Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is absolutely correct. I welcome his historical memory on this issue. We have been involved in conflicts-- Vietnam, Korean War, World War II--with Republican and Democratic administrations, and at no time during those conflicts did we ever say the skills that were developed in the military were going to effectively preclude you from receiving overtime. This is the first time with this administration. The Senator is correct.

Mr. KENNEDY. The overtime rule is unfair. As the Senator knows, particularly today, when so much of the combat arms are National Guard--probably 40 percent of the combat arms in Iraq today are National Guard and Reserve--these are people getting these skills, going back home, and getting the jobs. They are not staying in there 5, 7, 10 years. They are receiving these skills now, and these skills are necessary in terms of protecting the members of their squad or unit, to ensure that the military mission is going to be advanced. I would be interested in the Senator's reaction. I mentioned Randy Fleming, who is a military veteran and served in the Air Force from 1973 to 1979, got training in the military, and used overtime to pay for the tuition of his children. He says: When I went in the service, I went in the service to get that training. No one told me that after I served 6 years in the Air Force and got my training, that in the twilight period of my life, because I received that training 20 years ago, I am going to be denied the overtime pay I had planned to put aside to educate my daughter. No one told me, he said in his letter. You talk about a marriage penalty. Here it is, a penalty against us. Where is the fairness? Where is the justice? Isn't the word of the United States good on this? I commend the Senator for bringing up this historical background because we have never done that to the veterans. I mentioned earlier the letter to Secretary Chao from Thomas Corey: We would like to make you aware that the modification of the rules would give the employers the ability to prohibit veterans from receiving overtime pay based on the training they received. This legitimizes the already extensive problem of vetism, discrimination against veterans. This is it. I put the section in the Record of the proposal. I think there are many reasons to be against this proposal, but the signal it sends to the families of our servicemen couldn't be more unfortunate. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to take this opportunity to commend the Veterans Upward Bound Program and all those associated with it on its 25th anniversary. Hundreds of students at the University of Massachusetts have benefited from the program and gone on to earn bachelors, masters, and doctorate degrees. These veterans are using the same enthusiasm and drive that made them exemplary members of our Armed Forces, and are now vital forces for positive change in their communities. For many years, the TRIO programs have been available to help more young men and women in our society to understand that college is within their reach. The Veterans Upward Bound Program does the same for veterans. It provides a bridge to help those who have served our country so well make the transition into college. Veterans learn how to use the benefits available from the Veterans Administration and from veterans' associations and State and local veterans programs to obtain the information and skills they need to qualify for college. Every year, nearly 5,000 veterans are served by this impressive program and go on to college. Many of us share a strong commitment to the belief that each of us can make a difference in improving the world around us, and all of us must try. Enabling veterans to continue their education is in the best tradition of our country. These are very difficult days in our history. As our service men and women return to civilian life, education can often have an essential and prominent role in their futures, and in the Nation's future too. Veterans Upward Bound programs are an important part of a nationwide grassroots effort to enable our veterans to improve their own lives and continue to keep our Nation strong in many different ways. The talented professionals who carry out these programs so well deserve our gratitude. On this special anniversary, I commend them for all they do so well to make college a reality for our veterans.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, before I make comments on a different subject matter, I commend my friend and colleague for addressing the issue of energy--energy production and energy costs--while he is still on the floor. We have probably close to 200,000 American troops in the gulf area to protect and preserve the countries in those regions. It seems to me it would not be asking too much of our President to jawbone those leaders to increase production. We can see what an increase of production of 1 million barrels per day and 2 million barrels a day would mean. It would have a dramatic impact and effect on consumers in this country. It is difficult for me to understand why we should not expect that kind of leadership from the President of the United States when every day we learn young Americans are losing their lives in that region, and tens of thousands of troops have been serving over in that region for years in order to protect the security of those nations. Now we come to an issue of enormous need in our country--an important part of that because of our responsibilities in meeting the defense needs and security needs for our forces overseas. We have silence by the administration when they are asked why they aren't jawboning these countries in the Middle East. I don't know whether the Senator could make some comment on that, just briefly. I listened with great interest to his other comments. I hope the Senate as a whole will take him to heart.