Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. OK.

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object--I don't intend to object--does the Senator have copies of the amendment?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, what we are seeing very clearly is not what is being stated by the Senator from Utah but what is included in the language. That is what we are voting on. In the language of the amendment, it is very clear on page 2 that in the case of a corporation, to each of its shareholders, it is less than 2 percent of all businesses that have shareholders. For the shareholders, we see how the velocity of the transitions of shareholders--we find there is a different criteria that is used for unions, different from corporations. On the first page, it talks about any corporation or labor organization. Taking the case of a labor organization, it must submit a written report for such cycle--that is 2 years; in the case of a labor organization, to each employee. Now, that is to each employee. There are 13 million members of the trade union movement. Those who are members, of course, bargain. Several million more are covered, generally, by political activity. Listen to what they have to have for every individual. They will have to receive a report from the organization. On page 4, what will be included: ``Internal and external communications relating to''--it will be interesting to hear the definition of what is related--``specific candidates, political causes,''--this is a new word. What in the world is a ``political cause''? Generally, a political cause is in the eye of the beholder. What do they mean by political cause? They have to send to every employee--that is what this says--the internal and external communications relating to specific candidates. Who are specific candidates? What do we think are the specific candidates? According to the Federal Election Commission, every Member of Congress is defined as a candidate, 435 House Members, 100 Senators. Any communication that is internal or external relating to--whatever that means--political candidates, political causes and committees of political parties. If you don't, you have the criminal penalties included under the Federal Elections Commission where people can go to jail for failing to file these reports which are so voluminous. This amendment is poorly drafted. It doesn't even do what the proponents of this amendment are attempting to do. It is one sided. It is targeted. The aim of this proposal is very clear. It doesn't apply to any of the other independent groups. It doesn't apply to the National Rifle Association. They don't have to conform with it. The Sierra Club doesn't have to; Right to Life doesn't have to. It is just to corporations. But only less than 2 percent of the corporations have to apply, and every union. In terms of every activity or potential activity and every expenditure for every member, not only at the national level, the State level and local level have to get the reports. Every member has to get the report. It is absolutely nonworkable. Finally, what are these activities? On page 5, the term ``political activity'' means voter registration activity. Many of us have tried to encourage voter registration. In fact, labor unions are involved in that. Not many companies or corporations are. I wish they would be. Some of them have been, but they won't be any longer if this passes. They won't be contributing to any local group, to the League of Women Voters or other groups involved in voter registration activity because if they do, they trigger all of these other kinds of participation. The proponents of this understand who does the voter registration. Who does it? It is labor unions. And they are included. Voter identification or get-out-the-vote activity, who does that? Maybe the Senator from Utah can list the number of corporations that are involved. We know who does it. We might as well state it is directed against union activity. They are the ones. I don't mean companies or corporations. Even the ones that have shareholders--again, it is targeted to who?--corporations? No, it is targeted to the labor union and then public communication that refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office and that expressly advocates support for or opposition to a candidate. Maybe there are some corporations, but primarily those are for unions, again. This is very clear, what is being stated here. Under the existing Feingold-McCain bill, there is restatement of what the constitutional holdings are at this time. It is effectively a restatement. There are some who would like to change or alter those. But this is a very poor attempt at trying to gain parity. We could take additional time to go through the various provisions. I hope the Members will take that time. We just received this at the time the Senator rose to speak. It is poorly drafted, poorly constructed, and it does not do the job the proponents want it to do. Finally, I do think workers and those who represent workers and unions should have a right to have their voices heard, to speak out on these issues. The fact remains, we still have not had an opportunity to vote on a minimum wage. I know there are many in this Chamber who hope we never will have that opportunity; but we will, and we will have it done pretty soon. Then there is the Patients' Bill of Rights that workers support, and we are having difficulty, given the fact that today the President of the United States issued a message that if any of the proposals currently before the Congress pass, he would veto each one of them. We have seen what has happened in recent times with arsenic standards being pulled back at the request of industry. We find out that the CO2 standards are being pulled back at the request of industry. We have other examples that are current on this score. We are finding out the influence of the HMOs on the administration is overpowering. It is not the voices of the workers or the families that are tripping up this country, it is the special interests, the large, powerful groups that are expending untold millions. By a ratio of virtually 10 to 1 and 12 to 1, corporations are involved in outspending the unions of this country. Nonetheless, we are faced at this time with an attempt to try to emasculate that opportunity for their voices to be heard. They are the voices for education. They are the voices for health care. They are the voices for child care. Those are the voices that I think we need to hear a lot more of, not less. To reiterate, I rise in opposition to this amendment, misleadingly called the Paycheck Protection Act. It is nothing of the sort. Instead, it is a blatant attempt to silence the voices of working families on the most important issues our Nation faces today. It is an effort to muzzle effective debate on critical legislation affecting the workers of this country. It is not reform. It is revenge for the extraordinarily successful efforts made by the unions to get out the vote in the last election. The amendment is wrong and unfair. It is undemocratic. It is most likely unconstitutional. I urge my colleagues to vote against it. Make no mistake about it. A vote for this amendment is a vote against America's workers. Supporters of this amendment claim that they are concerned about union members' rights to choose whether and how to participate in the political process. We