Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, many of us have worked throughout this Congress to bring greater fairness to our immigration laws. The Legal Immigration Family Equity Act and its amendments are a constructive compromise worked out between members of both parties to address a number of the injustices in current law that have harshly affected many immigrant families. Included in the final legislative package are three provisions that will provide long overdue relief to valued members of our communities and their families. First, the legislation includes the partial restoration of section 245(i) for individuals who are physically present in the U.S. by the date the legislation is enacted into law. Spouses, children, parents and siblings of permanent residents or U.S. citizens will now be able to adjust their status in the U.S. and avoid needless separation from their loved ones. Similarly, persons who benefit from employer-based petitions will also be helped by the restoration of section 245(i). Second, this legislation will benefit many of the ``late amnesty'' class members who have been in legal limbo for close to 15 years. Their spouses and children will be able to remain in the United States until they become eligible for permanent residence. Finally, this legislation provides desperately needed technical corrections that will benefit persons eligible for relief under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act and the Haitian Refugee Immigrant Fairness Act. Because these provisions were developed outside the usual committee process, they are not accompanied by committee reports on the background and purpose of the provisions. Therefore, as the chairman and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Senator Abraham and I are submitting a detailed memorandum explaining the provisions, which I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record at the closing of my remarks.

Mr. KENNEDY. Our action today is a significant step in the right direction, but this legislation is far from perfect. Critical pieces are missing. We must continue to work for full parity for Central Americans, Haitians, and Liberians. It is unjust to treat refugees fleeing repression by left-wing dictators better than those fleeing repression by right-wing dictators. Congress must create a fair, uniform set of procedures for all of these refugees. We also must continue to work for relief for permanent residents unfairly affected by the 1996 immigration law. The 1996 law contains some of the harshest provisions that Congress has enacted in many years. Their scope is sweeping. They hurt thousands of immigrants. They have taken immigrants away from their U.S. citizen families, without giving them even an opportunity to have their day in court. Next year, Congress must pass new legislation to correct the harsh provisions of these unfair laws. It is also unfortunate that the legislation does not include far- reaching agreement on agricultural farmworkers. Senator Graham, Congressman Berman, and many others worked skillfully to achieve this agreement. They proposed an excellent compromise that would have benefitted both the agricultural workers and the farm owners. These further reforms deserve high priority by the next Congress, and I look forward to working with my colleagues and with the administration of President-elect Bush to enact them into law. Exhibit 1 Joint Memorandum Concerning the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act of 2000 and the LIFE Act Amendments of 2000. The pending legislation contains certain immigration provisions worked out between members of both parties to further address certain issues addressed in the first instance in the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act of 2000, or LIFE Act, which is contained in the Commerce Justice State Appropriations bill being transmitted to the President. Because both the original LIFE ACT and this legislation were developed outside the ordinary Committee process, they were not accompanied by the usual reports elaborating on the background and purpose of their provisions. This memorandum is accordingly submitted on behalf of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Immigration of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary to provide such elaboration in somewhat abbreviated form. The original LIFE Act sought to address two problems. First, it sought to provide a new mechanism to address the problem created by the long backlog of immigrant visa applications for spouses and minor children of lawful permanent residents, who are currently having to wait many years for a visa to become available to them. Right now, many of these individuals are even precluded from visiting their spouse or parent in the United States on account of an administrative interpretation that the filing of their petition cases doubt on the bona fides of their applications for visitors visas, indicating that instead they are intending immigrants. The LIFE Act creates a new temporary ``V'' visa under which these spouses (and their children) can come to the United States and wait for their visa here, if their immigrant visa petitions have been pending for more than three years. It also expands the criteria for ``K'' visas to include spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens. The purpose of the ``V'' and ``K'' visas is to provide a speedy mechanism by which family members may be reunited. We expect the Department of State and the INS to work together to create a process in keeping with the temporary nature of the visa that does not require potential beneficiaries to wait for months before their visas are approved. Like the existing Finance visa, the new ``K'' visa is not intended to be a prerequisite for the admission of citizen spouses, but a speedy mechanism for the spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens to obtain their immigrant visas in the U.S., rather than wait for long periods of time outside the U.S. Second, the LIFE Act sought to correct past administrative mistakes that resulted in the wrongful denial of adjustment of status to hundreds of thousands of persons who should have qualified for permanent residence under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. It directs the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to adjudicate the applications of individuals in two class action lawsuits on the merits, rather than continuing to litigate whether they were timely filed. The LIFE Act Amendments make three significant additions to the provisions in the LIFE Act. First, they delete the LIFE Act's special mechanism for ``V'' and ``K'' visa holders to adjust to lawful permanent residence, and instead add a new provision modifying section 245(i), a mechanism by which anyone eligible for an immigrant visa and for whom a visa is currently available can adjust his or her status to that of lawful permanent residence in the U.S., rather than have to return abroad for consular processing. That mechanism was reauthorized in 1996, but only for individuals who were beneficiaries of immigrant visa petitions or labor certification applications filed by January 14, 1998. The LIFE amendments move the date by which such petitions or applications must be filed forward in time to April 30, 2001. They also add a new requirement that for all beneficiaries whose application was filed after January 14, 1998, the principal beneficiary must have been physically present in the U.S. on the date of enactment of the LIFE Act Amendments of 2000. The function of this last requirement is to make sure that the renewed availability of section 245(i) does not operate to encourage anyone to violate our immigration laws. Accordingly, it should be interpreted with common sense. It may be difficult for an individual physically present on the day of enactment to establish his or her presence on that precise date to qualify for 245(i). The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) should therefore be flexible in the types of evidence it will accept to establish physical presence on the day of enactment. For example, the kind of evidence of physical presence INS ordinarily accepts demonstrating that the applicant has been physically present during a reasonable period preceding that date, accompanied by an affidavit or declaration that the person was present on the date itself, should ordinarily suffice. We also note that this new requirement is applicable only to principal applicants for 245(i), and not to derivatives, who continue to be allowed to ``follow to join'' if they otherwise qualify. In order to ensure that persons who may benefit from this provision are aware of this legislation, we strongly encourage the INS to conduct a broad outreach program within the immigrant communities. Additionally, to ensure that all potentially eligible persons have an opportunity to qualify for 245(i), if necessary the INS should accept petitions and applications before the April 30, 2001 sunset date that do not contain all necessary supporting documents, and allow additional documents to be filed after the deadline. Second, the legislation adds the members of a third class action law suit, Zambrano v. INS, to those covered by the LIFE Act's provisions concerning adjustment of status under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). We note that persons eligible for adjustment pursuant to the combined LIFE provisions include everyone who has ``filed with the Attorney General a written claim of class membership'', that is all registered class members, not only those who have been issued employment authorization pursuant to a screening that did not reliably distinguish between potentially meritorious and non-meritorious applications. We understand that several other class action lawsuits are still pending in the federal courts challenging other INS interpretations of the 1986 adjustment provisions. The precise posture of one of these cases, Perales v. Thornburgh, came to our attention after the legislation had been finalized. We understand that a class of about 200 identified plaintiffs in Perales challenged the same regulation whose illegality the INS has conceded in Zambrano. We would encourage the Attorney General to provide a just resolution for the Perales class members in light of the legislation enacted today. Other cases that have come to our attention, such as Proyecto San Pablo v. INS, and Immigrant Assistance Project v. INS, are in a different posture from those addressed by the LIFE Act and these amendments, in that they do not involve regulations that INS has conceded were illegal. At the same time, however, it is now almost 2001, that is, almost 15 years after the enactment of IRCA, and these cases remain unresolved. We encourage the plaintiffs and the Attorney General to explore the possibility of settling these cases and bringing to an end the years of bitter and costly litigation. Nothing in this legislation is intended to preclude this option, or to preclude the Attorney General from resolving any other IRCA adjustment applications on the merits. In that connection, we also note that when the 1986 legalization program was enacted, the Attorney General, pursuant to section 245A of the INA, was authorized to work in conjunction with voluntary organizations and other qualified State, local and community organizations to broadly disseminate information about the legalization program. The INS helped provide funding to these organizations to assist with the outreach effort, as well as with the preparation and submission of the applications for adjustment of status. A similar outreach campaign should be conducted to disseminate information about the opportunity to apply for adjustment of status under this Act. As noted above, almost 15 years have elapsed since the original legalization program was enacted, therefore the need to publicize the resolution of these issues reached by the LIFE Act and amendments thereto is critical to ensure that eligible persons are notified and have an opportunity to obtain the benefits of this Act. Moreover, nothing in the Act should be construed to preclude the Attorney General from providing funding to organizations qualified and experienced in the preparation and submission of adjustment applications. Third, the amendments clarify that the spouses and unmarried children of the beneficiaries of Section 1104 of the LIFE Act are eligible for the Family Unity provisions of the Immigration Act of 1990. By enacting this provision, our objective is to ensure that these family members are treated in the same manner as the family members of those who adjusted their status under IRCA. In addition, the amendments address two, more technical issues. Section 1104 LIFE Act applicants, as well as beneficiaries under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) and the Haitian Refugee Immigrant Fairness Act (HRIFA) are made eligible for certain waivers of grounds of inadmissibility. These waivers are ordinarily available only to persons who are outside the U.S. The amendments to the LIFE Act allow the covered individuals to apply for these waivers in the U.S. Finally, the LIFE amendments clarify that section 241(a)(5) of the INA which bars anyone who has been ordered removed and who subsequently reenters the U.S. from obtaining any relief under the INA. Because adjustment under section 245A, NACARA, and HRIFA is not ``relief under'' the Act, LIFE amendments specify that this bar does not apply to LIFE section 1104 beneficiaries, or NACARA or HRIFA applicants.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I did want to take a moment, as someone who has been involved in immigration issues over some 38 years in the Senate, and someone who has worked with colleagues in a bipartisan way. I wanted to let my friend from Michigan know something which I hope he already does know. I wanted to share the great respect I have for him and his leadership on immigration issues, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration. Immigration issues bring out, really, the best and the worst in our colleagues. These are emotional issues for many of us. We have a Senate and House of Representatives that have strong views on these issues. His hand has been a steady, guiding one of leadership over this period of time, and one I thought showed enormous sensitivity in helping to guide immigration policy in a way that respects the strong tradition of people in this Nation to acknowledge and continually work to remedy the very significant inequities that are still a part of our policy. I also point out what I think all of us in this body remember, his strong leadership in helping us work through the skill shortage in our high-tech industries. He led the Judiciary Committee and the Senate in the development of that program. What certainly impressed me during that period of time was his constant willingness to look at different ideas, different approaches, and differing views, and to always try to reach out to find some common understanding in these areas in order to move the process forward--a real legislator. I know he is proud of many different aspects of his service in the Senate, but I wanted to express from this side of the aisle the affection and friendship of those of us who have worked with him in some very important areas of public policy, and the high regard and respect we have for him. We are hopeful that we'll have a chance to work with him on public policy in the future.