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is sounding the alarm. I think his predictions are self-evident. Thankfully, he is providing the leadership before the full impact of these different events, the confluence of these different events taking place. Clearly, they will take place over the course of late spring or early summer. I commend the Senator for bringing this to our attention. It is an enormous service, not only to the people of his State but the people of my State and the people all over this country. As we are coming into the late spring and summer, constituents will be wondering where we have been as representatives in dealing with this issue. The Senator from Oregon has outlined a very critical problem and made splendid recommendations. I look forward to working with the Senator to achieve these recommendations.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome the chance to address the Senate briefly this afternoon on the underlying legislation. We are in morning business now, and we will lay down the bill shortly. I am informed my friend and colleague from Iowa intends to offer an amendment to address the proposal being developed, that has been developed, and continues to be developed by the administration to restrict overtime pay for some 8 million Americans. I ask unanimous consent to be able to proceed beyond the 10 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, before the Senate is the legislation called Jumpstart Our Business Strength Act, or the JOBS Act. The proposal of the Senator from Iowa is entirely appropriate to address this issue. He will be addressing key aspects of employment in this country; that is, the question of adequate pay for those working long hours in this country, and the proposal of the administration to cut back on their pay by eliminating the overtime for some 8 million workers. For those who have been traveling not only in their own States but around the country--as I and other Members have--we know we are facing a serious challenge in creating good jobs with good benefits in the United States. This is affecting the quality of life of millions of American families. The fact is, the Senate has refused to increase the minimum wage for a period of 7 years. We have 7 million Americans, our fellow citizens, hard-working Americans, men and women who take a sense of pride even in working at minimum-wage jobs. They are the men and women who clean the buildings where American commerce takes place. They work in our nursing homes to take care of our elderly people. They work as teachers' aides in many of our schools. These are men and women of dignity. They have worked long and hard over the period of the last 7 years, and we have failed to provide an increase in the minimum wage because our Republican leadership and this administration refuse to support an increase in the minimum wage. That is fact No. 1. Fact No. 2. Even though we have seen the total loss of some 3 million private sector jobs and now an overall loss of about 2.2 million jobs, this administration refuses to extend the unemployment compensation. The unemployment compensation fund is $15 billion in surplus. It was paid by people who have worked hard for this very eventuality that we are now facing--this heavy, prolonged unemployment. Those who have extended unemployment, who have worked hard, should be entitled to unemployment compensation. It is in surplus. The proposal of the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, will cost $5.6 billion to extend unemployment compensation for 13 weeks. There are 90,000 Americans a week losing their unemployment compensation. How do these families pay for their mortgage, put food on the table? How do they feed their children? How do they look forward to the future with any kind of sense of hope? Where are we in responding to them in their crisis of need? Our Republican colleagues, the Republican administration, refuses to extend unemployment compensation. If that is not bad enough, what is the administration proposing to do now? They are proposing to eliminate overtime pay for some 8 million of our fellow Americans who otherwise are receiving overtime. Who is receiving overtime? Police officers, nurses, firefighters. Do those three categories have a ring to Members in the Senate and across this country? Who is in those categories? Whom do they represent? They represent homeland security. On the one hand, we hear a good many statements in the Senate about trying to deal with the problems of homeland security. On the other hand, the administration is out to take away overtime for those individuals who are the backbone of homeland security. These are the categories: Police officers, nursing, firefighters. The list also includes primarily women workers in our society. The overtime pay affects all workers but it particularly affects women. What has been the state of our economy now in terms of new workers? Some say: Senator, you do not understand. Workers are doing well in the country at this time. I don't believe it. Those who say this do not understand it. They may be reading the clippings of Wall Street, but they do not understand Main Street. If they have been reading the clippings of Main Street over the past week or so, they see there has not been great news. The new jobs being created in the United States do not pay as much as jobs lost. This chart indicates the average wage in 2001 was $44,570 a year. Jobs gained do not pay as much as jobs lost. The average wage today from the jobs gained, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is $35,410. That is a 21-percent reduction for the new jobs being created; a 21-percent reduction in pay over the jobs they have replaced. At the same time, this administration is trying to eliminate overtime even for this group. What in the world is the reason for this? Against this backdrop, we look at the chart demonstrating that Americans work more hours than workers in other industrialized nations of the world. This red bar represents the United States. The other countries on this chart include Denmark, France, Ireland, Netherlands, UK, Italy, and Germany. In the United States, far more than any other