, and I opposed going to this war, and I still believe it has not enhanced our national security or the security of Americans, but, nonetheless, what I am sure of is that it does not make sense for us to see a reduction in these programs that are so vital for our service men and women. Mr. President, I yield back.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services for his kind words about aircraft carrier named for my brother. The chairman has long been a friend of my family, and his support is deeply appreciated and reciprocated. All of us in our family are proud of the USS John F. Kennedy, and to her many years of outstanding service to our country. The keel for the carrier was laid on October 22, 1964, in the chairman's home State of Virginia. She was christened on May 27, 1967, by President Kennedy's daughter Caroline, when she was just 9 years old, the carrier came to be affectionately known to her crew as ``Big John.'' In 1983, the JFK was called upon to support U.S. forces during the growing crisis in Beirut. Six years later, at the height of the cold war, F-14 Tomcats assigned to the Kennedy shot down two Libyan Mig-23s that were threatening the battle group. Afterward, the JFK returned to the U.S. and visited New York City for Fleet Week and then returned home to Boston for the Fourth of July, to the state that my brother was so proud to represent. Soon after that, she was assigned to the Red Sea, and stayed to support Gulf War I in Operation Desert Storm in 1991. The following year, she was deployed to the Mediterranean Sea and monitored the turmoil in the former Yugoslavia. Later returning to the U.S. for routine maintenance, she was designated as the Reserve Operational Carrier. In 1996, the carrier made a dramatic visit to the port of Dublin in Ireland. More than 10,000 visitors were able to tour the ship and learn about her history. I was honored to be there for that visit and awed by love the Irish people showed her. Before she left, 16 planes from the JFK took off from the flight deck and performed a thank-you flyover of Cork and Dublin, in gratitude for the affection shown by people. From September 1999 through March 2000, the JFK was back in the Mediterranean, and her aircraft patrolled Iraq's southern no-fly-zone. In 2002, in the Mediterranean and in the Arabian Gulf, she supported our troops in Afghanistan and Operation Enduring Freedom. She was called on again in 2004 to support U.S. troops in Operation Iraqi Freedom. She was relieved by the USS Harry S Truman. She returned to her homeport in Mayport, FL, that December and last year, she made what may be her final visits to Boston and New York. It is bittersweet to know she will be retired, but the people of Massachusetts and the Kennedy family are very proud of her service and know she holds a special place in the hearts of the Navy and the Nation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, is Equal Pay Day, which means that 115 days into 2006, an average American woman will finally have earned enough in 2005 and 2006 together to equal what a man doing similar work earned by the end of 2005. Equal Pay Day is a sad reminder that gender discrimination is still very much a part of our country. In America today, women earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. The wage gap exists in every segment of our society. Women of every race and national origin earn less than their male counterparts. African-American women earn just 68 percent of the average earnings of African-American men. Latinas earn only 57 percent of the average Latino male wage. Asian-American women earn 88 cents for every dollar earned by Asian-American men. This is not a problem just for poor women or rich women; it cuts across all occupations. There are even wage gaps in the operating room. The average male physician or surgeon makes $52,000 more a year than the average female physician. In the boardroom, the average male CEO makes $35,000 more a year than his female counterpart. There are wage gaps in the classroom. The average male teaching assistant earns $5,000 more a year than the average female. In the dining room, the average male cook makes $2,000 more than his female counterpart. The problem is not getting better. This year's wage gap of 23 cents is the same gap that existed in 2002. Since 1963, when the Equal Pay Act was passed, the wage gap has narrowed by less than half of a penny a year. The wage gap is caused in part by how society deals with the realities of working women's lives, such as time out from the workforce to have children and care for family members. Among working women, nearly two-thirds do not receive paid maternity leave when they give birth; a quarter have to quit their jobs to care for their children, and doing so permanently lowers their future earning potential. It is wrong to dismiss the pay gap as a consequence of women's choosing to take time out of the workforce. Women do not willingly choose to forego fair pay in order to have children and care for elderly parents, nor should they. More important, we cannot blame the pay gap exclusively on women's predominant role in childcare. The evidence shows that actual gender discrimination also accounts for the disparity between men and women's pay. In 2004, the Census Bureau concluded that the substantial gap in earnings between men and women could not completely be explained by differences in education, tenure in the workforce, or occupation. Similarly, a recent General Accounting Office report concluded that the difference in men and women's working patterns does not explain the entire disparity in their wages. Discrimination plays a role as well, and we need to combat it with Federal legislation to close the gap. Congress needs to act. I strongly support Senator Clinton's Paycheck Fairness Act and Senator Harkin's Fair Pay Act to prevent and remedy gender pay discrimination. It is appalling and unacceptable that such discrimination still exists in America. The issue is simple fairness. I urge my colleagues to stand up for working women and end wage discrimination by passing the Paycheck Fairness Act and the Fair Pay Act.