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join in commending the Democratic and Republican leaders for reaching this bipartisan agreement to give early, full and fair consideration to the Amtrak bond proposal in the next Congress. The legislation is needed to ensure that Amtrak has the resources to maintain passenger rail service across the country. This funding will undoubtedly strengthen train service in the Northeast Corridor. But this financing package can do much more to provide similar service to communities throughout the country. It will provide the financial stability that Amtrak needs to plan adequately for the future. With the increasing congestion and delays we're seeing at major airports across the country, we need other options for transportation in the 21st century. I look forward to the enactment of this important legislation early in the next Congress, so that passenger rail service will continue to be a key component of our transportation network. Amtrak helps states meet clean air requirements by giving people a viable alternative to driving and flying. It's more energy efficient, which is particularly important for the New England region. For many business commuters and vacationers, it's a more appealing way to travel. And for many workers, it's their chosen profession to which they've devoted years of their lives, and their families depend on it to pay the bills. As a nation, we need a firm commitment to support passenger rail service, just as we do for highways and airports. So again, I commend the leaders for the commitments made today for a financing plan to strengthen passenger rail service in the United States.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, during the last few moments, several of our colleagues gave tribute to our friend. He is my friend and is someone so many of us admire here in the Senate. He is someone who has made a difference in this body and this country with his deep commitment to public service. Reference was made this afternoon to Senator Robb and his service in Vietnam. He fought for our country and served in the Armed Forces. Because of his strong beliefs and commitments to the values of the Nation, he made it his responsibility to respond to the Nation's call. This is a real reflection of the strong commitment and the basic integrity of this extraordinary Senator and friend. He fought in Vietnam for the values he believed in deeply. He came back to this country served as a distinguished Governor of a great State, the State of Virginia. And he continued that service in the Senate. Chuck Robb was a neighbor of mine. We have lived as neighbors for a number of years. He and Lynda have been good and valued friends over a great many years. I have enjoyed working with him in the area of education. He has a fierce passion to try to make sure every child in this country is going to have a good quality education. Even though he is not a member of the education committee, he mastered this subject and also provided very important leadership in it. I think so much of what is included in this dual appropriations legislation--which we hope we will have an opportunity to address in these next several hours and days--is really a tribute to the strong stands he took on good quality education for the children not just of Virginia but the children of this country. I think he was always concerned about the balance between the expenditures and what the economy could stand. He is in every respect a fiscal conservative. He believed deeply in making sure we had a budget that was going to reflect our values, but also that we were going to take care that our resources were going to be well spent in the national interest. Finally, I want to mention an additional field where his leadership was very much in evidence; that is, in knocking down the walls of discrimination in all of the forms and shapes that have been presented in recent years. That is a defining issue for our country. America will never be America until we free ourselves from all types and all forms of discrimination. There was never a battle in any of the areas involving discrimination in which Chuck Robb was not a leader. I will miss him on this Senate floor. I join with my other colleagues in paying tribute to his service to the Senate, but most importantly to his State and also to our Nation. He has a great opportunity in the future for continued service. I think all Members in this body wish him well and look forward to opportunities of work with him closely again.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I expect to support the omnibus legislation that will implement the final appropriations agreement for this Congress because it makes the kinds of investments in education, health, and work opportunities that are needed by all American families. In the long run, only through these basic investments can we preserve our capacity to keep our nation strong. I commend my colleagues for their diligence in crafting legislation that respects the highest priorities of the American people. Senator Harkin and Senator Specter have shown the power of bipartisan cooperation throughout their work on this legislation. We have all benefitted from the example and leadership of Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd as well. While this legislation is not perfect and certainly is no substitute for the unfinished work of the 106th Congress, it is good for the American people, and it shows what is possible when we resolve to work together. In this sense, it offers considerable hope for the 107th Congress.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it has been more than a year since the Columbine tragedy, but still this Republican Congress refuses to act on sensible gun legislation. Since Columbine, thousands of Americans have been killed by gunfire. Until we act, Democrats in the Senate will read the names of some of those who have lost their lives to gun violence in the past year, and we will continue to do so every day that the Senate is in session. In the name of those who died, we will continue this fight. Following are the names of some of the people who were killed by gunfire one year ago today. December 14, 1999: Damon Flowers, 23, Baltimore, MD; Allen Groves, 38, Denver, CO; Lashawn Miller, 20, Detroit, MI; Robert Miller, 42, Detroit, MI; Isreese Pennington, 20, Detroit, MI; Fred G. Schermer, 88, Seattle, WA; Bruce A. Spangler, Madison, WI; Marcus Stewart, 29, Pittsburgh, PA; Roger Thomas, 49, Houston, TX; and Reginald Vernon, 33, New Orleans, LA. Following are the names of some of the people who were killed by gunfire one year ago Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of this week. December 11, 1999: Manuel Ayon-Coronel, 35, Detroit, MI; Joseph Brown, Jr., 22, Baltimore, MD; Tiche Carter, 25, New Orleans, LA; Marlin Cooper, 17, Chicago, IL; Durrell Dates, 27, Detroit, MI; Myatt Ellis, 16, Philadelphia, PA; Tisha Ford, 26, Baltimore, MD; Tyrone Freeman, 27, Philadelphia, PA; Arthur Green, 28, New Orleans, LA; Derrick Irvin, 21, Kansas City, MO; Andres Jimenez, 46, Miami-Dade County, FL; Connie F. Jones, 52, Tulsa, OK; Larry Knox, Jr., 15, Baltimore, MD; Drena Mines, 34, Atlanta, GA; Joseph Nevins, 46, Kansas City, MO; Sultan Ali Smith, 27, Seattle, WA; and Unidentified Male, 70, Charlotte, NC. December 12, 1999: Donald Adkins, 51, Kansas City, MO; Eber Yexsi Blanco, 36, Baltimore, MD; James Cox, 22, Philadelphia, PA; Quentin Dillon, 17, Chicago, IL; Alex William Gilliam, 20, San Bernardino, CA; Lonnie Hardy, 19, Baltimore, MD; Kevin Hunter, 23, Chicago, IL; Dequar Jarrett, 22, Detroit, MI; William Jefferies, 22, Gary, IN; Joshua Johnson, 18, St. Paul, MN; Carl W. Lawson, 33, Seattle, WA; Remilekun Macklin, 17, Chicago, IL; Anthony Meadows, 18, San Bernardino, CA; Karanja Miles, 25, Atlanta, GA; George Peck, 40, Detroit, MI; Tyreek Powell, 25, Trenton, NJ; Thomas Rosas, 34, Chicago, IL; Taurian L. Smith, 19, Lincoln, NE; Mark Spicer, 21, Chicago, IL; Steven Steiner, 23, San Bernardino, CA; Robert Tucker, 61, Houston, TX; and Bijan K. Washington, 25, Seattle, WA; December 13, 1999: Barbra Amundson, 43, San Francisco, CA; Keith Barnes, 18, Kansas City, MO; Gerardo Garcia, Dallas, TX; Zhen Liu Guo, 47, Washington, DC; Everette Ragin, 20, Charlotte, NC; Steven Shepherd, 18, Kansas City, MO; Eugene A. Sims, 22, Seattle, WA; Jason Thomas, 19, Atlanta, GA; Marjorie Warren, 48, San Francisco, CA; Unidentified Female, Newark, NJ; and Unidentified Male, 35, Norfolk, VA. We cannot sit back and allow such senseless gun violence to continue. The deaths of these people are a reminder to all of us that we need to enact sensible gun legislation now.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, one of the most significant bipartisan achievements by Congress and the Clinton Administration is the increase in the Low Income Housing Tax Credit that we should enact this week. However, I am concerned that the Internal Revenue Service is taking a position in audits that may undermine the goal of the credit. Last month, the IRS issued a series of five technical advice memoranda, TAM, on the credit, in response to questions about an audit of a low-income housing developer earlier this year. The memoranda described what may be included in the basis of a property to calculate the amount of the credit that a state can allocate for a development. The memoranda were requested and issued because no regulations currently exist to clearly define the eligible basis for determining the credit. In the absence of regulations, this highly technical advice is all that taxpayers have available, but these specific instructions for a single taxpayer should not necessarily be the final word on the wide variety of developments across the nation. Regulations would be much clearer and would be fully developed by the Treasury Department. A further issue is that the memoranda are inconsistent with current industry practice. The positions taken in the memoranda could lower the eligible basis by over 15 percent, reducing available credits for a project. I am concerned that such a sharp reduction in the credit would mean that many planned developments for affordable housing will no longer be economically feasible, and will force developers to decide against building affordable units. It is also possible that this reduction in available credits for projects could be applied retroactively--nullifying credits that have already been allocated and destroying confidence in this important program that Congress worked so hard to establish. Since States are allocated a fixed number of credits based on population, the memoranda do not save the Treasury any revenues. They simply limit the amount of credits available per project, making individual projects less attractive to developers. The result is fewer affordable housing units at a time when housing prices have soared in many communities across the country. I am also concerned about the lack of opportunity for public comment on this issue. Preparing regulations requires comment, but issuing such memoranda does not. Many constituents--tenants as well as developers-- have strong concerns about the credit, and they should have the opportunity to express those concerns adequately. Developers and housing advocates can provide valuable information on the application of these credits, and their views should be taken into consideration. With the growing regional and national economy, housing prices are increasing faster in Massachusetts than any other state. Many studies have shown that we must increase production in new affordable housing units throughout the state to meet the overwhelming demand for affordable housing. We must do all we can to see that the low income housing tax credit is used effectively to meet this pressing need. I urge the Treasury Department to begin the process of developing appropriate regulations on this important issue, including opportunities for detailed public comments.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Chair be kind enough to let me know when I have 3 minutes remaining?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise to urge the Senate to reject the flawed bankruptcy bill. For 3 years, the proponents and opponents of the so-called bankruptcy reform bill have disagreed about the merits of the bill. The credit card industry argues that the bill will eliminate fraud and abuse without denying bankruptcy relief to Americans who truly need it. But scores of bankruptcy scholars, advocates for women and children, labor unions, consumer advocates, and civil rights organizations agree that the current bill is so flawed that it will do far more harm than good. Every Member of the Senate should analyze these arguments closely. We can separate the myths from the facts and determine the winners and the losers. A fair analysis will conclude that this bankruptcy bill is the credit card industry's wish list, a blatant effort to increase their profits at the expense of working families. We know the specific circumstances and market forces that so often push middle-class Americans into bankruptcy. Layoffs are a major part of the problem. In recent years, the rising economic tide has not lifted all boats. Despite low unemployment, a soaring stock market, and large budget surpluses, Wall Street cheers when companies, eager to improve profits by downsizing, lay off workers in large numbers. During the period of January to October in the year 2000, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that there were a total of 11,364 layoffs resulting in more than 1.29 million Americans who were unemployed. In October 2000 alone, there were 874 mass layoffs--a layoff of at least 50 people--and 103,000 workers were affected. Often when workers lose a good job, they are unable to recover. In a study of displaced workers in the early 1990s, the Bureau of Labor Statistics recorded that only about a quarter of previously laid-off workers were working at full-time jobs paying as much as or more than they had earned at the job they lost. Too often, laid-off workers are forced to accept part-time jobs, temporary jobs, or jobs with fewer benefits or no benefits at all. I am always reminded that if you were to compare the economic growth in the immediate postwar period, from 1948 up to 1972, and broke the income distribution into fifths in the United States, virtually every group moved up together. All of them moved up at about the same rate. If you looked at the 1970s, and particularly in the 1980s and 1990s, and if you broke the income distribution down into five economic groups, you would see that the group that has enhanced its economic condition immeasurably is the top 20 percent. The lower 20 percent are individuals who have actually fallen further and further behind in terms of their