country, workers are working harder, working longer, trying to make ends meet. What do we do? We in the Senate refuse to increase the minimum wage. If these workers lose their jobs, there is no federal unemployment compensation. Even though they are working longer and harder, we will take away their overtime. This administration is attempting to take away overtime protection. This chart demonstrates what happens to workers with overtime protection and those without overtime protection. Those without overtime protection are twice as likely to be required by their bosses to work overtime hours as those with overtime protection. We know what this is all about--requiring workers to work longer, harder, for less pay over a period of time. Overtime has been in the law since the 1930s. Now we have this administration trying to take away from the workers? For those who do not have overtime protection, they are twice as likely to work more than 40 hours a week. And those without overtime protections are three times as likely to work more than 50 hours a week. Take away the overtime protections and we are going to see the exploitation of working families in the middle class in this country greater than ever. That is basically greed. It is wrong. The amendment of the Senator from Iowa is focused on making sure we continue to pay the overtime. I make two final points. First of all, in the proposal by the administration to eliminate overtime, they are looking not only at the categories I just illustrated, but they are also saying if you have served in the Armed Forces and have received that training, that when you get out of the Armed Forces you are not going to be eligible for overtime. For the first time in the history of this country, they are saying, military training--training that you receive in the military-- is going to exclude you from coverage for overtime. Tell that to the servicemen who are over in Iraq. Tell it to the National Guard, who are making up 40 percent of those under combat arms. When you get some training in order to protect members of your particular unit, and then you come back and are out there in the civilian market, you are told by your boss: You got training in the military. You are not eligible for overtime. I see my friend in the Chamber. I will take a few more minutes because I know he wants to address the Senate. This is a letter to Secretary Chao from Thomas Corey, the National President of the Vietnam Veterans of America: . . . [W]e would like to make you aware that the proposed modification to the rules would give employers the ability to prohibit veterans from receiving overtime pay based on the training they received in the military. This legitimizes the already extensive problems of ``vetism'' or discrimination against veterans. There you are. What in the world is this administration thinking? I will read a letter, and then I will conclude. I think it illustrates very powerfully what the debate is about and the strong reasons we all ought to be behind the Harkin amendment: My name is Randy Fleming. I live in Haysville, Kansas-- outside Wichita--and I work as an Engineering Technician in Boeing's Metrology Lab. I'm also proud to say that I'm a military veteran. I served in the U.S. Air Force from August 1973 until February 1979. I've worked for Boeing for 23 years. During that time I've been able to build a good, solid life for my family and I've raised a son who now has a good career and children of his own. There are two things that helped make that possible. First, the training I received in the Air Force made me qualified for a good civilian job. That was one of the main attractions when I enlisted as a young man back in Iowa. I think it's still one of the main reasons young people today decide to enlist. Military training opens up better job opportunities--and if you don't believe me, just look at the recruiting ads on TV. The second thing is overtime pay. That's how I was able to give my son the college education that has opened doors for him. Some years, when the company was busy and I had those college bills to pay, overtime pay was probably 10% or more of my income. My daughter is next. Danielle is only 8, but we'll be counting on my overtime to help her get her college degree, too, when that time comes. For my family, overtime pay has made all the difference. That's where I'm coming from. Why did I come to Washington? I came to talk about an issue that is very important back home and to me personally as a working man, a family man, and a veteran. That issue is overtime rights. The changes that this administration is trying to make in the overtime regulations would break the government's bargain with the men and women in the military and would close down opportunities that working vets and their families thought they could count on. When I signed up back in 1973, the Air Force and I made a deal that I thought was fair. They got a chunk of my time and I got training to help me build the rest of my life. There was no part of that deal that said I would have to give up my right to overtime pay. You've heard of the marriage penalty? Well I think that what these new rules do is to create a military penalty. If you got your training in the military, no matter what your white collar profession is, your employer can make you work as many hours as they want and not pay you a dime extra. If that's not a bait and switch, I don't know what is. And I don't have any doubt that employers will take advantage of this new opportunity to cut our overtime pay. They'll tell us they have to in order to compete. They'll say if they can't take our overtime pay, they'll have to eliminate our jobs. It won't be just the bad employers, either--because these rules will make it very hard for companies to do the right thing. If they can get as many overtime hours as they want for free instead of paying us time-and-a-half, they'll say they owe it to the stockholders. And the veterans and other working people will be stuck with less time, less money, and a broken deal. I'm luckier than some other veterans because I have a union contract that will protect my rights for a while anyway. But we know the pressure will be on, because my employer is one that pushed for these new rules and they've been trying hard to get rid of our union. And for all those who want to let these military penalty rules go through, I have a deal I'd like to propose. If you think it's okay for the government to renege on its deals, I think it should be your job to tell our military men and women in Iraq that when they come home, their service to their country will be used as a way to cut their overtime pay. That is from Randy Fleming. It could not be said any clearer. That is the issue. Tom Harkin and I will offer the amendment. I hope the Senate will at least permit us a chance to vote on that amendment in the next day or two. I thank the Senator for his patience and for his indulgence.