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Chair tell me when I have 2 minutes remaining, please?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, at this stage of the whole consideration of immigration reform, I wish to mention my friend and colleague, Senator McCain, whom I have had the good opportunity to work with--I have worked with many others but particularly with Senator McCain over the last 3 years--in terms of developing a comprehensive approach on this issue. There was a bipartisan group that came together, including members of our Judiciary Committee and people who had a particular interest who were outside of our committee. I am very grateful to them and the chairman of our committee, Senator Specter, and, as always, a valued friend and also a leader, Senator Leahy. I thank my own leader, Senator Reid, for all of his good work and counsel and advice. The Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, and Senators Salazar, Menendez, Lieberman, and Obama have all been good supporters during this period of time. On the other side, Senators Graham, Brownback, DeWine, Martinez, and Hagel have worked very closely with us. Senator Feinstein has been a person of enormous knowledge, understanding, and awareness of the range of immigration issues, with very special attention to California, which presents such challenges. She has not only been in this debate and discussion an extraordinary ally, but to any debate and discussion on immigration and immigration reform, she brings a special dimension. She worked with Senator Craig in a very strong, bipartisan way in the initial proposal Senator McCain and I introduced. We recognized that the AgJOBS bill was enormously important. It had a few different approaches, but rather than making this issue more complicated, we did not include it. We welcomed it, but we had the leadership of Senator Feinstein and Senator Craig. So this has been a bipartisan effort in trying to bring about immigration reform. I will not review the very powerful and strong arguments about the border being broken and the need for our focus and attention on the border, about our national security interests and issues in trying to get it right, and about considering who comes to the United States and who does not come. As to our sense of humanity, I will speak about that for just a few minutes, in terms of how we are going to treat those who have come here and worked hard, played by the rules, who are devoted to their families and their religion, and who join the Armed Forces of our country and serve nobly. So I rise this morning recognizing that the Senate has failed to adopt urgently needed immigration reform, and in doing so, we failed in our duty to our Nation and our democracy and our American people. We only make progress on issues of civil rights and immigration when we have bipartisanship. We haven't had a great deal of bipartisanship over the recent past. We certainly did on this issue, and that is why it is doubly disappointing and sorrowful that we have missed the opportunity at this time. I believe we also failed our immigrant heritage and the 11 million undocumented workers and families who looked to us for hope. Clearly, the obstacles to progress are many, but for those who are committed to immigration reform, this debate certainly is not over. We will continue, if not today, then tomorrow and in the days ahead because the battle must go on. As one who has been in the trenches on this issue since I first came to the U.S. Senate over 40 years ago and who has been a part of this effort to try to put into perspective the enormous magnet of America to people who look to it with hope and opportunity and progress and those who understand that we have to do this in an orderly and rational and reasonable and thoughtful way, there is always tension. But we are proudly a nation of immigrants, and I certainly believe we have lost an important chance and opportunity to make important progress on this issue. What is at stake is not just our security but our humanity as well. We can't set that aside. We vote today on our security but also on our humanity. We cast a vote on what Congress will do about Sheila, an undocumented immigrant originally from Cork, Ireland, who has lived on Cape Cod for the last 10 years. She left Ireland due to the economic depression. Now her whole life is here in the United States. Her citizen brother is fighting in Iraq. But upon petitioning for her, he found he had a 15- to 20-year wait. Sheila listened to her grandfather's funeral through a cell phone because she wasn't able to travel to Ireland. A talented musician, she has worked and paid taxes for the past decade as a carpet cleaner and a secretary. We vote today about what to do about William, who came to Massachusetts 14 years ago from Guatemala to make a better life for his family. He is a factory worker who has paid taxes for the past 14 years. He has a 7-year-old son, David, with cerebral palsy. David is severely blind, disabled, and can't walk. William is his sole provider.