economic income. The next group has fallen still further behind. It is really only when you get to about the top 40 percent of the incomes for American families that you see any kind of increase. It is the group in the lower 60 percent who, by and large, have been affected by these significant layoffs. They have found it difficult to make very important and significant adjustments in their economic condition. They are hard-working men and women who are trying to provide for a family, ready and willing to work, want to work, but they see dramatic changes in terms of their income and they are forced into bankruptcy. We see that many bankrupt debtors are reporting job problems. There are various types of adverse conditions. Many have been fired and some are victims of downsizing. We also find that more women are in the workforce and contributing significantly to the economic stability of the family. If they are victims of a job interruption, it has a significant, important, and dramatic impact on the income of the family. If you look at the principal reasons for bankruptcies, more than 67 percent of debtors talk about employment problems. So these are hard- working Americans who are trying to make ends meet and we find that the economic conditions are of such a nature that they are forced into bankruptcy. Nobody is saying they should not pay or meet their responsibilities. But we also ought to recognize that in many of these circumstances it is not necessarily the individual's personal spending habits that force them into bankruptcy. Another factor in bankruptcy is divorce. Divorce rates have soared over the past 40 years. For better or worse, more couples than ever are separating, and the financial consequences are particularly devastating for women. Divorced women are four times more likely to file for bankruptcy than married women or single men. In 1999, 540,000 women who headed their own households filed for bankruptcy to try to stabilize their economic lives, and 200,000 of them were also creditors trying to collect child support or alimony. The rest were debtors struggling to make ends meet. This bankruptcy bill is anti-woman, and this Republican Congress should be ashamed of its attempt to put it into law. This chart shows the changes between the men and women in bankruptcy. You see that in 1981 a relatively small percentage of the bankruptcies were by single women. The red reflects the men and women going into bankruptcy. The yellow represents men alone. That was in 1981. In 1991, you see joint bankruptcy is continuing at a relatively slow pace. What you see is the men gradually going up. What happens with women is that it goes up exponentially. Over the period of the last 8 years, it is the women, by and large, who have been going into bankruptcy. Is that to say that these women in 1999 aren't willing to work like the ones in 1991 or 1981, that they are unwilling to pull their fair share? No, Mr. President. There is another explanation. The other explanation is, when we have the tragic circumstances of divorces, more likely than not the women are unable to get the alimony and unable to get the child support, through no fault of their own, and they end up going into bankruptcy. That is a primary reason for the increase in bankruptcies--although the total numbers of bankruptcies now have basically flattened out or have been reduced. We are pointing out that economic conditions are responsible for about half of the bankruptcies. The fact is that downsizing has taken place. In spite of the fact that others who have invested in these companies have made enormous amounts of money, many of those employees have been laid off and have been pushed to the side. These are hard-working men and women. The interesting fact to me is that people filing for bankruptcy are often middle-class people who want to work. These are not Americans trying to get by without playing by the rules. They are working, and they want to work, but there are circumstances that undermine their financial stability. As a result of these circumstances, there is an increase in the number of bankruptcies. It may be because of the inability to get child support or alimony, through no fault of their own. So we have a responsibility to make sure, if we are going to pass legislation, that we are going to be fair to these individuals, rather than to be unduly harsh and penalize them. That is what I believe this current legislation does. It holds them to an unduly harsh standard. That is not only my assessment, it is the assessment of virtually all of the groups --advocates either for children or women or workers or those who fight for basic civil rights. These are organizations and groups that have spent a great deal of time advocating for children or women. They have reached the same conclusion as the 116 bankruptcy professors in law schools all over the country--not located in any particular area--who have examined this bill. In the few moments before we voted yesterday, I asked the other side if they could name one single organization advocating for women and children and working families that supports this legislation and thinks it is fair to them. There isn't a single one. That ought to say something. It is not only those of us who are opposed to it who say it is grossly unfair, it is everyone. When you have a piece of legislation on the floor and there is a division, generally certain organizations support it and certain organizations don't. Not on this one. All the advocacy groups oppose it. Virtually all of them oppose it because they know it is unduly harsh and unfair to children, women, and workers, and unfair to consumers. Mr. President, another major factor in the bankruptcy is the high cost of health care. 43 million Americans have no health insurance, and many millions more are underinsured. Each year, millions of families spend more than 20 percent of their income on medical care, and older Americans are hit particularly hard. A 1998 CRS report states that even though Medicare provides near-universal health coverage for older Americans, half of this age group spend 14 percent or more of their after-tax income on health costs, including insurance premiums, copayments, and prescription drugs. Does that have a familiar ring to it? We just had a national debate, and the Presidential candidates were asked about prescription drugs. Why? Because of the escalation of the cost of prescription drugs. How does that actually impact and affect families? Well, it is a principal cause of bankruptcy for many families. They just cannot afford to pay for prescription drugs and meet the other kinds of needs they have in terms of paying rent or putting food on the table. They go in a declining spiral and they end up in bankruptcy. These are individuals in families from whom the credit card industry believes it can squeeze another dime. The industry claims they are cheating and abusing the bankruptcy system and are irresponsibly using their charge cards to live in a luxury they can't afford. I think these charts are enormously interesting, and I find them so compelling when you see what is happening and what is driving so many of these families into bankruptcy. The high cost of prescription drugs: the Presidential candidates spoke about it and are talking about the importance of it. Every candidate across this country in this last campaign was saying what they were going to try to do to relieve the cost of prescription drugs. There are millions and millions of senior citizens who can't afford to wait for an answer by Congress. What has happened to them? They go into bankruptcy. Similarly, we see the very tragic growth of the breakups of families and the fact that too many of those involved in those relationships are unwilling to meet their responsibilities to their children or to pay alimony. What has been the result to women? They go into bankruptcy. Or, as we have seen as a result of the developing of our economy and these extraordinary mergers--fortunes are being made, on the one hand, by certain investors, but others who have given their lives to these companies and have received good compensation suddenly are cast aside. They are unable to quickly adjust to their changed economic conditions. What happens to them? They go into bankruptcy. Certainly we need to have bankruptcy legislation. But we also ought to have bankruptcy legislation that is going to be fair and that is going to be just and not punitive. We say that this legislation is punitive. It isn't only myself and many of our colleagues, but it is also those who have spent their lives studying bankruptcy, teaching bankruptcy. Judges on the bankruptcy courts are dealing with it every single day and have virtually uniformly come to the conclusion that this legislation is unfair, unjust, unwise, and doesn't deserve to pass the Senate. This legislation unfairly targets middle-class and poor families. It leaves flagrant abuses in place. Time and time again, President Clinton has told the Republican leadership that the final bill must include two important provisions--a homestead provision without loopholes for the wealthy, and a provision that requires accountability and responsibility for those who unlawfully and often violently bar access to legal health services. The current bill includes neither of those provisions. The conference report includes a half-hearted, loophole filled homestead provision. It will do little to eliminate fraud. That is another failing of this legislation. It creates a loophole for wealthy individuals to effectively hide their income. That kind of loophole will not be available for hard-working Americans who run into the kinds of problems I have outlined. But the homestead provision that is left in this bill still can be abused by hiding millions in assets from creditors. For example, Allen Smith of Delaware, a State with no homestead exemption, and James Villa of Florida, a State with an unlimited homestead exemption, were treated very differently by the bankruptcy system. One man eventually lost his home. The other was able to hide $l.4 million from his creditors by purchasing a luxury mansion in Florida. The Senate passed a worthwhile amendment to eliminate this inequity. But that provision was stripped from the conference report. Do we understand? The Senate adopted a provision to deal with the kind of inequity which I have just outlined--listen to this--Allen Smith of Delaware, a State with no homestead exemption, and James Villa of Florida, a State with an unlimited homestead exemption, were treated differently. One man eventually lost his home. The other was able to hide $l.4 million from his creditors by purchasing a luxury mansion in Florida. The Senate passed a worthwhile amendment to eliminate this inequity. But that provision was stripped from the conference report. Why? Why was it stripped? Who had the influence? Who authored that amendment? It would be interesting to find out. We don't know because the final conference didn't include members of our party or individuals who are against it. The provision just happened to show up in the conference report. Obviously, it is going to benefit some individuals to the tune of millions of dollars. Surely, a bill designed to end fraud and abuse should include a loophole-free homestead provision. The President thinks so. In an October 12, 2000 letter, White House Chief of Staff, John Podesta says, ``The inclusion of a provision limiting to some degree a wealthy debtor's capacity to shift assets before bankruptcy into a home and in a State with an unlimited homestead exemption does not ameliorate the glaring omission of a real homestead cap.'' The homestead loophole should be closed permanently. It should not be left open just for the wealthy. Yet this misguided bill's supporters refuse to fight for such a responsible provision with the same intensity they are fighting for the credit card industry's wish list, and fighting against women, against the sick, against laid-off workers, and against other average individuals and families who will have no safety net if this unjust bill passes. This legislation flunks the test of fairness. It is a bill designed to meet the needs of one of the most profitable industries in America-- the credit card industry. Credit card companies are vigorously engaged in massive and unseemly nation-wide campaigns to hook unsuspecting citizens on credit card debt. They sent out 2.87 billion--2.87 billion--credit card solicitations in 1999. And, in recent years, the industry has begun to offer new lines of credit targeted at people with low incomes--even though the industry knows full well that these persons cannot afford to pile up credit card debt. Supporters of the bill argue that the bankruptcy bill isn't a credit card industry bill. They argue that we had votes on credit card legislation, and, that some amendments passed and others did not. But, to deal effectively and comprehensively with the problem of bankruptcy, we have to deal with the problem of debt. We must ensure that the credit card industry doesn't abandon fair lending policies to fatten its bottom line, or ask Congress to become its federal collector for unpaid credit card bills. I have this letter from the American Bankruptcy Service in St. Paul, MN. It references the ``fresh start Visa Card.'' They offer a unique opportunity that could be of great benefit to firms and their clients. By becoming a debtor, they will have the ability to market an unsecured Visa credit card--the fresh start card-- to their clients who have filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy, if they have completed the ``341 meeting'' of creditors with no outstanding issues with the trustees, have not yet received a discharge in bankruptcy, or have attached a copy of the bankruptcy notice to their Visa application. They say several law firms, especially those representing consumer debtors in bankruptcy, have requested the ability to distribute the ``fresh start Visa'' application to their clients. For each credit card issued, their firm will receive $10. The credit card industry is marketing to people who are already in bankruptcy. Do we understand that? We heard all of the very pious speeches and statements--what we want is accountability; get those hard-working people and teach them the value of the dollar; teach them a lesson. Well, boy, this is apparently teaching someone a lesson here because they are already going to be eligible, according to the American Bankruptcy Service, to get another Visa card even though they have been in bankruptcy. They are out there trying to tempt them, bring them in one more time, and squeeze out a few extra dollars. Where is the responsibility of the credit card industry in this area? Where is their accountability? Why is this all one way? This bill is tough on women. It is tough on children. It is tough on workers who have had severe medical problems and had to get prescription drugs. It is tough on older workers who haven't gotten their Medicare and do not have health insurance. It is tough on all of them. But it is not very tough at all on the credit card industry that has contributed to