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to the Center for Firesafety Studies at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts as it celebrates its 25th Anniversary. Worcester Polytechnic Institute was founded in 1865 to support the new industrial economy that was developing in Central Massachusetts in the 19th century. Its founders believed in merging theory and practice as part of the ongoing effort to deal with changing needs of our society. Over the years, the university has earned international respect for its innovations in engineering education and its responsiveness to a changing world. In the 1960s, fire safety in America was a priority in Congress. The Fire Research and Safety Act in 1968 called for a national study of the issue, which resulted in the landmark report known as America Burning. Among its findings, America Burning emphasized that, ``Appallingly, the richest and most technologically advanced nation in the world leads all the major industrialized countries in per capita deaths and property loss from fire.'' In response to this wake-up call, Congress passed the Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, which created the United States Fire Administration and its National Fire Academy. David A. Lucht of Ohio was appointed by President Ford to lead the new agency in 1975. True to its tradition, Worcester Polytechnic Institute took the issue on, with Professor Robert W. Fitzgerald as the guiding intellect and catalyst. In 1979, WPI created the Center for Firesafety Studies as the first graduate degree program in fire protection engineering in the Nation. In the past quarter century with Professor Lucht as Director, the WPI fire safety program has become an international leader in fire protection engineering education, with graduates from 30 countries. Through its outstanding faculty, students and alumni, WPI has had an important role in making the world safer from fire. I commend WPI on this impressive 25th Anniversary of the Center for Firesafety Studies and its graduate degree program in fire protection engineering. We are proud of them in Massachusetts, and the Nation is grateful for the difference they have made in fire safety for us all.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I am pleased to support the nomination of Dr. Mark McClellan to be the Administrator of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. There is no more important agency in providing quality health care for the American people, and Dr. McClellan is superbly qualified for this important post. Dr. McClellan has served with distinction in the Treasury Department during the Clinton administration and as a health policy advisor and commissioner of FDA in the Bush administration. He has immense intellectual gifts, a distinguished background as an economist and physician, and tremendous energy, commitment, and integrity. I am particularly pleased that he is an adopted son of Massachusetts, having received his M.D. from the Harvard Medical School. Mark and I have worked closely on a number of issues during his tenure at the White House and the FDA. While we certainly don't always agree, I have always felt that we were working toward the same goals of quality health care. At the FDA, he was committed to modernizing the agency to assure that it brought the best scientific tools of the new century of the life sciences, to regulating the drug development process, and speeding safe and effective products to market. He made a tough call to protect the health of women in his decision on silicone breast implants, and he has been aggressive in his attempts to remove dangerous dietary supplements, most notably Ephedra, from the market. He has been particularly generous with his time in meeting with the Massachusetts device and biotechnology industries, so that he could understand their concerns and that they could gain a deeper appreciation of the most productive way to work with the FDA. At CMS, Mark will have to implement the deeply flawed Medicare bill-- a challenging task under the best of circumstances. I was encouraged by his comments at his confirmation hearing indicating that, unlike others in the Bush administration, he understands the need to maintain Medicaid as an individuals entitlement guaranteeing health care for the poorest of the poor and to end the pernicious policy of overpaying Medicare HMOs because they enroll the healthiest senior citizens. In summary, I am pleased to support Dr. McClellan's nomination. He is a superb choice to head a critically important agency.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, isn't it true that under this resolution we are now considering, there will be no expansion of health care coverage under the existing program; and if the proposal of the Senator from West Virginia isn't accepted, then what we are going to see are hundreds of thousands, even millions of the poorest of the children, poorest of the elderly, frailest of our seniors, dropped from any kind of health care coverage?

Mr. KENNEDY. Is it not also true, with the success of this amendment, there will be a dramatic reduction in teenage smoking?

Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Senator agree with me that one of the great concerns across the country is there has been increasing numbers of the uninsured, costs have gone up 43 percent? And now without the inclusion of the proposal of the Senator from West Virginia, we are putting at risk the poorest of the poor, poor children, frail, elderly people, those in the nursing homes of this country. I commend the Senator from West Virginia. This makes absolute sense and I think it is an absolute necessity. I hope we will have the opportunity to make sure it is part of the budget.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KENNEDY. If I might have the attention of the floor manager for a minute, does he have 2 minutes for an inquiry available?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Dodd, Senator Clinton, Senator Corzine, Senator Stabenow, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Schumer, Senator Reed, Senator Mikulski, Senator Kohl, Senator Lincoln, Senator Levin, Senator Lieberman, Senator Reid, Senator Bingaman, Senator Durbin, Senator Murray, and Senator Pryor. This amendment is about education. It is about higher education. It is about the children whose family average income is $15,000 a year. It is about 4.8 million children in this country who receive Pell grants-- young people, gifted, talented, bright, smart, who come from families with limited incomes and cannot survive even with the Pell grants, unless they get additional help because of the increase in the cost of tuition over the last 3 years. Over the last 3 years, the tuitions in our public schools have increased from $3,700 to $4,700. That is a 26-percent increase. Currently, the Pell grants are $4,050. This would raise it to $5,000. Almost 500,000 more low-income students will receive Pell grants. The average Pell grant will increase by $600. Not everyone will go up to the full $5,100, I should say, but the average grant will go up $600 and the maximum Pell grant will increase by $1,050. This effective increase in the Pell grant offsets the explosion that has taken place with tuitions across this country paid for by the $10 billion--$5 billion for the cost of Pell grants and $5 billion for deficit reduction from the top limits. If we are talking about priorities in this country, we are talking about not leaving children behind. Middle-income, working families are having a difficult time on health care, education, and employment. This makes sure about one-quarter of all of the children who are attending higher education come from families of $15,000 or below, 4.8 million. This amendment is going to make sure some of the most gifted, talented young people in this country are going to be able to continue their education. I remind my colleagues of President Bush's statement he made when he was running for President of the United States in Hampton, NH, in the year 2000: It is known for a fact that Pell grant aid significantly affects the ability of a child to attend college or stay in college. A child eligible for a Pell grant will be affected by the size of the Pell grant. I am going to ask Congress to bolster the first-year aid-- at that time from $3,300--to $5,100 per recipient of the Pell grant. This is what President Bush promised. The year was 2000. We have an opportunity now in 2004 to fulfill this promise. The need has never been greater. This is a defining issue, whether this institution is committed to the cause of higher education and educational opportunity. Everyone in this body understands education is the key to opportunity for our future. It is the key to our economy. It is the key to our national security. It is a key to our democracy. It is in our national interest, our national defense, and our national economic interest. Most of all, it is an issue of fairness, decency, and national priority to have an increase in the Pell grants. I hope the Senate will accept this proposal I offer on behalf of myself and my colleagues.

Mr. KENNEDY. Does the Senator want to give me 3 more minutes?

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KENNEDY. I am a cosponsor on this amendment, and I ask for 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first, I congratulate and commend the Senator from Arkansas. She is basically challenging the Senate, saying that when we are considering a $2.4 trillion budget we ought to make a commitment in this budget to a downpayment on health insurance for working Americans. Eighty percent of those who do not have health insurance are from working families. Working families play by the rules, work hard, provide for their children, and they are effectively without this coverage. In the past, the Budget Committee has had a reserve fund that has been funded on this. In the last budget, $50 billion came out of conference for health insurance. It was $89 billion the year before, but it is zero effectively in this budget. The Senator from Arkansas is reminding us of our responsibility. The problem has not gotten less; it has gotten worse, and she is challenging this body to meet its responsibilities, to say to the 43 million Americans, including the children who are out there, we are committed to making a downpayment. We are not going to have all the answers but we insist, as a matter of national priority, that we give focus and attention to the uninsured. That is what the Lincoln amendment is all about. Goodness knows, of the 43 million Americans, there is not a single Member of the Senate who does not have health insurance. There is not a single Member of the House of Representatives who does not have health insurance. Let's meet our responsibility and begin to treat our fellow Americans the way we treat ourselves.