know better. It is crystal clear that the real agenda of those who support the pending amendment is not to protect dissenting workers but to scuttle union participation in the political process. My friends across the aisle know that unions and their members are among the most effective voices on issues of concern to workers, including raising the minimum wage; ensuring the availability of health insurance; protecting the balance between work and families; preserving Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; improving education; and ensuring safety and health on the job. And unions help their members to become active in the political process. As a result of union activity, over two million union members registered to vote in just the last 4 years. In the last election, there were 4.8 million more union household voters than in 1992. In fact, 26 percent of the voters in the last election came from union households. This should surely be a welcome development in a country that prides itself on fostering and promoting a healthy democracy. But my friends across the aisle do not welcome this development. They want to do everything they can to keep workers from voting and from participating in the political process. That is because they fear that workers and those who represent workers' interests will defeat their anti-labor agenda. Silencing the voices of working families will make it easier for Republicans and their big-business friends to achieve their anti-worker goals. Supporters of this amendment want to cut workers' overtime pay and deny millions of workers an increase in the minimum wage. They would end the 40-hour work week and permit sham, company-dominated unions. They voted for this body's shameful repeal of the Department of Labor's ergonomics rule, leaving workers unprotected against the number one threat to health and safety in the workplace. They oppose the Family and Medical Leave Act. They support privatizing Social Security. They favor private school vouchers that take funds away from our efforts to improve the public schools. They are not trying to help working Americans. To the contrary, they want to gag workers so that they can implement an aggressive agenda that workers strongly oppose. This is not paycheck protection. This is paycheck deception. And if we adopt it, we will achieve our opponents' goals of disenfranchising working families. This amendment would silence working families by barring a union from collecting any dues or fees that are not related to collective bargaining unless the union obtained a written permission slip from each employee each year. It would require unions to create an unnecessary, burdensome and expensive bureaucratic process. Unions would have to create recordkeeping and filing systems for responses, solicit approval from each covered employee every year, and constantly recalculate the amounts they could spend on political activity-- activity that frequently requires immediate action. The AFL-CIO has estimated that implementing a paycheck deception provision would cost unions and their members approximately $90 million in the first year and $27 million each year thereafter. That is money taken away from workers' hard-earned benefits and their pension plans. This will, of course, hamper unions' ability to participate fully in political and legislative battles. That is the primary purpose of this bill. Handicapping unions in this way will also further skew the drastic existing imbalances in our political system. A report issued last fall by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics showed that special business interests spent more than $1.2 billion in political contributions in the last election cycle. These payments swamped the contributions of working families through their unions, which amounted to a total of only $90.3 million. That means big business outspent labor unions by a ratio of 14 to 1. The same report found that business outspent unions in ``soft money'' contributions by an even larger margin--17 to 1. The situation has gotten worse over time, moreover. In the 1998 election cycle, according to a previous report by the center, businesses outspent unions on politics by only 11 to 1. In 1996, the gap was 10 to 1. In 1992, it was 9 to 1. These ever-widening disparities are not good news for our democracy. But this paycheck deception amendment would only tip the electoral and legislative playing field ever more decisively in favor of big corporations and the wealthy. In only the last 2 weeks, the power of these special interests has become ever more apparent. Just 2 weeks ago, the Congress voted--with less than 10 hours of debate in the Senate and a mere hour of discussion in the House--to revoke worker protections against ergonomic injuries on which the Department of Labor had worked for 10 years. No employer is now required to do anything to prevent these painful and debilitating worker injuries. Following up on their ergonomics victory, business and special interests scored another coup when this body passed the bankruptcy bill last week. This is a bill that caters to the credit card industry, at the expense of working Americans who will now face more business- created hurdles to getting back on their feet financially after setbacks. This amendment is also a ``poison pill'' for campaign finance reform. It is being championed by those who believe that the inequities in the system are just fine--who would like to have no changes to address the corrupting influence that money has on our national elections. They know that no supporter of campaign finance reform--including my good friend Senator McCain--can vote for a bill that contains these outrageous provisions. They propose this amendment with the full knowledge that it could bring down these reforms and further the power of corporate and wealthy special interests. We should not allow ourselves to be made parties to this ploy. For these reasons, paycheck deception bills have been rejected every time they have been raised. In 1998, a large, bipartisan majority of the House of Representatives voted down a national paycheck deception scheme by a vote of 246 to 166. Twice now--in 1997 and 1998--bipartisan majorities in the Senate have blocked paycheck deception bills. Thirty- five States have refused to enact paycheck deception bills since that time. And California voters in 1998 and Oregon voters just last year soundly defeated ballot initiatives that would have imposed paycheck deception. The cynicism behind this amendment is made more obvious because the amendment is completely unnecessary. For almost 13 years, the law has offered ample protections for any workers who disagree with a union's political activities. Under the landmark Beck decision, no worker, anywhere in the country, may be forced to support union political activities. In addition, in 21 States, workers cannot be required to support any union activities--even collective bargaining. Since the Beck decision, every union, as the law requires, has created a procedure to ensure that dues-paying workers can opt out of a union's political expenditures. These procedures universally involve notice to workers of the opt-out rights provided under Beck; establishment of a means for workers to notify the union of their decision to exercise these rights; an accounting by the union of its spending so that it can calculate the appropriate fee