the fact that this particular family or individual will be in bankruptcy. Where is the fairness in this? It is not there. Two years ago, the Senate passed good credit card disclosure provisions that added fair balance to the bankruptcy bill. It's disturbing that the provisions in the bill passed by the Senate this year were watered down to pacify the credit card industry. Even worse, some of the provisions passed by the Senate were stripped from the conference report. The hypocrisy of this bill is transparent. We hear a lot of pious Republican talk about the need for responsibility when average families are in financial trouble, but we hear no such talk of responsibility when the wealthy credit card companies and their lobbyists are the focus of attention. The credit card industry and congressional supporters of the bill attempt to argue that the bankruptcy bill will help--not harm--women and children. That argument is laughable. Proponents of the bill say that it ensures that alimony and child support will be the number one priority in bankruptcy. That rhetoric masks the complexity of the bankruptcy system--but it doesn't hide the fact that women and children will be the losers if this bill becomes law. Under the current law, an ex-wife trying to collect support enjoys special protection. But under this pending bill, credit card companies are given a new right to compete with women and children for the husband's limited income after bankruptcy. It is true that this bill moves support payments to the first priority position in the bankruptcy code, but that only matters in the limited number of cases in which the debtor has assets to distribute to a creditor. In most cases, over 95 percent, there are no assets and the list of priorities has no effect. This issue has been debated and debated and debated. It is amazing to me, as we work in the remaining few hours of this session, that we are not considering increasing the minimum wage for workers who have waited a long time to get a $1 increase from $5.15 an hour. No, we are not willing to pass that legislation. We are not willing to come back and pass and give consideration to reauthorizing an elementary and secondary education bill. We are not being asked when we come back to even deal with the Patients' Bill of Rights. No, we are being asked to look out for the credit card industry in a very significant and massive giveaway. It is wrong. This bill does not deserve to pass. I hope it will not. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand it, under the time agreement I was allocated 28 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is fair in a time such as this to ask who the beneficiaries of this legislation are going to be and who is going to lose. As the Senator from Minnesota pointed out, there is not one single organization that advocates for children that supports this legislation. There isn't a single organization that advocates for women that supports this piece of legislation. There is not one organization that represents working men and women that supports this legislation. There is not one group representing consumers that supports this legislation. It fails the basic and fundamental test of fairness. There are over 116 bankruptcy experts from around the country, representing all different views on this, legislation who have basically underscored what I have said. This is written in their letter. They say: We write yet again to bring the same message: The problems with the bankruptcy bill have not been resolved, particularly those provisions that adversely affect women and children. Then it continues on page 2. Granting women and children a first priority for bankruptcy distribution permits them to stand first in line to collect nothing. That is what this is really all about. I hope that at this period in our election process we are not going to be out there trying to shortchange hard-working families, the children and women in our society, and the consumers of this Nation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to reject the motion to invoke cloture on this flawed legislation. For three years, proponents and opponents of this so-called Bankruptcy Reform Act have disagreed about the merits of the bill. The credit card industry argues that the bill will eliminate fraud and abuse without denying bankruptcy relief to Americans who truly need it. But scores of bankruptcy scholars, advocates for women and children, labor unions, consumer advocates, and civil rights organizations believe that the current bill is so flawed that it will do far more harm than good. Every Member of the Senate must analyze these arguments closely and separate the myths from the facts. I believe a fair analysis leads to the conclusion that this bankruptcy bill is the credit industry's wish list to increase its profits at the expense of working families. Proponents of the bankruptcy legislation argue that the current bill is an appropriate response to the bankruptcy crisis. But the facts indicate the opposite. The crisis is overstated, if it exists at all, and is no justification for this sweetheart deal for the credit card industry. For several years, bankruptcy filings were on the rise. But current data reflect a decrease in filings. The so-called bankruptcy crisis has reversed itself--without congressional assistance. According to a report last month, the personal bankruptcy rate dropped by more than 9 percent in 1999, and continued to decline at a greater than 6 percent annual rate in the first nine months of this year. Bankruptcies are now at substantially lower levels than in 1997, 1998, or 1999. There have been 138,000 fewer personal bankruptcies in the current year than during the corresponding period of 1998, a cumulative two-year decline of over 15 percent. This decline in personal bankruptcies is consistent with the view held by leading economists--the bankruptcy crisis is correcting itself. A harsh bankruptcy bill is unnecessary. Supporters of the bill also argue that we need tough new legislation to eliminate fraud and abuse in the bankruptcy system and to instill responsibility in debtors. The argument sounds good, but it masks the truth about this excessively harsh and punitive bill. The current bill is based on biased studies that have been bought and paid for by industry dollars and an industry public relations campaign that unfairly characterizes the plight of honest Americans. Supporters of a bankruptcy overhaul initially relied on a Credit Research Center report in 1997, which estimated that 30 percent of Chapter 7 debtors in the sample could pay at least 21 percent of their debts. But, as the Congressional General Accounting Office responded, ``the methods used in the Center's analysis do not provide a sound basis for generalizing the Center report's findings to the . . . national population of personal bankruptcy filings.'' VISA U.S.A. and MasterCard International funded several additional studies. One study determined that losses due to personal bankruptcies in 1997 totaled more than $44 billion. This study appears to be the source of the creditor rhetoric that bankruptcy imposes a hidden tax on each American family of $400 every year. But once again, the GAO concluded that the study's findings are shaky--at best. As the GAO stated, ``we believe the report's estimates of creditor losses and bankruptcy system costs should be interpreted with caution.'' The most recent and unbiased study--completed by the Executive Office for the U.S. Trustees--concluded that ``only a small percentage of current Chapter 7 debtors have the ability to pay any portion of their unsecured debts.'' That's consistent with the conclusion reached by others, including Time magazine, which reported that by the time individuals and families file for bankruptcy protection, more than 20 percent of their income before taxes is being used to pay interest and fees on their debts. The article goes on to say that ``The notion that debtors in bankruptcy court are sitting on many billions of dollars that they could turn over to their creditors is a figment of the imagination of lenders and lawmakers.'' We know the specific circumstances and market forces that so often push middle class Americans into bankruptcy. We know that in recent years, the rising economic tide has not lifted all boats. Despite low unemployment, a soaring stock market, and large budget surpluses, Wall Street cheers when companies--eager to improve profits by down-sizing--lay off workers in large numbers. In 1998, layoffs were reported around the country in almost every industry-- 9,000 jobs were lost after the Exxon-Mobil merger--5,500 jobs were lost after Deutsche Bank acquired Bankers Trust--Boeing laid off 9,000 workers--Johnson & Johnson laid off 4,100. Kodak has cut 30,000 jobs since the 1980s and 6,300 just since 1997. Often, when workers lose a good job, they are unable to recover. In a study of displaced workers in the early 1990s, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that only about one-quarter of these laid-off workers were working at full-time jobs paying as much as or more than they had earned at the job they lost. Too often, laid-off workers are forced to accept part-time jobs, temporary jobs, or jobs with fewer benefits or no benefits at all. Divorce rates have soared over the past 40 years. For better or worse, more couples are separating, and the financial consequences are particularly devastating for women. Divorced women are four times more likely to file for bankruptcy than married women or single men. In 1999, 540,000 women who head their own households filed for bankruptcy to try to stabilize their economic lives. 200,000 of them were also creditors trying to collect child support or alimony. The rest were debtors struggling to make ends meet. This bankruptcy bill is anti- woman, and this Republican Congress should be ashamed of its attempt to enact it into law. Another major factor in bankruptcy is the high cost of health care. 43 million Americans have no health insurance, and many millions more are under-insured. Each year, millions of families spend more than 20 percent of their income on medical care, and older Americans are hit particularly hard. A 1998 CRS Report states that even though Medicare provides near-universal health coverage for older Americans, half of this age group spend 14 percent or more of their after-tax income on health costs, including insurance premiums, co-payments and prescription drugs. These are the individuals and families from whom the credit card industry believes it can squeeze another dime. The industry claims that these individuals and families are cheating and abusing the bankruptcy system, and that are irresponsibly using their charge cards to live in luxury they can't afford. These working Americans are not cheats and frauds--but they do comprise the vast number of Americans in bankruptcy. Two out of every three bankruptcy filers have an employment problem. One out of every five bankruptcy filers has a health care problem. Divorced or separated people are three times more likely than married couples to file for bankruptcy. Working men and women in economic free fall often have no choice except bankruptcy. Yet this Republican Congress is bent on denying them that safety net. This legislation unfairly targets middle class and poor families--and it leaves flagrant abuses in place. Time and time again, President Clinton has told the Republican leadership that the final bill must included two important provisions--a homestead provision without loopholes for the wealthy, and a provision that requires accountability and responsibility from those who unlawfully--and often violently--bar access to legal health services. The current bill includes neither of these provisions. The conference report does include a half-hearted, loop-hole filled homestead provision. It will do little to eliminate fraud. With a little planning--or in some cases, no planning at all--wealthy debtors will be able to hide millions in assets from their creditors. For example, Allen Smith of Delaware--a state with no homestead exemption-- and James Villa of Florida--a state with an unlimited homestead exemption--were treated differently by the bankruptcy system. One man eventually lost his home. The other was able to hide $1.4 million from his creditors by purchasing a luxury mansion in Florida. The Senate passed a worthwhile amendment to eliminate this inequity, but that provision was stripped from the conference report. Surely, a bill designed to end fraud and abuse should include a loop-hole free homestead provision. The President thinks so. As an October 12, 2000 letter from White House Chief of Staff John Podesta says, ``The inclusion of a provision limiting to some degree a wealthy debtor's capacity to shift assets before bankruptcy into a home in a state with an unlimited homestead exemption does not ameliorate the glaring omission of a real homestead cap.'' Yet there is no outcry from our Republican colleagues about the injustice, fraud, and abuse in these cases. In fact, Governor Bush led the fight in Texas to see that rich cheats trying to escape their creditors can hide their assets under Texas' unlimited homestead law. In 1999, the Texas legislature adopted a measure to opt-out of any homestead restrictions passed by Congress. The legislature also expanded the urban homestead protection to 10 acres. It allowed the homestead to be rented out and still qualify as a homestead. It even said that a homestead could be a place of business. This provision gives the phrase ``home, sweet home'' new and unfair meaning. The homestead loop-hole should be closed permanently. It should not be left open just for the wealthy. I wish this misguided bill's supporters would fight for such a responsible provision with the same intensity they are fighting for the credit card industry's wish list, and fighting against women, against the sick, against laid-off workers, and against other average individuals and families who will have no safety net if this unjust bill passes. This legislation flunks the test of fairness. It is a bill designed to meet the needs of one of the most profitable industries in America-- the credit card industry. Credit card companies are vigorously engaged in massive and unseemly nation-wide campaigns, to hook unsuspecting citizens on credit card debt. They sent out 2.87 billion--2.87 billion--credit card solicitations in 1999. And, in recent years, they have begun to offer new lines of credit targeted at people with low incomes--people they know cannot afford to pile up credit card debt. Supporters of the bill argue that the bankruptcy bill isn't a credit card industry bill. They argue that we had votes on credit card legislation and some amendments passed and others did not. But, to deal effectively and comprehensively with the problem of bankruptcy, we have to address the problem of debt. We must ensure that the credit card industry doesn't abandon fair lending policies to fatten its bottom line and ask Congress to become its federal debt collector. Two years ago, the Senate passed good credit card disclosure provisions that