Mr. KENNEDY. I think my colleague and cosponsor, the Senator from Connecticut, wants 4 minutes. I will take 5 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. KENNEDY. How can you possibly figure that when now it is $4,050 and the average Pell increase was $600, that is 48 percent?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in higher education, with children from families earning $15,000, 4.8 million children receive Pell grants. That makes up one-quarter of all the children attending higher education in this country. What we have seen in the last 3 years is the cost of public education has increased 26 percent. This amendment takes the Pell grants from $4,050 to $5,100; average increase, $600; average increase, 27 percent, just for the increase on the tuition for public colleges. I refer to the statement made by President Bush in New Hampshire where he said: It is a known fact that Pell grant aid significantly affects the ability of children to attend college. I am going to ask Congress to bolster the Pell grants to $5,100. That is what this amendment does. It is a $5 billion cost offset in terms of the deficit reduction paid for by the highest taxpayers in the country.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, every child deserves a healthy start in life, but too many children do not receive it. Their parents work hard, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, but all their hard work is not enough to buy the health insurance their children need. The consequences for the 8 million children who are uninsured are devastating. Three hundred thousand children suffer from asthma and never see a doctor because they are uninsured. Three hundred and fifty thousand children with recurrent earaches or severe sore throats never see a doctor because their families are uninsured. Uninsured children are more likely to miss school, have worse grades, and are less likely to succeed later in life. While the 8.5 million children who remain uninsured challenge our conscience as a nation and tell us how much more needs to be done, for millions of these low- and moderate-income children of working parents, the Child Health Insurance Program has been a lifeline and safety net. The CHIP program has been extraordinarily successful in providing health insurance coverage to children. Even as the number of uninsured adults has risen dramatically, the number of uninsured children has actually fallen. Almost 6 million children are now enrolled in CHIP and getting the care they need and the care they deserve. The children's program has had growing pains--it took longer than anticipated for the program to get off the ground and even today, more than 4 million children are uninsured even though they are eligible for either Medicaid or CHIP. Yet, the program is working well and the only limitation to its continued expansion is lack of funds. More than $1 billion in unused CHIP dollars are due to revert to the Treasury this year at the same time that many states are running out of CHIP dollars. It would be tragic if these funds are lost to the children who need help, and it would be a sad commentary on our national priorities if we allow it to happen. Last year, we faced a similar situation and, with overwhelming bipartisan support, we passed legislation to keep expiring CHIP funds available for children. We need to take the same decisive action this year. This amendment gives the Congress the flexibility to meet this need. It would clarify that the existing, budget neutral reserve fund to address the needs of the uninsured could be used to prevent CHIP funds from reverting. This is a bipartisan amendment and it deserves bipartisan support. Sick children belong to no political party. And members on both sides of the aisle have an obligation to act now, as they have in the past, to meet their needs. Amendment No. 2810, As Modified

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is long past time for our country to face up to the fact of the health care crisis for minorities. African Americans infants are twice as likely to die from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome as white babies. African Americans ages 55 to 64 are three times as likely to die from stroke as whites. HIV infection in African American women is four times the rate in white women. For almost every disease, African Americans are more likely to live sicker and die sooner. These troubling health statistics are not unique to African Americans. Latinos, American Indians, Alaska Natives, and a number of Asian American populations face significantly higher rates of illness, disability, and death from acute or chronic diseases. The administration says it is committed to improving minority health but the Republican budget doesn't reflect this commitment. Instead, as the health crisis continues to escalate, the budget stays the same or is actually reduced for some programs. This amendment is a specific step to improve minority health and minority health care. It creates a deficit-neutral reserve fund for addressing minority health disparities through federal health agencies and programs. By contrast, the President's budget cut funding for the Office of Minority Health and sets the budget of the Office for Civil Rights so low that the office will be virtually powerless to carry out its mission. Our amendment provides more funds for both offices. With additional funding, the CDC's REACH program, which funds community-based efforts to reduce disparities, will be expanded, and so will the Minority HIV/AIDS program. Greater support is needed for the National Center for Minority Health and Health Disparities, and our amendment will provide it. The President's budget essentially zeroed out funds for training in the health professions, including programs that support diversity training and cultural competency programs. Yet, just a year ago, on the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr, the President said, ``We should not be satisfied with the current number of minorities on America's college campuses.'' Diversity programs in medical schools and in the health professions deserve continued funding, and our amendment will provide it. Minority Americans will suffer unfairly from the administration's neglect. We can't turn a blind eye to the health needs of a quarter of our population. The need is too great and I urge the Senate to do the right thing.