reduction; and the right of access to an impartial decisionmaker if the worker who opts out disagrees with the union's accounting or calculations. Moreover, the President has recently issued an Executive Order that goes to great lengths to ensure that all workers know their rights under Beck. This Executive Order, issued on February 17, requires every Government contractor to post a clear notice that alerts employees of their right to withhold their payments to unions for any purposes other than costs related to collective bargaining. Individuals may file complaints with the Secretary of Labor if they believe that a contractor has failed to meet this requirement. And the Secretary may investigate any contractor suspected of a violation, and may order a range of sanctions for noncompliance, including debarment of the contractor. I opposed this Executive Order because it does not inform workers of any of their other rights under our Nation's labor laws. But in this context, it removes any doubt whatsoever that workers will be informed of their Beck rights and provided remedies if they are not. Remedies for violation of Beck rights are also available under the National Labor Relations Act. Under that act, non-union members who believe that they are being required to support a union's political activities, or who believe that the union's procedures do not afford an adequate opportunity for the individual to object, may file a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board or go directly to Federal court. In such cases, the board or the courts decide whether the particular union has developed procedures that are adequate to meet Beck requirements. To erase any further doubts, the McCain-Feingold bill explicitly codifies the Beck requirements as a matter of law. Section 304 of McCain-Feingold requires all unions to establish objection procedures for real paycheck protection. The bill requires unions to provide personal, annual notice to all affected employees informing them of their rights. It requires that union procedures lay out the steps for employees to make objections to paying dues that would go toward political activity. It requires unions to reduce the fees paid by any employee who has made an objection so that the employee will not be charged for any activities unrelated to collective bargaining. It requires unions to provide explanations of their calculations. Forty years ago, in a case called Machinists v. Street, the Supreme Court recognized that the majority of union voters have ``an interest in stating [their] views without being silenced by the dissenters,'' and that it was necessary to establish a rule that ``protect[s] both interests to the maximum extent possible, without undue impingement of one on the other.'' Beck was the Supreme Court's formulation of this rule, and it represents a sound and reasonable way to achieve this goal. And McCain-Feingold respects this rule laid out so well by the Court. The proposed amendment would upset this careful balance between majority and dissenting interests. Where the Court has stated that ``dissent is not to be presumed--it must be affirmatively made known to the union by the dissenting employee,'' the bill creates precisely the opposite regime: dissent will be presumed absent explicit consent. Under this ill-advised amendment--and unlike in every other democratic institution in our country, including the Congress itself--a minority would be able to thwart the will of the majority by fiat. Not by debate. Not by discussion. Not by a reasoned exchange of competing ideas. Just by silence. I believe this paycheck deception amendment is also unconstitutional. The amendment would interfere with union members' freedom to associate in their unions according to membership rules of their own choice. Under current law, unions may make payment of normal dues the precondition for membership and participation in the union. Unions may--and do--provide that only those individuals who have paid their full dues may vote on issues before the union or run for union elective office. It is entirely appropriate for those workers who do not wish to support the union's political activities to resign from membership. They cannot be required to fund political activities, and their dues will be reduced accordingly. These workers will receive the full benefits of union representation on issues related to the union's bargaining obligations. But they will not be members of the union who can participate in making fundamental decisions about union business-- including the election of officers, the use of organizational resources, or the union's political positions. But this amendment states that those who do not pay full dues still have a full voice in the affairs of the union. They would have the same rights and benefits as those who pay full dues. That is not only unconstitutional, it is just plain wrong. Some of my colleagues claim that the egregious unfairness in this amendment can be cured if corporations are bound by ``shareholder protection'' requirements. But comparing unions and corporations and workers and shareholders is like comparing apples and oranges. They simply are not the same. First, no corporation requires payments for political purposes as a condition of employment. Shareholders are not employees. It is laughable to think that bills that regulate payments that are ``conditions of employment'' create parity between unions and corporations. Second, 99.7 percent of American for-profit corporations are privately held and have no shareholders to protect. Third, shares in public corporations are typically held by institutions such as mutual or pension funds not by individuals. Any bill that purported to create parity between unions and corporations would have to reach individuals, and would have to apply to the political and legislative spending of intermediate entities, not simply to expenditures by the companies at the end of the ownership chain. None of my colleagues is rushing to do that. Finally, were corporations to be required to meet the standards that would be imposed on unions, they would have to account for political and legislative spending and budgets; disclose such spending and budgets to shareholders; constantly track new shareholders and recalculate ownership shares based on daily activities in the stock market; constantly solicit consent from this ever-changing group; and pay extra dividends or other financial benefits to shareholders who did not authorize political expenditures. The pending amendment does not do this. No bill purporting to create parity has ever done this. No bill would ever do so. Such a bill would likely bring commerce to its knees, as corporations spent their time creating immense administrative bureaucracies to implement these requirements. We would never hamstring corporations in this way and we should not do it to labor unions, either. We should not impose these unreasonable, unfair, and likely unconstitutional burdens on our country's unions, which represent the most effective voice for our working families. Since its founding, our nation has respected and nurtured the fundamental principle that democracy thrives best when there is robust debate over issues of public concern. This amendment would subvert that bedrock proposition. I urge my colleagues to reject this attack on our working families, our unions, and our country's core values.