added some balance to the bankruptcy bill. It's disturbing that the provisions in the bill passed by the Senate this year were watered down to pacify the credit card industry. Even worse, some of the provisions passed by the Senate were stripped from the conference report. The hypocrisy of this bill is transparent. We hear a lot of pious Republican talk about the need for responsibility when average families are in financial trouble, but we hear no such talk of responsibility when the wealthy credit card companies and their lobbyists are the focus of attention. The credit card industry and congressional supporters of the bill attempt to argue that the bankruptcy bill will help--not harm--women and children. That argument is laughable. Proponents of the bill say that it ensures that alimony and child support will be the number one priority in bankruptcy. That rhetoric masks the complexity of the bankruptcy system--but it doesn't hide the fact that women and children will be the losers if this bill becomes law. Under current law, an ex-wife trying to collect support enjoys special protection. But under the pending bills, credit card companies are given a new right to compete with women and children for the husband's limited income after bankruptcy. It is true that the bill moves support payments to the first priority position in the bankruptcy code. But that only matters in the limited number of cases in which the debtor has assets to distribute to a creditor. In most cases--over 95 percent--there are no assets, and the list of priorities has no effect. The claim of ``first priority'' is a sham to conceal the real problem--the competition for resources after bankruptcy. This legislation creates a new category of debt that cannot be discharged after bankruptcy--credit card debt. It will, therefore, create intense competition for the former husband's limited income. Under current law, he can devote his post-bankruptcy income to meeting his basic responsibilities, including his student loans, his tax liability, and his support payments for his former wife and their children. But if this bill becomes law, one of his so-called ``basic'' responsibilities will be a new one--to Visa and MasterCard. We all know what happens when women and children are forced to compete with these sophisticated lenders-- they always lose. As thirty-one organizations that support women and children have said, ``Some improvements were made in the domestic support provisions in the Judiciary Committee . . . however, even the revised provisions fail to solve the problems created by the rest of the bill, which gives many other creditors greater claims--both during and after bankruptcy-- than they have under current law.'' In addition, as 91--91--bankruptcy and commercial law professors wrote, ``Granting `first priority' to alimony and support claims is not the magic solution the consumer credit industry claims because `priority' is relevant only for distributions made to creditors in the bankruptcy case itself. Such distributions are made in only a negligible percentage of cases. More than 95% of bankruptcy cases make no distributions to any creditors because there are no assets to distribute. Granting women and children first priority for bankruptcy distributions permits them to stand first in line to collect nothing.'' Based on the discredited bankruptcy studies, creditors also argue that ``no one will be denied bankruptcy protection. The ten percent of filers with the highest incomes and the lowest relative debt would be required to repay a portion of what they owed and the balance would be discharged, just as it is under current law.'' That's another credit card industry myth. There is no doubt that this legislation will be harmful to working families who have fallen on hard times--families like those described in a Time magazine article earlier this year. That article discussed the financial difficulties of the Trapp family, whom I had the privilege of meeting several months ago. They are not wealthy cheats trying to escape from their financial responsibilities. They are a middle class family engulfed in debt, because of circumstances beyond their control. Like half of all Americans who file for bankruptcy, the Trapp family had massive medical expenses--over $124,000 in doctors' bills that their insurance didn't cover. The plight of the Trapp family is similar to that of many other American families with serious illness and injury. The combination of a major medical problem and a job loss pushed Maxean Bowen--a single mother--into bankruptcy. She was a social worker in the foster-care system in New York City when she developed a painful condition in both feet that made her job, which required house calls, impossible. As a result, she had to give up her work and go on the unemployment rolls. Her income fell by 50 percent. She had to borrow from relatives, and she used her credit cards to make ends meet. Like so many others in similar situations, she believed that she would soon recover and be able to pay her debts. But, like thousands who file for bankruptcy, even when Maxean was able to work again, she owed far more than she could repay. Maxean tried paying her creditors a few hundred dollars when possible, but it wasn't enough to keep her bills from piling up because of interest charges and late-payment fees. She said she was ``going crazy.'' Some of my colleagues have argued that Maxean Bowen, Charles and Lisa Trapp, and others featured in the Time magazine article wouldn't be subject to the harsh provisions in the bankruptcy bill before us today. But, although the conference report now includes a ``means test safe harbor'' for the poorest families, a careful, objective analysis demonstrates that all Americans would be affected by the provisions in the bill. For example, proponents of the bill argue that the Trapp family would not be affected by the means test because their current income is below the state median income. That's not true. Before Mrs. Trapp left her job, the family's annual income was $83,000 a year or $6,900 a month. Under the bill, the Trapp family's previous six months' income would be averaged, so that they would have an assumed monthly income of about $6,200--above the state median--even though their actual monthly gross income at the time of filing was $4,800. Based on the fictitious income assumed by the bankruptcy legislation, the Trapp family would be subject to the means test. And the means test formula--using the IRS standards--would assume that the Trapps have the ability to repay more than their actual income would allow. Similarly, although the safe harbor provision would protect Maxean Bowen from the means test, other substantive and procedural provisions in the bill would apply to her. Maxean didn't have the money to pay her bankruptcy attorney and had to obtain financial assistance from relatives. If this legislation becomes law, the new requirements may make bankruptcy relief prohibitive. The individuals and families featured in the article are well aware of the distortions and misrepresentations of their cases by defenders of this harsh Republican bill and by apologists for the credit card industry. The outraged response by these debtors is eloquent and powerful. As they have emphatically replied, During the last year, each of us declared bankruptcy. It was one of the most difficult decisions any of us had to make, coming at the darkest hours in our lives. We saw no other way to stabilize our economic situations. Each of our families is now on the long path of trying to right ourselves financially . . . We have read the statements you have made about our cases on the floor of the Senate and in Mr. Gekas' letter to Time. We deeply resent the fact that you have misrepresented our cases to the American public. Contrary to what you have stated, each of us would have been severely affected by your bankruptcy bill. Finally, proponents of the bill argue that it will help small businesses. Again, this is another credit card industry myth. According to the Administrative Office of the Courts, business bankruptcies represented 2.9 percent of all filings in 1999. Since June 1996, those filings have declined by over 30 percent--30 percent. The relatively low number of business bankruptcy filings and the fact that filings are decreasing indicate that drastic changes in the law are unnecessary. This bankruptcy reform bill isn't based on any serious business need. In fact, its overhaul of Chapter 11 will hurt--rather than help--small businesses. Chapter 11 was enacted to serve the interests of business debtors, creditors, and the other constituencies affected by business failures--particularly the employees. A principal goal of Chapter 11 is to encourage business reorganization in order to preserve jobs. Supporters of the bill ride roughshod over this important goal. They create more hurdles, additional costs, and a rigid, inflexible structure for small businesses in bankruptcy. As a result, fewer small business creditors will be paid, and more jobs will be lost. This fundamental defect led AFL-CIO President John Sweeney to write, ``The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2000 is an attack on working families. It will undermine a critical safety net for both families and financially vulnerable businesses and their workers. Businesses filing bankruptcy cases would be required to follow stringent new rules which create significant substantive and procedural barriers to reorganization and therefore place jobs at risk. Costly, unnecessary, and inflexible procedures will increase the risk that small businesses will be unable to reorganize. The bill also threatens jobs in significant real estate enterprises and retailers.'' As I mentioned earlier, a large number of professors of bankruptcy and commercial law across the country have written to us to condemn this bill and to urge the Senate not to approve it. As their letter eloquently states in its conclusion: These facts are unassailable: H.R. 2415 forces women to compete with sophisticated creditors to collect alimony and child support after bankruptcy. H.R. 2415 makes it harder for women to declare bankruptcy when they are in financial trouble. H.R. 2415 fails to close the glaring homestead loophole and permits wealthy debtors to hide assets from their creditors. We implore you to look beyond the distorted ``facts'' peddled by the credit industry. Please do not pass a bill that will hurt vulnerable Americans, including women and children. It is clear that the bill before us is designed to increase the profits of the credit card industry at the expense of working families. If it becomes law, the effects will be devastating. The Senate should reject this defective bankruptcy bill and the cynical attempt by the Republican leadership to pass it on the last day of this Congress. This bill is bad legislation. It eminently deserves the veto it will receive if it passes. I urge the Senate to reject this cloture motion, and to reject this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the 91 law professors I mentioned be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, OSHA has been attempting to implement an ergonomics standard for the past ten years. But each year, Congress has delayed the standard. And now, even though a bipartisan group of appropriators agreed to a reasonable compromise on this issue late Sunday night, the Republican leadership rejected it--because the business lobbyists demanded it and insisted that millions of workers wait even longer for a safe and healthy workplace. Each year, 1.7 million workers suffer from ergonomic injuries, and nearly 600,000 workers lose a day or more of work because of these injuries suffered on the job. Ergonomic injuries account for over one- third of all serious job-related injuries. These injuries are painful and often crippling. They range from carpal tunnel syndrome, to severe back injuries, to disorders of the muscles and nerves. Carpal tunnel syndrome keeps workers off the job longer than any other workplace injury. This injury alone causes workers to lose an average of more than 25 days, compared to 17 days for fractures and 20 days for amputations. The ergonomics issue is also a women's issue, because women workers are disproportionately affected by these injuries. Women make up 46 percent of the overall workforce--but in 1998 they accounted for 64 percent of repetitive motion injuries and 71 percent of carpal tunnel cases. The good news is that these injuries are preventable. The National Academy of Sciences and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health have both found that obvious adjustments in the workplace can prevent workers from suffering ergonomic injuries and illnesses. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that the nation's worker protection laws keep pace with changes in the workforce. Early in this century, the industrial age created deadly new conditions for large numbers of the nation's workers. When miners were killed or maimed in explosion after explosion, we enacted the Federal Coal Mine Safety and Health Act. As workplace hazards became more subtle, but no less dangerous, we responded by passing the Occupational Safety and Health Act to address hazards such as asbestos and cotton dust. Now, as the workplace moves from the industrial to the information age, our laws must evolve again to address the emerging dangers to American workers. Ergonomic injuries are one of the principal hazards of the modern American workplace--and we owe it to the 600,000 workers who suffer serious ergonomic injuries each year to address this problem now. Ergonomic injuries affect the lives of working men and women across the country. They injure nurses who regularly lift and move patients. They injure construction workers who lift heavy objects. They harm assembly-line workers whose tasks consist of constant repetitive motions. They injure data entry workers who type on computer keyboards all day. Even if we are not doing these jobs ourselves, we all know people who do. They are mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, friends and neighbors--and they deserve our help. We need to help workers like Beth Piknick of Hyannis, Massachusetts, who was an intensive care nurse for 21 years, before a preventable back injury required her to have a spinal fusion operation and spend two years in rehabilitation. Although she wants to work, she can no longer do so. In her own words, ``The loss of my ability to take care of patients led to a clinical depression. . . . My ability to take care of patients--the reason I became a nurse--is gone. My injury--and all the losses it has entailed--were preventable.'' We need to help workers like Elly Leary, an auto assembler at the now-closed General Motors Assembly plant in Framingham, Massachusetts. Like many, many of her co-workers, she suffered a series of ergonomic injuries--including carpal tunnel syndrome and tendinitis. Like others, she tried switching hands to do her job. She tried varying the sequence of her routine. She even bid on other jobs. But nothing helped. Today, years after her injuries, when she