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am reminded now, in these last moments, Cardinal Mahony, the Archbishop of Los Angeles, has been a courageous voice on these issues: Now is a historic moment for our country. We need to come together and enact immigration reform that protects our national security and upholds our basic human rights and dignity. That is the challenge before us. Fifty years ago President Kennedy wrote a book called ``A Nation of Immigrants.'' In this book--I will just mention a very brief part--he writes: In just over 350 years, a nation of nearly 200 million people has grown up, populated almost entirely by persons who either came from other lands or whose forefathers came from other lands. As President Franklin D. Roosevelt reminded a convention of the Daughters of the American Revolution, ``Remember, remember always, that all of us, and you and I especially, are descended from immigrants and revolutionists.'' As Walt Whitman said, ``These States are the amplest poem, Here is not merely a nation but a teeming Nation of Nations.'' To know America, then, it is necessary to understand this peculiarly American social revolution. It is necessary to know why over 42 million people gave up their settled lives to start anew in a strange land. We must know how they met the new land and how it met them, and, most important, we must know what these things mean for our present and for our future. Those words are as alive today as they were at that time. The challenge is here. We want to give assurances to those who have given us great support over this period of time that we are in the battle to the end.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I believe time has been allocated.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Chair remind me when there is 2 minutes remaining? Madam President, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed a strong bipartisan, comprehensive reform bill last week, and Members on this side of the aisle believe it deserves an up-or-down vote on its own terms. Unfortunately, we have gotten bogged down instead on procedural issues. But the vote we cast this morning for or against cloture is not just a procedural vote; the vote we cast today is a vote on how to reconcile America's history and its heritage as a nation of immigrants with today's crisis of undocumented immigration. It has been said many times--and it bears repeating--all in this room are descended from immigrants. Immigrants signed the Declaration of Independence and they wrote the Constitution of these United States. Immigrants settled our frontiers, they built our great cities, and they fueled our industrial revolution. Our history is a nation of immigrants, but that history has a dark side as well. Millions of Africans were brought here in chains, immigrants in a technical sense, but forced for generations to labor as slaves, our great national shame. Millions of other immigrants fared only slightly better: the Chinese coolies, who worked 18 to 20 hours a day to build our railroads under deplorable conditions; the Mexican braceros, who were actively recruited by the United States Government to labor in our fields but were systematically denied fair payment for their work; and today the undocumented immigrants who are exploited at the workplace and live with their families in constant fear of detection and deportation. For decades, this country has turned a blind eye to the plight of the stranger in our midst and looked away in indifference from this grotesque system. But a nation of immigrants rejects its history and its heritage when millions of immigrants are confined forever to second-class status. All Americans are debased by such a two-tier system. The vote we cast today is on whether the time has come to right these historic wrongs, and we will have that opportunity to do so with the underlying bill. Over these past days, it has become apparent to Senator McCain, myself, and the others who are in active support of this legislation that adjustments are going to have to be made in that legislation to gain strong bipartisan support that will reflect greater than 60 votes in the Senate. I am convinced a majority in the Senate supports our particular proposal. As I have spoken on other occasions, this is a composite of different actions that is in the interest of our national security, our economic progress, and our sense of humanity. But we understand adjustments have to be made, and over the last few days, Democrats and Republicans in the leadership have been coming together to try and find common ground. There are those who believe we ought to treat undocumented aliens as a particular group and treat them all the same. There are others who say those who have just arrived here should be treated differently and under different circumstances. We have been attempting to adjust those different views, and I believe we have made important progress in a way that will maintain the integrity of the legislation but also will mean perhaps a somewhat longer period of time for adjusting of status or earning citizenship for those who have more recently arrived. There has been a strong, good-faith effort on both sides to try and find this common ground. I am very grateful for the leadership our leaders have provided on our side--Senator Reid, Senator Leahy, and others who have worked in this endeavor. I thank my friend and colleague Senator McCain and a number of his associates--Mel Martinez and a number of others--who have worked to try and move this process forward. I hope the vote on cloture will be successful, but I recognize fully that if we are not successful, it is going to open up a new opportunity for us to finally realize the legislation which will essentially preserve the fundamental integrity of the approach Senator McCain and I have taken. It will provide some differences, and out of accommodation and in the desire and interest to achieve the underlying thrust of this legislation, I urge our colleagues to support those compromises. It is in our best interest. Then I am confident that we can, before the end of this week, report out legislation that will be comprehensive and will meet the challenges of our time. Finally, we have come together--Republicans and Democrats--in other major civil rights times. We came together in the 1960s with the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 1965 and 1968 Civil Rights Act. We all came together on the Medicare and Medicaid proposals. We came together, as well, on higher education legislation that made such a difference. And we came together on the Americans with Disabilities Act. We haven't had that kind of coming together in this body on a matter of national importance and international importance. We may very well be at that moment in the Senate. I am prayerful that will be the outcome and that we will have that kind of achievement. We still have some hurdles to work through, but I hope that will be the final and ultimate outcome.