Mr. KENNEDY. If I could reclaim my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with all respect to my friend and colleague from Utah, this really is no improvement over the earlier amendment. In many respects, it just continues the differentiation by which different groups are being treated, not just the corporations and unions but other groups as well. Again, I know my friend talked about the drafting. He doesn't need any lectures from me. But I am confused because the amendment is very unclear. It says, for example, that ``political activities'' must be reported. If you look on page 5 it has ``political activity'' defined. If you go to the term ``political activity,'' it means, if you go to line 19, ``political activity.'' So you have political activity being defined as political activity. It is really quite difficult to understand. We all know at the present time that unions are subject to substantial reporting and disclosure requirements. I have in my hand the disclosure requirements. They are extensive. Unions have to disclose PAC funds, all payments for express advocacy, and detailed financial information. This goes far beyond what corporations today are required to report. It is publicly available. For any of those who have a viewpoint that is the same as that of the Senator from Utah, they can just go down to the Labor Department where all these reports are on file. They are available to the public. The case has not been made about the inadequacy of the information that is reported. We have language requiring additional disclosure in this amendment, but there has been no case that the current information is inadequate to reveal what political activities are being supported. I think that doesn't make a great deal of sense. This bill is not only vague, it is burdensome. As we mentioned earlier, and as Senator Hatch said during our prior colloquy, corporations would have to send reports to anyone who was a shareholder at the time of the expenditures. We have had the chance to do the numbers. Last week alone there were more than 6 billion stockholder transactions just on the New York Stock Exchange. Does this mean that if any of the corporations that would be included in this bill made an expenditure last week that all holders of those shares would have to be notified? The amendment says they would have to be notified of all expenditures within a 2-year election cycle. That is unwieldy. It is unworkable. It is enormously bureaucratic. It makes no sense at all. We had a good exchange in the last debate. Many of us are troubled about what either my good friend, Senator Hatch, or others who support this amendment have against working families and the working families' agenda. Working families want an increase in the minimum wage, a Patients' Bill of Rights, and additional funding in education. They want to make sure we have a sound and secure national security. They want Medicare and Medicaid to be enhanced. They want to improve worker training. They want to invest in continuing education and workforce training programs. I daresay that kind of a program would be worthwhile at the present time. This is what their agenda is all about. We are probably in some form of economic crisis. And what we have from the administration is a tax bill which isn't an economic program; it is a tax bill that was basically devised over a year ago when we had entirely different economic conditions. I think the kinds of investment that working families have advocated in terms of ensuring that we are going to invest in training programs, invest in education, invest in small business, enhance research and training, and not see further cuts in the National Science Foundation, or other cuts in the advanced technology program, makes a good deal of sense. We hope this amendment is not accepted. In the earlier debate and discussion, we went through these and other provisions in careful detail. The amendment does seem to be one-sided, unfairly targeted, and completely unnecessary. I think the sponsors, Senator Feingold, and Senator McCain, as well as Senator Dodd and others, have eloquently pointed out the kind of balance and protections for the American voters that have been included in the McCain-Feingold legislation. That was carefully considered. It seems to me that we ought to stay with those proposals. I hope this amendment will not be accepted.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Connecticut yield me 3 minutes?

Mr. KENNEDY. Almost.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today Senator Specter, Senator Leahy, Senator Jeffords, Senator Graham, Senator Chafee, and I introduce the bipartisan ``Nutrition Assistance for Working Families and Seniors Act.'' Our goal is to repair specific holes that time has worn in the nation's core nutrition safety net--the Food Stamp Program. Hunger is a silent crisis affecting families all across America. No corner of our land is immune from this tragedy. The Nation can well afford to ensure that the average food stamp benefit of 79 cents per meal is available to everyone who truly needs it. In a time of economic prosperity, the moral imperative to feed the hungry may be clearest. But in a time of economic uncertainty, the need to feed the hungry should be clearest. The bottom line is that too many working families and seniors in America have trouble putting enough food on the table. On February 26, 2001, the New York Times included a compelling account of the difficulties faced by the Payne family from Cleveland, Ohio. Mrs. Payne states that ``it's difficult to work at a grocery store all day, looking at all the food I can't buy, so I imagine filling up my cart with one of those big orders and bringing home enough food for all my kids.'' She and her husband, a factory worker, routinely go without dinner to be sure that their four children have enough to eat. The Payne family was among thousands of working families that have recently turned to emergency food pantries and soup kitchens in search of help. The Payne family did not know that they were eligible for food stamps. Nationwide, participation in the Food Stamp Program has declined 34 percent since 1996, four times faster than the decline in the poverty rate. This means that over 2 million fewer people who live in poverty are accessing food stamps today. Over a quarter of the reduction in food stamp participation between 1994 and 1998 resulted from welfae reform and its elimination of food stamp eligibility for legal immigrants, both by directly rendering legal immigrants ineligible for food stamps, and by discouraging their U.S. citizen children from accessing food stamps. The results are predictable. The U.S. Department of Agriculture determined that 4.9 million adults and 2.6 million children lived in households that experienced hunger during 1999. The Urban Institute finds that 33 percent of former welfare recipients have to skip or cut meals due to lack of food. The most vulnerable people among us--recent immigrants, children, and the elderly--are the ones who face the greatest difficulty. Republicans and Democrats agree that we need to work together in good faith to deliver senior citizens from having to choose between heating and eating, and from having to choose between paying for their prescription drugs or for their groceries. There is also widespread agreement that more must be done to end childhood hunger. A July 1999 General Accounting Office study concludes, ``Children's participation in the Food Stamp Program has dropped more sharply than the number of children living in poverty, indicating a growing gap between need and assistance.'' Sadly, the enormity of this crisis is confirmed by a major study released today by the Urban Institute's National Survey of America's Families, which focuses upon the impact that welfare reform has had on the children of immigrants. The report finds that 80 percent of the children of immigrants are United States citizens, but the immigrant status of parents prevents these citizen children from receiving the aid they need. According to the Urban Institute, 24 percent of children of immigrants live in poverty compared to 16 percent of children of citizens, and 37 percent of children of immigrants live in households that have difficulty putting enough food on the table each month, compared to 27 percent of children of citizens. The report also shows that access to public benefits makes a difference for immigrant families. Largely because Massachusetts pays to provide food stamps to all legal immigrants, food insecurity rates there are relatively similar for children of immigrants and children of citizens 28 percent of immigrant children versus 22 percent of native children). Texas provides no such benefit, however, and this fact is reflected in its food insecurity rates. Over 49 percent of children of immigrants