wakes up in the morning, her hands are in a claw-like shape. To get them to open, she has to run hot water on them. We need to help workers like Charley Richardson, a shipfitter at General Dynamics in Quincy, Massachusetts in the mid-1980's. He suffered a career-ending back injury when he was told to lift a 75 pound piece of steel to reinforce a deck. Although he continued to try to work, he found that on many days, he could not perform the lifting and the use of heavy tools. For years afterwards, his injury prevented him from participating in basic activities. But the loss that hurt the most was having to tell his children that they couldn't sit on his lap for more than a few minutes, because it was too painful. To this day, he cannot sit for long without pain. We need to protect workers like Wendy Scheinfeld of Brighton, Massachusetts, a model employee in the insurance industry. Colleagues say she often put in extra hours at work to ``get the job done.'' She developed carpal tunnel syndrome, using a computer at work. As a result, Wendy lost the use of her hands, and is now permanently unable to do her job, drive a car, play the cello, or shop for groceries. Even though it may be too late to help Beth, Elly, Charley and Wendy, workers just like them deserve an ergonomics standard to protect them from such debilitating injuries. As long ago as 1990, Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole in the Bush Administration called ergonomic injuries ``one of the nation's most debilitating across-the-board worker safety and health illnesses.'' Since that time, over 2,000 scientific studies have examined the issue, including a comprehensive review by the National Academy of Sciences. All of these studies tell us the same thing--it's long past time to enact an ergonomics standard to protect the health of American workers and prevent these debilitating injuries in the workplace. Last fall, when we considered the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, opponents of an ergonomics standard wanted us to wait for the National Academy of Sciences to complete a further study before OSHA establishes a standard. But it was just another delaying tactic. As we said then, over 2,000 studies on ergonomics have already been carried out. In 1997, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health reviewed 600 of the most important of those studies. In 1998, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed the studies again. Congress even asked the General Accounting Office to conduct its own study. The National Academy of Sciences found that work clearly causes ergonomic injuries. They concluded that ``the positive relationship between the occurrence of musculoskeletal disorders and the conduct of work is clear.'' The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health agreed. They found ``strong evidence of an association between MSDs and certain work-related physical factors.'' The Academy also found that ergonomics programs are effective. As the Academy found, ``Research clearly demonstrates that specific interventions can reduce the reported rate of musculoskeltal disorders for workers who perform high-risk tasks.'' The GAO has concluded that good ergonomics practices are good business. Its report declared, ``Officials at all the facilities we visited believed their ergonomics programs yielded benefits, including reductions in workers' compensation costs.'' The truth is that the Labor Department's ergonomics rule is based on sound science. In addition to the National Academy of Sciences and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, medical and scientific groups have expressed widespread support for moving forward with an ergonomics rule. The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, representing over 7,000 physicians, has stated that ``there is . . . no reason for OSHA to delay the rule-making process while the NAS panel conducts its review.'' The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, representing 16,000 surgeons, the American Association of Occupational Health Nurses, representing 13,000 nurses, and the American Public Health Association, representing 50,000 members, all agree that an ergonomics rule is necessary and based on sound science. Many members of the business community support ergonomics protections, because they agree that good ergonomics practices are good business. Currently, businesses spend $15 to 20 billion each year in workers' compensation costs related to these disorders. Ergonomic injuries account for one dollar of every three dollars spent for workers' compensation. If businesses reduce these injuries, they will reap the benefits of lower costs, greater productivity, and less absenteeism. That's certainly true for Tom Albin of Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, who said, ``Our experience has shown that incorporating good ergonomics into our manufacturing and administrative processes can be effective in reducing the number and severity of work-related musculoskeletal disorders, which not only benefits our employees, but also makes good business sense.'' Similarly, Peter Meyer of Sequins International Quality Braid has said, ``We have reduced our compensation claims for carpal tunnel syndrome through an effective ergonomics program. Our productivity has increased dramatically, and our absenteeism has decreased drastically.'' This ergonomics rule is necessary, because only one-third of employers currently have effective ergonomics programs. Further delay is unacceptable, because it leaves too many workers unprotected and open to career-ending injuries. Ten years is long enough. Since OSHA began working on this standard in 1990, more than 6.1 million workers have suffered serious injuries from workplace ergonomic hazards. It is time to end these injuries--and end all the misinformation too. The current attack on OSHA's ergonomics standard is just the latest in a long series of mindless attacks by business against needed worker protections for worker's health and safety. Whose side is this Congress on? American employees deserve greater protection, not further delay. It's time to stop breaking the promise made to workers, and start supporting this long overdue ergonomics standard now.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in every area of public policy, we have to make choices and set priorities. How much do we spend on defense? And how much do we spend on domestic priorities? How much do we protect our forests and natural resources? How much do we allocate to health care, education, law enforcement, and other obvious priorities? How heavy should the tax burden be? How much do we need to do to protect Medicare and Social Security for the future generations? Often, we have to make difficult choices. But when it comes to protecting workers from injuries in the modern workplace and increased investments in education, I say there is no choice. It's not one or the other. We must do both. But I'm convinced that our Republican friends want to do neither. They don't want to protect workers from the dangers of the modern workplace. They don't want to protect them from repetitive motion injuries in their offices. Or from eyestrain at their computer screens. But they also don't want to make the targeted investments in education that we need for smaller class sizes, quality teachers, and modern schools. On Sunday night, Republican and Democratic House and Senate appropriators and the White House came to a bipartisan agreement on increasing funding for the nation's schools and communities. On Monday, the Republican leadership rejected that agreement, jeopardizing critical support for the nation's public schools, college students, families, and workers. Once again, the GOP Congress has earned the name the ``Anti-Education Congress.'' Once again, the GOP Congress is putting special interests ahead of education. They failed to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act for the first time in 35 years. Last May, we considered only eight amendments to the bill over six different days, when Senator Lott suddenly abandoned the debate and moved to other legislation. The bill has never seen the light of day again. By contrast when the bankruptcy bill was debated, our Republican colleagues did everything they could to satisfy the credit card companies. That bill was debated for 16 days, and 55 amendments were considered. Now, while schools and parents wait to see whether Congress will increase its investment in education, Republicans find time to bring up the bankruptcy bill again. Obviously, when the credit card companies want a bill, our Republican friends put everything else aside to get it done. But when it comes to education, the voices of parents and children and schools and communities always go unheard. Every year since they have been in the majority, Republicans have left education funding until the very end. As we've had to do every year since the GOP took over the majority in Congress in 1995, we must be especially vigilant on education funding. Over and over, we've heard the Republican rhetoric of support, but the reality is just the opposite. They say education is a priority. We thought the Republicans might finally put aside their opposition to education. But it's all talk and no action. At the beginning of this Congress, on January 6, 1999, Senator Lott said, ``Education is going to be a central issue this year . . . For starters, we must reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That is important.'' As recently as July 25, Senator Lott said, ``We will keep trying to find a way to go back to this legislation this year and get it completed.'' They say they want to invest in education, but their record shows they won't and don't. Year after year, it's the same sad story. In 1995, they tried to abolish the Department of Education and slash $1.7 billion of education funds. In FY96, they proposed to cut discretionary funds for education by $3.9 billion, and to cut for student loans by $14 billion. In FY97, they proposed to cut education by $3.1 billion. In FY98, they tried to cut education by $200 million below the President's request, and in FY99 they tried to cut education by $2.8 billion below the President's request. With the strong leadership of President Clinton, all of these reactionary GOP anti-education schemes were defeated, and federal funding for education steadily increased. Nevertheless, the anti-education Republicans in Congress continue to give education the lowest priority. They say they want to make education a high priority--but their rhetoric never matches the reality. It's four weeks after the fiscal year began, and the Republicans have just rejected a strong bipartisan education funding agreement. And now, for the GOP, the education funding bill is MIA-- missing in action. The House Republican majority did break their word when they rejected the bipartisan education funding agreement. They broke their word to the appropriators and the White House who negotiated the agreement. And, they broke their promise to the American people that they would do something for education across the country. I want to be sure that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle understand what was at stake in the agreement. By rejecting the agreement, the Republican leadership is rejecting $1.75 billion to reduce class size. That's an increase of $450 million over last year, to help communities hire an additional qualified teachers to reduce class size in the early grades to 18. By rejecting the agreement, the Republican leadership is rejecting $1 billion for after-school activities--an increase of $547 million over last year. Each day, 5 million children, many as young as 8 or 9 years old, are home alone after school. Juvenile delinquent crime peaks in the hours between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. Children left unsupervised are more likely to be involved in anti-social activities and destructive patterns of behavior. Under the successful 21st Century Community Learning program, students are able to have expanded learning opportunities in school facilities, in cooperation with community organizations and other educational and youth development agencies. Massachusetts has greatly benefitted from this successful program. Worcester Public Schools received a $1.2 million federal grant recently to expand after-school opportunities. Boston received $306,000, so that three middle schools in high need areas can create high-quality learning centers that meet the needs of their communities. Chelsea, Holyoke, and Springfield have also received grants under this vital program. We should help more communities increase after-school opportunities for children. By rejecting the agreement, the Republican leadership is also rejecting $585 million for teacher quality programs, an increase of $250 million over last year. That means denying millions of teachers access to high quality professional development and mentoring. With training in proven effective teaching practices and the newest technologies, teachers can help all children meet high academic standards and graduate from school prepared for the 21st century workplace. By rejecting the agreement, the Republican leadership is rejecting $6.6 billion for IDEA, an increase of $1.7 billion over last year. That means undermining local efforts to help children with disabilities get a good education. By rejecting the agreement, the Republican leadership is rejecting $250 million for states to help failing schools, an increase of $116 million over last year. That means denying help needed to turn around thousands of low-performing schools. By rejecting the agreement, the Republican leadership is rejecting a maximum Pell grant of $3,800, an increase of $500 over last year. That means denying many needy college students a much-needed increase in their Pell grants. By rejecting the agreement, the Republican leadership is rejecting $325 million for GEAR UP, an increase of $125 million over last year. That means denying low-income middle and high school students the extra mentoring and financial assistance they make college a reality for their future. By rejecting the agreement, the Republican leadership is rejecting a new program to provide $1.333 billion for school repair and renovation. That means denying schools the support they need to meet their most urgent repair and renovation needs. Elementary and secondary schools are in urgent need of repair and renovations, so that students can learn and teachers can teach in safe and up-to-date facilities. It's estimated that $112 billion is needed, just to repair existing schools across the nation in poor condition. Nearly one third of all public schools are more than 50 years old. 14 million children in a third of the nation's schools are learning in substandard buildings. Half of all schools have at least one unsatisfactory environmental condition. The problems with ailing school buildings aren't the problems of the inner city alone. They exist in almost every community--urban, rural, or suburban. Sending children to learn and teachers to teach in