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments of the Senate's time to try to put this legislation at least into some perspective, as someone who has worked on legislation dealing with immigration for some period of time, so the American people can have an understanding of what this debate is really all about. I think all of us understand what has been well stated here, and that is our borders are broken and porous. Ten years ago, we estimated that about 40,000 were coming into this country illegally and we were catching maybe almost half of them. Now the estimates are from 400,000 to over 1 million, and we are catching 5 or 10 percent of them. We have increased expenditures by $20 billion in terms of law enforcement and building fences and increasing border guards 300 percent over the period of the last 10 years, and it doesn't work. It has not worked, and it is not working today. Although there are a number of our colleagues who believe it offers the best way to try to get a handle on our borders. That was the position which was taken by the House of Representatives and passed by the House of Representatives, effectively criminalizing every individual who is undocumented here in the United States and criminalizing any individual who might have been indirectly helping that person, whether it was a minister, a member of the clergy, or a nonprofit organization such as a humane group that operates in a feeding program or looks after people who have been in shelters. That is why Bishop Mahony, the cardinal of Los Angeles, said that the House legislation was such a vicious piece of legislation. Those aren't my words; those are his. That was the position of the House of Representatives. Many of us who have worked on immigration issues believe that is not the answer. The fact is, it was the majority leader who introduced similar legislation in the Senate of the United States which to many of us represented the position of the Republican Party. That was the position which was introduced by the majority leader. There wasn't a great deal of turmoil or opposition at the time he did that, so that was why many thought that was going to be the position of the Republican Party. That is at least one aspect of this debate and discussion. Another aspect of it: Some 3\1/2\ years ago, the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, introduced legislation dealing with immigration in a more comprehensive way--rather than just law enforcement, looked at other factors in addition to law enforcement. Over 3 years ago, I introduced legislation that looked at a number of different aspects in terms of legalization and other kinds of approaches but different from those of Senator McCain. At about that time, Senator Hagel and Senator Daschle introduced different legislation. This was all before the 2004 election. Then, after the election, when we saw that these different pieces of legislation which were introduced were not working, Senator McCain and I worked together and in May of 2005 introduced common legislation. We were convinced of a number of things. We were convinced, first of all, about the importance of securing our borders from a national security point of view. You have all these individuals who are coming in here, and in the wake of 9/11, we don't know who they are, and this presents a national security issue. If you have millions of immigrants who are virtually underground because they are undocumented, this is a national security issue. When we find out that Homeland Security is worried about different cells in different parts of the country, and we know we have millions of immigrants who are subject to exploitation because they are undocumented, this is a national security issue. So we looked at it and said: What are the features that are going to be necessary to deal with national security, because that is very important, and to deal with the fact that there is this magnet, drawing people to the United States, the magnet of the American economy so that strong individuals who want to provide for their families, work hard, play by the rules, and provide for their families are offered jobs by American employers? So they come here and send money back to look after their children and families, to develop a community. Many hard-working individuals have come, and many of them have enlisted in the Armed Forces of our country. More than 70,000 are serving in the Armed Forces of our country. Permanent resident aliens are in the Armed Forces serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. So we said: What is necessary is we have to bring these people out of the shadows. How are we going to do that? We have to entice them out so they feel they can be a part of our American system, and how is that going to happen? Since they cut in front of this line instead of waiting their turn, if they were to follow the immigration laws, we would say: You have to go to the back of the line. You have to go to the back of the line. You have to wait until