lack secure access to adequate nutrition in Texas, compared to a third of children of citizens. While hunger and malnutrition are serious problems for people of all ages, their effects are particularly damaging to children. Hungry and undernourished children are more likely to become anemic and to suffer from allergies, asthma, diarrhea, and infections. They are also more likely to have behavioral problems and difficulty in learning. When children arrive at school hungry, they cannot learn. If we do not address this silent crisis, our considerable investments in education and early learning activities will not have the full positive impact that they should. Clearly more must be done for both the children of citizens and the children of immigrants. A strong Food Stamp Program is essential to ensure that all people in America can get the food they need to stay healthy. In seven common sense steps, this bill reaches goals shared by Republicans and Democrats alike--promoting self-sufficiency, encouraging transitions from welfare to work, and eradicating hunger among children and seniors. First, this bill restores eligibility for food stamps to all legal immigrants, a matter of fundamental fairness and basic need. The Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured reports that immigrant families on average pay $80,000 more in taxes than they receive in local, state, and federal benefits over a lifetime. For 30 years prior to welfare reform, food stamps were available to legal immigrants, and as today's Urban Institute report confirms, legal immigrants are now among those most in need of nutritional assistance. Our laws recognize that legal immigrants need access to employment, education, and health care, yet all of these efforts are compromised when legal immigrants are denied access to basic nutrition. The effort to prevent legal immigrants from accessing food stamps never made sense from a policy perspective, and I am pleased to see considerable bipartisan momentum building to restore eligibility. Our key allied in the effort to restore eligibility include the National Conference of State Legislatures, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, the National Black Caucus of State Legislators, the Hispanic Caucus, leaders of all major religious denominations, and over 1,400 immigration, hunger, and social justice organizations that are active in every state. Over twenty newspapers have published editorials urging restoration of food stamp eligibility to legal immigrants. With such strong and broad public support, I am hopeful that immigrants will not have to wait another year to have their access to basic nutrition restored. Second, this bill ends the child penalty under current food stamp law. Just as the marriage penalty in our tax code unfairly penalizes some couples, existing law unfairly limits nutritional assistance to some families with children. This bill fixes the problem by indexing the food stamp standard deduction to family size in a way that simply ensures that every family that is in deep poverty, with earnings under 10 percent of the poverty limit, will receive the maximum current food stamp benefit regardless of family size. Over half of the benefit from this provision will go to working families. Third, this bill addresses a core nutritional concern of senior citizens and other low-income families on fixed incomes, many of whom qualify for the minimum food stamp benefit. The food stamp minimum benefit has remained at $10 since 1977. This bill raises the minimum benefit to $25 over the course of five years, and then indexes it to inflation. Fourth, this bill ensures that food stamp law treats child support payments like income when calculating benefits, by disregarding 20 percent of these payments in the benefit determinations. This measure is consistent with last year's overwhelming House approval of a plan to encourage states to pass more child support payments through to low- income families. Parents who know that their children will directly benefit if they pay their child support are more likely to remain on the job, pay their child support, and, most importantly, remain involved with their children. Fifth, this bill gives states more options for helping families make the transition from welfare to work. Current food stamp law allows a 3- month state option for a transitional food stamp benefit. This bill mirrors Medicaid's six-month Medicaid transitional benefit for food stamps, simplifying state recordkeeping, increasing state flexibility, and helping TANF families transition to work. Sixth, this bill improves access to food stamp information, helping to ensure that families like the Paynes are aware of the help that remains available to them. It helps rural families apply for food stamps using online and telephone systems, eliminating the need to travel to food stamp offices. It also supports stronger public-private partnerships that generate and distribute information about the nation's nutrition assistance program. Finally, this bill increases federal support for emergency food programs, 71 percent of which are operated by faith based organizations. Sharp increases in requests for help from food pantries and soup kitchens have occurred over the past year despite steep declines in food stamp participation. Many food banks find themselves unable to meet the increased requests for help. Nationally, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and America's Second Harvest have independently documented a 15 to 20 percent increase in needs over 1998. 79 percent of Massachusetts food pantries funded through Project Bread reported serving more working poor in 1998, and 72 percent reported helping more families with children. To ensure that emergency food needs are met without unnecessarily tapping Food Stamp resources, this bill increases funding for The Emergency Food Assistance Program by 10 percent. The total cost of this bill amounts to about $2.75 billion over five years, which would increase the cost of the Food Stamp Program by about 2 percent. This bill's cost is also modest in relation to the current ten-year non-Social surplus--it uses but 0.2 percent of the projected federal surplus. We've often heard that hunger has a cure. This is a call to action, not a truism, for the many people who have cooperated in developing this legislation. I'm proud to work with them for its prompt passage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Everybody Wins! is an innovative literacy improvement program that pairs adults with children for one hour a week to share lunch, a good book and friendship. The U.S. Senate launched Everybody Wins! at the Brent Elementary School in 1995. Today, this program serves 4,500 children in the Washington area. Last night, I had the honor of attending a reception to celebrate the Everybody Wins! program. I was joined by my colleague Senator Jim Jeffords who I commend for his leadership in making the Everybody Wins! program such a success in the U.S. Senate, and Art Tannenbaum, the visionary behind this wonderful program. I was especially honored to join First Lady Laura Bush at last evening's event. Mrs. Bush's passion for reading and strong commitment to early literacy touched the lives of thousand of families in Texas, and it is clear from last night that she brings that same commitment to children all across the country. I was deeply moved by her remarks last night and her real passion for children and their needs, and I believe my colleagues would appreciate her thoughtful statement as well. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print Mrs. Bush's remarks from last evening into the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last Friday, Congressman Mike Capuano and I had the honor of congratulating First Book for distributing over a quarter of a million books to children across Massachusetts. My distinguished colleague from Massachusetts is a tireless advocate for ensuring that children of all ages obtain the reading materials and skills they need to become active members of our State and of our Nation, and I am happy to have been able to share this important afternoon with him. Thanks to the coordination of First Book, the generous donations by Random House Children's Books and Little, Brown & Company, and the dedicated volunteers from the Campus Outreach Opportunity League, the Coast Guard and First Book, thousands of children throughout our state who do not always get the opportunity to receive brand new books, are now enjoying their gifts. First Book is making it possible for young children to have access to books and take the first steps toward learning to read and it is making a real difference in their lives. It is impressive that last year, First Book was responsible for distributing more than 4 million books to children in more than 290 communities across the country. A 1999 evaluation of First Book conducted by Lou Harris and funded by the U.S. Department of Education, showed that after a child's involvement in First Book, 55 percent of them reported an increased interest in reading. Ninety-eight percent of the local advisory boards reported that their community was better off because of the support of First Book. Children need to have reading materials outside of school, and even before they start school. It is the best way to develop a love of reading early in life. When President Kennedy was young, two of his favorite books were ``Billy Whiskers'' and ``King Arthur and the Round Table.'' My mother read for endless hours to all nine of us, and she was conscientious about choosing books that were educational and inspirational as well as entertaining. She instilled a love of reading in all of us. Reading is the foundation of learning and the golden door to opportunity. First Book knows that to open a book is to open a child's mind to a world of new possibilities. But too many children fail to read at an acceptable level. Reading is a pleasure, but today it is also a necessity. Students who don't learn to read well in their early years cannot keep up in their later years. That is why literacy programs are so important. They give young children practical opportunities to learn to read and practice reading. As a volunteer for a reading program in Washington, I know that literacy and mentoring programs make a difference not only for the children who participate in them, but the children in the program make a difference in my life, too. This is the fourth year that Jasmine and I have been reading partners at Brent Elementary School, and it is very impressive to see her make progress as a reader. There is nothing more exciting for Jasmine and me than when we get to choose a brand new book to read together. If we all work together, families, schools and communities, children will have the support they need to become good readers in their early years, and gain an appreciation for reading that will last a lifetime.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on Friday, March 16, Stephanie Bernstein, who lost her husband on Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, addressed a conference on the future of Libyan-American relations hosted by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, the Atlantic Council, and the Middle East Institute. Ms. Bernstein's remarks are insightful and show, in very real human terms, the pain suffered by the Lockerbie families. They also demonstrate the need for the U.S. and the international community to keep the pressure on Qadhafi until he accepts responsibility for the actions of Libya's intelligence officer, tells what the Government of Libya knows about the bombing and compensates the families of the victims for this horrible tragedy. I urge my colleagues to read Ms. Bernstein's remarks as we consider the reauthorization of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. I ask unanimous consent that her statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this bipartisan amendment protects workers who face bankruptcy because they are owed money by employers for back pay. This amendment was passed by voice vote last year, but was dropped in conference. This should be a noncontroversial change, a change that would ensure that workers receive all the wages that are due them, workers who were denied minimum wage or overtime pay, workers who were victims of discrimination, workers who were wrongfully fired, and veterans who were denied jobs when they returned from active military duty. Amending the bankruptcy bill to protect the back pay of workers is especially appropriate, because back pay awards help many of the people that this legislation places at risk, low income families, minorities, and women. My amendment helps workers take care of their families. Collecting a back pay award would give them more of the resources they need to afford food, clothing, and health care without turning to credit cards. Our bankruptcy laws already protect wages so that businesses can continue to pay their workers during a reorganization. And some courts have taken the important step of requiring employers facing bankruptcy to live up to their obligations to provide back pay awards. This change would ensure that all workers are treated the same, no matter what bankruptcy court their employer has filed in. The Department of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board obtain back pay awards on behalf of workers. For fiscal year 1998, the NLRB got back pay awards on behalf of about 24,000 workers, with an average award of $3,750 per worker. During the past 5 years, the NLRB also recovered about $1 million on behalf of approximately 300 American veterans who were wrongfully denied jobs after they returned to work from active military duty. Similarly, for fiscal year 1999 the Department of Labor got back pay awards on behalf of about 2,000 workers, with an average award of about $900 per worker. If these back pay awards do not receive protection in bankruptcy, most workers will never receive them. They will have earned the back pay, but will never see a dime. Without this amendment, workers lose twice--first when they are wrongfully denied wages, and then again when they are unable to collect the wages because their employers have declared bankruptcy.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join Senator Domenici and Senator Wellstone in introducing the Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 2001. This Act is an important step in the fight to end the stigma against mental illness and ensure that those suffering from mental illness receive the services they need. For too long, individuals with mental disorders have faced unfair treatment restrictions and paid more for the services they need than have individuals requiring medical or surgical services. The groundbreaking report on mental health that the Surgeon General released last year reveals that disproportionate cost-sharing requirements and treatment limitations ``reduce appropriate use, of mental health services,'' and ``leave people to bear catastrophic costs themselves.'' The Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act aims to halt these troubling trends by ensuring that group health plans treat mental health benefits the same way they do medical and surgical benefits. In 1996, we enacted the Mental Health Parity Act. While this important legislation made progress in advancing the fair treatment of individuals with mental illness, it did not go far enough in providing true protection for all people suffering from mental disorders. The Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 2001 improves upon this earlier legislation by providing full parity for a broad range of mental health disorders. Under the Act, group health plans must limit the treatment restrictions and financial requirements that they impose for mental health benefits to the same level that they set for medical or surgical benefits. Co-payments for office visits must be comparable, for example, regardless of whether the office is a physician's or a psychiatrist's. While the Act does not apply to group health plans that do not provide any mental health benefits or that have 25 employees or less, it is a critical step in ending the blatant discrimination that people with mental disorders face in trying to obtain necessary and affordable treatment. As we have learned more about the brain and the way it works, we have developed promising treatments that can significantly improve the health of individuals with mental illness and help them lead productive lives. Success rates for treating mental illnesses are now as high as 80 percent. Without strong parity legislation, however, these effective treatments will remain elusive for the millions of individuals who need them. The Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act will finally help these individuals receive the care they need by eliminating one of the biggest barriers to care, cost. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this groundbreaking piece of legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join Senator Domenici and Senator Wellstone in introducing the Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 2001. This Act is an important step in the fight to end the stigma against mental illness and ensure that those suffering from mental illness receive the services they need. For too long, individuals with mental disorders have faced unfair treatment restrictions and paid more for the services they need than have individuals requiring medical or surgical services. The groundbreaking report on mental health that the Surgeon General released last year reveals that disproportionate cost-sharing requirements and treatment limitations ``reduce appropriate use, of mental health services,'' and ``leave people to bear catastrophic costs themselves.'' The Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act aims to halt these troubling trends by ensuring that group health plans treat mental health benefits the same way they do medical and surgical benefits. In 1996, we enacted the Mental Health Parity Act. While this important legislation made progress in advancing the fair treatment of individuals with mental illness, it did not go far enough in providing true protection for all people suffering from mental disorders. The Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 2001 improves upon this earlier legislation by providing full parity for a broad range of mental health disorders. Under the Act, group health plans must limit the treatment restrictions and financial requirements that they impose for mental health benefits to the same level that they set for medical or surgical benefits. Co-payments for office visits must be comparable, for example, regardless of whether the office is a physician's or a psychiatrist's. While the Act does not apply to group health plans that do not provide any mental health benefits or that have 25 employees or less, it is a critical step in ending the blatant discrimination that people with mental disorders face in trying to obtain necessary and affordable treatment. As we have learned more about the brain and the way it works, we have developed promising treatments that can significantly improve the health of individuals with mental illness and help them lead productive lives. Success rates for treating mental illnesses are now as high as 80 percent. Without strong parity legislation, however, these effective treatments will remain elusive for the millions of individuals who need them. The Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act will finally help these individuals receive the care they need by eliminating one of the biggest barriers to care, cost. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this groundbreaking piece of legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, the Friends of Ireland in Congress released its annual St. Patrick's Day Statement. The Friends of Ireland is a bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives opposed to violence and terrorism in Northern Ireland and dedicated to a United States policy that promotes a just, lasting and peaceful settlement of the conflict. I believe this year's Friends of Ireland Statement will be of interest to all of our colleagues who are concerned about this issue, and I ask unanimous consent that it may be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, is there time remaining on the amendment?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for the first time in the history of bankruptcy, we will put at risk the retirement savings of workers. In this instance, we do not have a limitation in terms of the retirement savings under the 401(k) programs. There are virtually no limitations. But there are limitations in terms of the IRAs. The IRAs are the programs that are most used by working families. They can only contribute $2,000 a year to an IRA. There was no history and no comments in the long testimony we took before the Judiciary Committee that this was being abused, that people were putting money into their IRAs in order to be able to circumvent bankruptcy. They cannot do it in the first place because they can only contribute $2,000 a year. But there are many hundreds of thousands of workers in this country who are putting aside the $2,000 a year and hope to build up a sufficient nest egg that will augment their Social Security so they will be able to live with some dignity. Now we are putting that money at risk. In many instances, the people who are going into bankruptcy are going into bankruptcy because their health insurance has failed or they do not have health insurance. They go to the hospital for 4 days and they run up these enormous bills. What the current proposal before the Senate is saying is, OK, that is going to be too bad. We are going to suck up the 25 years of payments into retirement programs for working families. We say, we do not do it for the 401(k) programs, which are the retirement programs for the more wealthy and affluent. We should not do it for the IRAs. Starting now, at $1 million, it will just continue to come down. And we are putting these savings at risk. It does not belong in this bill. I hope my amendment will eliminate it. I think it is the proper way to proceed. Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this bankruptcy bill includes a provision that would undermine existing pension law by allowing creditors to claim workers' retirement savings in bankruptcy. One of the greatest domestic policy challenges facing Congress is the challenge of ensuring that elderly Americans do not live in poverty. After a lifetime of hard work, senior citizens deserve a secure and comfortable retirement. Clearly, we need to do more to improve the private pension system. Nearly half of all working Americans--some 73 million men and women--do not have pension coverage. The lack of pension security is a critical issue. It is a women's issue, because only 39 percent of working women are covered by a pension plan. It is a civil rights issue, because only 26 percent of Hispanic workers and 38 percent of African-American workers have pension coverage. So it is imperative that Congress do all it can to expand pension coverage and encourage retirement savings. We must work to improve our retirement savings system--not move backward. The provision in the bankruptcy bill that would cap the amount of retirement savings held in individual retirement accounts that can be exempted from a debtor's bankruptcy estate is a step backward. Federal pension laws are intended to protect workers by guaranteeing that their retirement savings will be there when they retire. The entire pension community--worker groups, employers, mutual fund companies, and other pension service providers--are united in opposition to a cap on retirement savings for three reasons: one, it is unnecessary, two, it is unworkable, and three, it would discourage savings and portability. First, a cap on IRA savings is unnecessary because Federal tax law already imposes strict limits on IRA contributions. The cap is aimed at preventing wealthy individuals from trying to stuff assets into their IRAs before declaring bankruptcy. But because IRA contributions are limited to only $2,000 per year, wealthy individuals cannot stuff assets into an IRA before filing bankruptcy as a way to avoid paying debts. At the rate of $2,000 per year, it would take about 40 years to accumulate retirement savings of $1 million. Second, the cap is unworkable. It will be extremely difficult--if not impossible in many cases--to administer. There are thousands of IRA accounts with balances in excess of $1 million due to rollovers from 401(k) plans and other retirement vehicles. Under the current bill, those rollover amounts (and the earnings on them) would not be available to creditors. However, a bankruptcy court will need to sort through those accounts to determine how much of the account came from direct IRA contributions and how much came from rollovers. The court will also be forced to calculate how much of the earnings in the account should be attributed to the IRA contributions and how much should be attributed to the rollovers amounts. That will be a time consuming administrative burden with no benefit to creditors. Third, the cap will discourage retirement savings and portability. Using retirement savings in IRAs to satisfy personal debts is unprecedented, and collides head-on with efforts by Congress to encourage individuals to save for retirement. Already, more than 60 percent of workers who change jobs take their retirement savings and spend the money rather than rolling the money into another retirement vehicle. The cap will undermine the trust that over 35 million American households have placed in the IRA as a safe and secure retirement savings vehicle, and will discourage workers from rolling money into their IRAs when they change jobs. I believe this provision would jeopardize the retirement security of American workers. This is simply the wrong message for Congress to send, particularly at a time when we are trying to encourage additional private-sector retirement savings to ensure retirement income security for the aging baby boom generation. Mr. President, I hope this amendment will be accepted. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure. I appreciate the attitude of the Senator. We would be glad to try to follow through with that. I am grateful for the Senator's interest and sensitivity. I appreciate that.