that line is cleared up. You have to pay a fine, pay your taxes, abide by the laws of this country, work hard, and then, 11 years from now--11 years from now--you will be eligible to become an American citizen. The other side says: We can't do that because that is amnesty. That is amnesty. It is very interesting that whenever we talk about the undocumented, in many instances men and women who work hard, who are trying to provide for their families, who are devoted to their religion--98 percent of the undocumented are working today. Working. These are qualities which we admire--people who work hard, provide for their families, have beliefs in their God, are attentive to their church, care for their children--all qualities we admire. But that is too bad; we are just going to send them back or criminalize them. We are going to send them back. So we have a difference here in the Senate. We have an agreement that we have to get a border and it has to be secure. We have the undocumented, and the question is, How are we going to deal with them? And we have differences in this body. Many say we have to send them back. We heard speeches even earlier today saying that we can't permit, under any circumstances, that they remain here in this country. There has been no talk about how they are going to do it. Of the 240 amendments that are before us, I didn't see any asking for $240 billion to get the buses out there to ship them back, while their children, who are American citizens, are pleading that they remain here, and their children are going to school and want their parents to stay. No, no. Let's just get a bumper-sticker solution and call it amnesty. Bumper sticker: It Is Amnesty. Bumper sticker: Bad. It is just a bumper- sticker solution, rather than dealing with a complex issue. So Senator McCain and I worked on this issue. We worked out the program, the penalties, the requirements for people who are here to be able to earn their way toward the possibility of citizenship, bring them out of the shadows, treat them in a humane way, understanding that we have a problem and an issue. And as much as those on the other side of the aisle might bellyache about this solution, they don't have any answer, other than criminalizing it. That is the answer they have: criminalizing. So we have what I consider a just solution. It may not be the right one, it may not be, but at least it is--I believe and the majority of the American people believe that earning your way to be a citizen in this country is an acceptable way to treat these individuals. So then the issue is, we have a magnet here in the United States. Now we are talking about the border. How are we going to lessen the pressure on the border? There are a number of things in our bill. One is that we want to try to cooperate with Mexico, the countries of Central America, in terms of trying to work out more effective ways and means of being able to do it. There are a variety of different ways. The Mexican Government has indicated that. I think there are a variety of different ways of trying to do that to lessen the pressure. We have basically the only proposal that gives any consideration to that whatsoever, and I think it can be extremely meaningful. We find the remittances, as they go back to Mexico, to many of these communities. So many of the people who are here remit funds because they care about their families and their communities. We could work with Mexico to lessen the pressure. Nonetheless, we understand that we are still going to be a magnet. So we say: OK, let's set a figure. We had a negotiation, and 400,000 was the figure for temporary workers. After 4 years, they have an opportunity to petition for a green card and after 5 more years--to become 9 years--to be able to become American citizens if they demonstrate they have worked hard, paid their taxes, haven't run into trouble with the law. So we are saying we want to make the borders secure in terms of the security issues, and we want to make it safe for people to come here, and we want to have a process so that the magnet which is the American economy will draw people in an orderly way--not to replace American jobs but to advertise and see if there are Americans available. But if they are jobs Americans won't do, there will be a legal way for people to come in. So the person who is down in the center part of Mexico will have an alternative: Do you want to risk going across the desert and dying in the desert, or do you want to go to your embassy and find out if there is a job for which you are qualified and go to the United States and have at least some job protection in the job you have? That is the alternative. Legality. Legality. Legality in gaining entrance, not illegal across the border, earning the legal position by earning your legalization. Then we have the enforcement provisions. In the United States, if employers are going to hire undocumented aliens, then we have 5,000 individuals who are going to be trained and equipped to be able to go after employers who are going to attempt to violate the law. The temporary worker gets the biometric card, comes up and presents it to the employer, and then we know he or she is documented. If not, then we know he is undocumented, and then that person is going to be subject to penalties. It has never been tried before, but it is a local process and a legal system. What many of us are saying here tonight is we have a total package that talks about the border, talks about the temporary worker, talks about law enforcement, and talks about earned legalization. That is the package. That is the package that came out of the Judiciary Committee 12 to 6. Not bits and pieces, not just border security like the Republican leader had or like the House of Representatives had. It garnered 12 members of the Judiciary Committee, Republicans and Democrats alike, in a bipartisan way, after 7 days of hearings, 6 days of markups, and scores of different amendments. What Senator Reid is talking about is why not let us have a vote on that particular approach to the challenge that we are facing on immigration? There are those who just want law enforcement--fine. But why is it that those who worked, and worked hard, and looked at this and studied it, and studied hard, and after days of hearings and a lot of work--why should we be denied the opportunity to have a vote on the total package? That is what we are being asked. We are being asked: Let's split that package up somewhat. Let's try to divert it. I know there are those strongly opposed to it. I respect them. I have heard them. I listened to them. They are on our committee and strongly oppose it. I strongly respect that. But aren't we entitled to at least a chance to have a vote on a comprehensive approach? What is so difficult about it? I agree with the Senator from Mississippi, this is important. We ought to be continuing on this issue. It is of vital importance and consequence. It affects the lives of hundreds of thousands, millions of people. We have seen what is out there, across the country--500,000 people in southern California, 100,000 people in Chicago. You are going to see next Monday in 10 different cities, more than a million individuals who are out there demonstrating. Why are we not dealing with this? Why don't we deal with it? What many of us are asking, including myself, is give us at least the opportunity to vote on that. If that is not successful, if we cannot get the majority here, then so be it. We have to find a different approach. We talk about trying to work through these accommodations. I am always interested in listening to individuals, people who are concerned about this. We have had, as I mentioned, early in this debate, the extraordinary stories from our friend and colleague, the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, telling his life story--the absolutely extraordinary story of his parents. We listened to the good Senator from Florida, Mel Martinez, talk about this. I listened to my colleagues. Ken Salazar's relatives were here 250 years before any of our ancestors were here, down in the Southwest and out in Colorado. We listened to Bob Menendez as well. We listened to our other colleagues who have been engaged in this. They understand its difficulty and its complexity. We do have a recommendation from our committee. It seems that in the life of this institution we ought to be able to have a vote on that particular proposal. If it does not carry, then we will have to deal with the other reality. But to deny us the opportunity to get that as well as consider other amendments, as the Senator from Illinois pointed out, that will be relevant and current tomorrow, after cloture--I think would be an enormous loss. I certainly have worked and I am glad to work to reduce the differences among views and opinions. I think all of us are going through the learning experience. As much as we know about immigration, we always learn more from talking with people who are concerned and interested and knowledgeable about these issues. The legislative process is an evolving process. I have certainly observed that over an extensive period of time. So we are always interested. If there are ways we can achieve the outlines that we talked about, at least from my point of view then it makes sense. What does not make sense is to try to separate different groups against each other. That I find difficult to accept. We cannot have one group that has been here for a lengthy period of time, another group that has been here almost as long, and have them treated in different ways. That doesn't really solve the problem. It might help some people in terms of how they are going to vote on a particular issue, but it really is not dealing with the substance. We are interested in dealing with the substance, not just getting safe political positions for our colleagues. We want to get this legislation done. We certainly want to try to find common ground, right up until the very end. I will certainly work in any way I can. I know others are thinking and working hard on it. As has been pointed out by every speaker, this is too important a piece of legislation to let it slip by. It is too important. I am proud of the proposal that is before the Senate. I think it is the result of a great deal of thought and examination by a variety of our different colleagues from all parts of the country and with all different kinds of constituents. When you get an issue that is as volatile as this, and you have a 12 to 6 vote and you have that kind of bipartisanship in this, recognize those of us who support this proposal understand it is a total kind of approach to the challenge. The single- shot approaches have not worked. Let's just try, here in the United States Senate, to give an opportunity for this comprehensive approach, which is meaningful in terms of our national security, is enormously important in terms of economic progress, and most important is a reflection of our humanitarian values. Let's give that a chance. That is what we are hoping, and I hope the Senate will give us that opportunity to do so.

Mr. KENNEDY. As the Senator notes, the House bill had the criminalization. The Frist bill had the criminalization issues. The Cornyn-Kyl does not have that particular provision. I do think when we voted on that issue, on the Durbin amendment, I think the Senator voted against the Durbin amendment, if I am correct, which was to decriminalize. So I don't quite know what the Senator's position is on the issue, but I stand corrected. I was mentioning the House bill and the Senate majority leader's bill.