Mr. KENNEDY. I believe the Senator has that amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. If it is the desire of the floor manager, I ask unanimous consent that the existing amendment be temporarily laid aside and we go to the amendment which is what they call the cap on IRA assets.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am happy to yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, is it appropriate to ask consent to set aside the pending amendment and proceed to other amendments to the bankruptcy bill?

Mr. KENNEDY. It is an amendment dealing with health insurance benefits for the debtor's monthly expenses permitted in the consideration of the means test, the opportunity for those going through the process to be able to have included consideration for paying their health insurance and premiums.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I hope my friend from Iowa will continue to reason with us a little bit about this particular provision. I point out to him that for a long time in the Senate I have been interested in championing the interests of working families and the interests that deal not only with the basic issues of education, health, and housing, but also retirement programs. That is a key element. The Senator knows, as a member of the Finance Committee, how much of the tax expenditures go to individuals making over $100,000, what the general taxpayers are paying under tax expenditures at the present time that are being deducted. Those are the higher income groups. There is very little for working families, and he understands that very well as a member of the Finance Committee. I don't retreat a single step in terms of my desire to make sure we are going to have sound retirement programs for working families, schoolteachers, and other workers. The illustration that the Senator from Iowa gave us about some doctor who had all of these savings is not applicable. It doesn't even relate to what we are talking about because there is only a $2,000 contribution that one can make to an IRA. Who uses the IRAs? Basically, it is the working families. The Senator understands that. Who uses the 401(k)? They are basically the more affluent individuals in our society. Those are the facts. But it is interesting that the bill the Senator has introduced protects the 401(k), but not the IRA. So I don't want to have any misunderstanding. The Senator's position is protecting the 401(k)-- $10,500 a year can be put in an 401(k), but only $2,000 in IRAs. This is a millionaire's loophole? The Senator knows as well as I that you haven't even got anybody who qualifies for the cap on IRAs at $2,000 a year because the IRAs haven't been around long enough. You have tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people in 401(k)s. But 401(k)s are not going to be touched by the bankruptcy court. Oh, no, just the IRAs, which serve whom? Working families--with limits of $2,000. The more we get into this, the more difficulty we have in understanding what the logic is in terms of defending 401(k)s. The fact has been, historically, that it has been the opinion of the Congress-- with the exception of this Congress and this bill--that retirement moneys would not be included in terms of the bankruptcy provisions. They earned it and set it aside as retirement funds, and it would not be included. In the course of our hearings on bankruptcy, there were very few that would allege this kind of circumvention in terms of IRAs. If the Senator is able to give me examples, or hearings, or testimony on where we had all of these abuses in the IRAs--we are talking about a schoolteacher making $40,000 a year who puts aside $2,000 in order that they can retire and have substantially similar kinds of income when they retire. They would have to do it probably for 35 years in order to be able to get the kinds of resources allocated so that they are going to be able to do it. Those are not the people we are talking about in terms of gypping the credit card companies and the banks. The Senator knows that. The Senator knows that. I do not understand why we treat these retirement funds differently: One way for 401(k)s and another for the IRAs, which is the appropriate device working families have used and with which they are increasingly developing some confidence. We are going to be debating, we hope, Social Security. The average Social Security is $13,000. That is the average Social Security check. Eighty percent of those on Social Security live below $25,000. We have to ask: What are we going to do to encourage individuals to save, particularly working families? We have not done a very good job of it as a matter of public policy. We have done a very poor job. We do a very good job with respect to the most affluent members of our society. We have all kinds of tax support in the Internal Revenue Code, but for working families, we do a very poor job. This is one of those small areas, the IRAs, that is open to working families and on which we do not mind putting on the additional cap. On the other side, we have serious reservations putting a cap on the 401(k). I do not think that is fair. Also, undermining retirement money that has been paid in over a lifetime, which may very well be a lifeline for that family, can be eliminated, wiped out, in 4 days of catastrophic illness in a hospital. That is what we are talking about. Four days of a catastrophic illness for themselves, a wife or child, and it is wiped out. That is what the current bill will do. We encourage people to work hard, play by the rules all their lives, and put something aside with which to retire in peace and dignity. I caught myself getting choked up when the Senator talked about a millionaire's tax loophole because it is not; it is $2,000 a year. One has to contribute for an awful long time to use this as a gimmick. There are a whole lot of other gimmicks in this bill, such as the homestead provision and other provisions that can be used a lot easier than this one. For these reasons, I hope we prevail.