dilapidated, overcrowded facilities sends a message to these students and their teachers. It tells them they don't matter. No CEO would tolerate a leaky ceiling in the board room, and no teacher should have to tolerate it in the classroom. We need to do all we can to ensure that children are learning in safe, modern buildings. Republicans have also rejected the Administration's proposal to provide $25 billion in interest-free bonds to help communities build and modernize 6,000 new schools to alleviate overcrowding and repair crumbling and dilapidated buildings. The President's proposal is the right approach because it maintains Davis-Bacon protections for workers. The Davis-Bacon Act requires contractors to pay construction workers locally prevailing wages, thereby ensuring that federally assisted construction projects are not used to undermine local wages. Paying prevailing wages ensures that taxpayers have quality construction work performed by well trained, highly skilled, efficient workers. It is short-sighted and unacceptable to build new schools for children to improve their learning, and then allow construction workers to be paid sub-standard wages. Republicans opposed to Davis-Bacon continue to repeat the myth that the Davis-Bacon Act increases the cost of school construction. Study after study shows that it does not. Recent studies of prevailing wage laws in Michigan, in Maryland and other Mid-Atlantic states, and in New Mexico and other western states, show that prevailing wage laws do not increase the cost of school construction. Congress has given strong bipartisan support to the Davis-Bacon Act ever since it was first passed in 1931. Paying prevailing wages makes good policy sense. It enhances productivity and quality. It strengthens skills training in the construction industry. It protects the wages and benefits of local construction workers. Even Ronald Reagan promised to support Davis-Bacon. Republican leaders should be ashamed of themselves for denying this urgently needed help for schools, communities, and families across the country. The Republican Congress has put education last too many times, and it should be held accountable in the voting booths on November 7. Voters should also recognize that the Republican candidate for President, Governor Bush, has a track record that is no better on education, and he should be held accountable, too. If Governor Bush's record in Texas is any indication, average Americans--who work day after day to make ends meet--will be an after- thought in a Bush Administration. The Republican Congress says he has the answers on education. He calls his record in Texas an ``education miracle.'' But if you look at the record, it is more of an ``education mirage'' than an ``education miracle.'' Under Governor Bush, in 1998, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, Texas ranked 45th in the nation in high school completion rates. 71 percent of high school dropouts in Texas are minorities. Hispanic students in Texas drop out at more than twice the rate of white students in the state. So if education is the biggest civil rights issue in America, as Governor Bush claimed in the Presidential debates, he flunked the test in Texas. Last August, the College Board reported that nationally, from 1997 to the year 2000, SAT scores have increased--but in Texas, they have decreased. In 1997, Texas was 21 points below the SAT national average--and by 2000, the gap had widened to 26 points. Then, last Thursday, Governor Bush heard more bad news. The RAND Corporation released an education bombshell that raises serious questions about the validity of even the gains in student achievement in Texas claimed by the Governor. The RAND bombshell was all the more embarrassing, because in August, Governor Bush said, ``Our state . . . has done the best . . . not measured by us but measured by the RAND Corporation, who take an objective look as to how states are doing when it comes to educating children.'' Clearly, at that time, Governor Bush trusted the conclusions made by the RAND Corporation. He was referring to a RAND report that looked at scores in Texas from 1990 to 1996. In fact, Senator Hutchison cited those findings on the floor of the Senate on Thursday. But most of the years covered by the earlier RAND report were before Bush became Governor. The new RAND report, released earlier this week, analyzes scores from 1994 to 1998, when George W. Bush was the Governor. The achievement gap in Texas is not closing--it is widening. And what is the Governor's solution? Tests, tests, and more tests. In August, Governor Bush said, ``Without comprehensive regular testing, without knowing if children are really learning, accountability is a myth, and standards are just slogans.'' We all know that tests are an important indication of student achievement. But the RAND study questions the validity of the Texas state test, because Governor Bush's education program was ``teaching to the test,'' instead of genuinely helping children to learn. If we want a true solution, we should look at the success of states such as North Carolina, which is improving education the right way-- investing in schools, improving teacher quality, and expanding after- school programs--all in order to produce better results for students. SAT scores went up in North Carolina by 10 points between 1997 and 2000. The Bush Plan mandates tests and more tests for children--but it does nothing to ensure that schools actually improve and children actually learn. We know that immediate help for low-performing schools is essential. We know that we can turn around failing schools, when the federal government and states and parents and local schools work together as partners to provide the needed investments. In North Carolina, low-performing schools are given technical assistance from special state teams that provide targeted support to turn around low-performing schools. In the 1997-98 school year, 15 North Carolina schools received intensive help from these state assistance teams. In August 1998, the state reported that most of these schools achieved ``exemplary'' growth--and not one of the schools remained in the ``low-performing'' category. Last year, 11 North Carolina schools received similar help. Nine met or exceeded their targets. That's the kind of aid to education that works--not just tests, but realistic action to bring about realistic change for students' education. Instead of taking steps that work, Governor Bush abandons low- performing schools. He proposes a private school voucher plan that drains needed resources from troubled schools and traps low-income children in them. In the Vietnam War, it was said that we had to destroy some villages in order to save them. That's what Governor Bush has in store for failing schools--a Vietnam War strategy that will destroy schools instead of saving them. Parents want smaller class sizes, where teachers can maintain order and give children the one-on-one attention they need to learn. Parents want qualified teachers for their children--a qualified teacher in all of their classes. Parents want schools that are safe and modern learning environments for their children. Parents and students alike want an increase in Pell Grants, to help students afford the college education they need in order to have successful careers in the new economy. The vast majority of Americans want us to address these challenges. And Al Gore and Democrats in Congress will do just that. They will continue to fight hard and well for the education priorities that parents and local schools are demanding.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my friend and colleague, Sid Yates, who first came to Congress in 1948 and who served with great distinction until his retirement at the end of the last Congress. All of us who knew and loved Sid were saddened by his recent death. He was a soft- spoken leader who demonstrated time and again his unequivocal commitment to his constituents in Chicago and his unwavering respect for the nation's best principles. He was a public servant in the truest and most noble sense, and he was a powerful inspiration to all of us who were fortunate enough to work with him. During his years as Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, Sid skillfully advanced legislation to sustain and protect our national parks and historic sites. He was a brilliant legislator who has done more to preserve our national historic and cultural legacy than any other member of Congress. Sid was also well known as Congress's leading advocate for the National endowments for the Arts and Humanities. He was a strong and courageous defender of these important agencies. Especially during times of controversy over the agencies, he spoke effectively and persuasively to preserve their vital programs. because of Sid Yates, art and music and dance and theater are now more accessible to families across the nation through their schools and in their cultural institutions. It's an outstanding legacy, and I know I join my colleagues in Congress in a commitment to honor Sid Yates' memory with a renewed effort to support the endowments. Sid Yates will long be remembered as a man who brought graciousness, integrity and civility to public service. He is a patriot who is deeply missed here in Congress as well as in his beloved Chicago. I commend all that he accomplished, and all of us are grateful for his five decades of selfless and principled public service. He will be remembered fondly for many years to come.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct. In a number of communities we have living wage regions, in many of the major cities of this country, which have been successful. But there are those, including Governor Bush, whose position is to say the States ought to be able to opt out on the minimum wage. When you realize the minimum wage in the State of Texas is $3.35 an hour, when we have seen the prosperity which is across this country, that raises serious questions about the real interest in any working families. I want to take the time remaining to talk about two public policy areas, first on education and then on health care. If Governor Bush's record in Texas is any indication, average Americans, who work day after day to make ends meet, will be an afterthought in a Bush administration. The Republican Congress says he has the answers to education. He calls his record in Texas an education miracle. But if you look at the record, it is more of an education mirage than an education miracle. Under Governor Bush, in 1998, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, Texas ranks 45th in the Nation in high school completion rates; 71 percent of high school dropouts in Texas are minorities; Hispanic students in Texas drop out at more than twice the rate of white students in the State. So if education is the biggest civil rights issue in America, as Governor Bush proclaimed at the Presidential debates, he flunked the test in Texas. Last August, the College Boards reported that nationally, from 1997 to the year 2000, SAT scores have increased. But in Texas, they have decreased. In 1997, Texas was 21 points below the SAT national average. By 2000, the gap had grown by 26 points. Then, last Thursday, Governor Bush heard more bad news. The Rand Corporation released an education bombshell that raises serious questions about the validity of gains in student achievements in Texas claimed by the Governor. The Rand bombshell was all the more embarrassing because in August Governor Bush said: Our State has done the best, not measured by us, but measured by the Rand Corporation who take an objective look at how States are doing when it comes to education. Those are the Governor's words. Clearly, at that time Governor Bush trusted the conclusions made by the Rand Corporation because he was referring to a Rand report that looks at scores in Texas from 1990 to 1996. In fact, Senator Hutchison cited those findings on the floor of the Senate on Thursday. But most of the years covered by the earlier Rand report were before Bush became Governor. The new Rand report released earlier this week analyzes the scores from 1994 to 1998, when George W. Bush was the Governor. The achievement gap in Texas is not closing, it is widening. What is the Governor's solution? Test, test, tests and more tests. In August, Governor Bush said: Without comprehensive regular testing, without knowing if children are really learning, accountability is a myth and standards are just slogans. We all know tests are an important indication of student achievement, but the Rand study questions the validity of the Texas State test because Governor Bush's education program was teaching to the test instead of genuinely helping children to learn. These are the results. We find out the objective standards, whether we take it from the Rand Corporation or the National Center for Education Statistics. When it was favorable to Texas, it was quoted ad infinitum by strong supporters of the Governor. But, those successes applied to the education policies that were developed prior to the time the Governor became Governor. If we want a true solution to improving education, we should look at the success of States such as North Carolina, which is improving education the right way: Investing in schools, improving teacher quality, expanding afterschool programs--all in order to produce better results for students. The Bush plan mandates more tests for children, but it does nothing to ensure that schools actually improve and children actually learn. We know immediate help for low-performing schools is essential. We know we can turn around failing schools when the Federal Government, States, parents, and local schools work together as partners to provide the needed investments. In North Carolina, low-performing schools are given technical assistance from special State teams who provide targeted support to turn around low-performing schools. In the 1997-1998 school year, 15 North Carolina schools received intensive help from these State- assisted teams. In August 1998, the State reported most of these schools achieved exemplary growth and not one school remained in the low-performing category. Last year, 11 North Carolina schools received similar help; 9 met or exceeded their targets. That is the kind of aid to education that works--not just tests, but realistic action to bring about realistic change for students' education. And, correspondingly, the test scores for the students in North Carolina have risen 10 points above the national average during this period. The Democratic proposal to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act incorporate the proven approaches that have demonstrated better results for children. But the Republican leadership has blocked any opportunity to debate education. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, for the first time in 35 years, will not be acted on by Congress. The Vice President, Al Gore, supports programs to improve public schools which have been proven effective. The best example we have is North Carolina. Those programs are tried and tested and demonstrated to be successful. That is what we believe ought to be done in the future for public education in this country. Yet those programs that have been tried and tested in the State of Texas are not improving education for children. Education is a prime issue for families, and we ought to look at the results. When you look at them carefully, you have to realize that what has been outlined as an educational miracle by the Governor just does not measure up--it's just an education mirage. Instead of taking steps that will work, Governor Bush abandons the low-performing schools. He proposes a private school voucher plan that drains needed resources from troubled schools and traps low-income children in them. In the Vietnam war, it was said we had to destroy some villages in order to save them. That is what Governor Bush has in store for failing schools: a Vietnam war strategy that will destroy them instead of save them. Parents want smaller class sizes where teachers can maintain order and give one-to-one attention students need to learn. Parents want a qualified teacher in every classroom in America. Parents want modern schools that are safe learning environments for their children. GAO found that $112 billion was necessary for our schools to meet health and safety standards and environmental standards, to make critical repairs, and to ensure they are wired for modern technologies. That is why we want strong support for our school modernization and construction program that the Republican leadership has consistently opposed. Here we are 4 weeks into the next fiscal year. Republicans have said that education is their top priority, but instead, they have made education their last priority. Parents and students alike want an increase in Pell grants to help young people afford the college education they need to compete in the new economy. The vast majority of Americans want us to address these challenges, and Al Gore and the Democrats in Congress will do just that. We will continue to fight hard for education priorities that parents and local schools are demanding. There is much good news about education across the nation. More students are taking the SATs so they can gain entrance into college. We see these numbers going up every year. More and more students are taking advanced math and science classes in precalculus, calculus, and physics. We know there are schools in some parts of the country where the children cannot even read and write an essay. We ought to be doing something about it. The Republicans condemn those schools, but they have no plan to improve them. Finally, the SAT math scores are the highest in 30 years. The SATs are taken by young people who want to go on to college. Those who are taking math now--many of the children who are taking the advanced courses are going to do better. That is what we want, isn't it? We want all these indicators to go in the right direction--better results for children. As we come into these final weeks, parents ought to look at the Members of Congress, the Members of the Senate, and the Presidential candidates and where they stand on education. Democrats and Al Gore stand for an investment in children that will produce better results: smaller class sizes, a qualified teacher in every classroom in America in 4 years, a strong downpayment on meeting the nation's school modernization and construction needs, more afterschool programs to keep children safe and out of trouble and give them extra time for learning, too. We should support these policies to improve public schools, and we should oppose policies by the Republican leadership and Governor Bush to abandond public schools. The nation's children deserve no less.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Nevada. I commend my friend and colleague, the Senator from Illinois, in raising these issues. I commend him because he has presented the facts to the Senate. We never had an opportunity to vote on the 1996 Immigration Act. To represent that we did is not stating clearly the facts. That was wrapped into a conference report on an entirely different appropriation, which was a take-it-or-leave-it, after the legislation passed, I believe, 97-3, with strong bipartisan support, and it was after days of hearing in the Senate that the Republicans took that and added these provisions, some provisions which the Senator has mentioned. This figure of 4 million is a traditional way of distorting and misrepresenting a position, and then disagreeing with it. That is poppycock. It is red herring. The Senator from Utah ought to know better than that because that is completely inaccurate. I can understand the frustration that many feel about this issue, and I commend the President for attempting to try and deal with it. When we had this Latino Fairness Act, two prominent Republicans, the Senator from Florida and the chairman of the immigration committee, made statements in favor of the position outlined by the Senator from Illinois. They were prepared. They understood that there may have been differences here, but they spoke to it. The President is in a commendable position. I thank him for his leadership in this. I again thank the Senator from Illinois for bringing this matter to the attention of the Senate. I am very hopeful that we will stay the course on this until we get some action on this, another proposal that has a moratorium on the deportation of individuals, which has been passed through the House on the suspension calendar which addresses one of the regrettable aspects of the 1996 act. That has the bipartisan support of Chairman Hyde of the Judiciary Committee, and Lamar Smith from the immigration committee, which virtually passed unanimously in the House. I am hopeful we will pass that, as well. Halloween is here. I am watching the clock that is over the Senate right now. It has not been corrected. I don't know whether the goblins are out here, as well, but Halloween is here. While the Nation observes this occasion only once a year, for this Republican Congress, every day is Halloween. This is the Halloween Congress: lavishing treats on the wealthy and cruel tricks on average families. If he is elected, Governor Bush will borrow the idea and have a year- round Halloween White House in which powerful special interests hold sway and working families are left out and left behind. He said no to working families in Texas and he wants to say no to average Americans for 4 more years this time from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He wants to say no to Social Security, no to Medicare, no to a fair prescription drug benefit for senior citizens, no to the Patients' Bill of Rights, no to improving the public schools, no to health care for uninsured children, no to fair tax cuts for average families, no to fighting hate crimes, no to fairness for lawful immigrants, no to gun safety laws. There is no clearer example of how our Republican friends have kowtowed to powerful special interests than the tax bill before the Senate. Rather than meet the urgent priorities of the American people, Republicans have spent the past 2 weeks huddled behind closed doors to produce a quarter-trillion-dollar tax package tilted overwhelmingly toward the powerful and not toward the average families. In fact, the top 5 percent of taxpayers will receive a greater share of the tax breaks under this Republican tax scheme than the bottom 80 percent of all taxpayers combined. There is little to distinguish this plan from the previous discredited proposals by the Republican leadership in Congress and by George W. Bush. In many ways the items in this package are even more cynical. The Republicans know that millions of Americans are deeply concerned about the lack of health insurance for low- and middle-income families. So this bill lowers the cost of health insurance for wealthier people who are already insured. Madam President, 95 percent of the people who will benefit under this bill in terms of the health insurance benefits are individuals who are already insured, not any expansion for those who have no health insurance today. Republicans know that millions of Americans are concerned about saving enough for retirement, so this bill fattens the pension opportunities available to the highest level corporate executives. Republicans know that millions of children and working families are having trouble feeding their families even in this time of prosperity. So this bill increases the tax breaks that corporations can claim for three-martini lunches, dinners, and other entertainment. Republicans know that millions of families struggle to care for elderly or disabled family members at home, so their tax bill lowers the cost of luxury nursing facilities for wealthy families. Millions of low-wage workers are depending on Congress to raise the minimum wage this year before we adjourn. But Republicans seem to care so little about the minimum wage that they have repealed it for 6 months of next year in their tax bill. It was, apparently, an inadvertent mistake, or perhaps a Freudian slip. But if they had worked with Democrats and shown us the provision, we could have prevented such an embarrassing mistake. An increase in the minimum wage may be an afterthought for the Republican leadership, but it means food on the table and clothes for the children for the 12 million workers who benefit. To eliminate the minimum wage, even for 6 months, would be a disaster for these families. Here we are in the final hours of this Congress and still we have been denied the opportunity to even vote whether this body thinks we should vote for a 50-cent increase in the minimum wage today--which is now $5.15 an hour--and 50 cents next year, at the time we have the greatest economic expansion in the history of this country. On the other hand, under Republican leadership the Congress raised its salary by $4,800 last year and again by $3,600 this year. Congress made sure nothing got in the way. Congressional pay was not eliminated for 6 months. Congress did not say Congressional salaries would be increased only if accompanied by $100 billion in tax breaks. Isn't that interesting? Our Republican leaders have told us yes, you can have raises, rather than the people who are going to be affected by an increase in the minimum wage if we have $73 billion in tax breaks. We did not have that kind of requirement when we increased our own benefits, but evidently for the hardest working families, many of those who have two or three jobs to try to make ends meet, that is the block that is put in front of them. Madam President, 535 Senators and Representatives received a raise without a hitch. The 12 million Americans who would receive a raise in the minimum wage deserve the same. It is a children's issue, a families issue, a civil rights issue. I hope this Republican Congress will act to pass the minimum wage before adjourning this year.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, few issues are of greater concern to American families than quality, affordable health care. Americans want an end to HMO abuses. They want good health insurance coverage. They want a prescription drug benefit for senior citizens under Medicare. They want to preserve and strengthen Medicare, so that Medicare will be there for both today's senior citizens and tomorrow's senior citizens. And they want these priorities not only for themselves and their loved ones but for every American, because they know that good health care should be a basic right for all. The choice in this election is clear on health care--and it is not just a choice between different programs. It is also a choice based on who can be trusted to do the right thing for the American people. Al Gore's record and his proposals are clear. He has been deeply involved in health care throughout his career. The current administration has made significant progress in improving health care in a variety of ways--from expanding health insurance for children to protecting Medicare for seniors. He has consistently stood for patients and against powerful special interests. Al Gore has laid out a constructive program that is consistent with his solid record. He is for expanding insurance coverage to all Americans, starting with children and their parents. He is for a strong Patients' Bill of Rights to end abuses by HMOs. He has a sensible plan for adding prescription drug coverage to Medicare. He will fight to preserve Medicare, without unacceptable changes designed to undermine Medicare and force senior citizens into HMOs and private insurance plans. George W. Bush's approach is very different. His proposals are deeply flawed. But even worse than the specifics of his proposals is his failure to come clean with the American people about his record in Texas or about his own proposals. On health care, George Bush doesn't just have a credibility gap. He has a credibility chasm. He has consistently stood with the powerful against the people. He refuses to take on the drug companies--or the insurance companies--or the HMOs. His budget plan puts tax cuts for the wealthy ahead of every other priority, and leaves no room for needed investments in American families. On health care, his values are not the values of the American people. On the issue of the Patients' Bill of Rights, George Bush said in the third debate that he supports a national Patients' Bill of Rights. He said he wanted all people covered. He said that he was in favor of a patient's right to sue, as provided under Texas law. He said he brought Republicans and Democrats together in the State of Texas to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights. That's what he said, but it is not true. Governor Bush knows his record on health care can't stand the light of day. So on national TV, he patently deceived the American people about his record, hoping no one would notice, or else hoping people would give him a pass because he didn't know any better and simply spouted what his spin doctors had given him. But the truth has a way of coming to the surface. Here is what he did on the Patients' Bill of Rights. He vetoed the first Patients' Bill of Rights passed in Texas. He fought to make the second bill as narrow and limited as possible. He was so opposed to the provision allowing patients to sue their HMOs that he refused to sign the final bill, allowing it to become law without his signature. That is not a record that recommends him for national office to any citizen concerned about a strong, effective Patients' Bill of Rights. It is the record of a candidate who stands with powerful insurance companies and HMOs, not with American families, and he isn't honest about his record. On Thursday, Senator Hutchison stated that the only reason Governor Bush vetoed the first bill and let the right to sue under the second bill become law without his signature was because there was disagreement on how high the caps on pain and suffering would be. I regret that my colleague has been misled. The fact is that there was no provision for lawsuits in the first Patients' Bill of Rights bill vetoed by the Governor. Let me reiterate--there was no provision for lawsuits at all in the first bill. Yet the Governor vetoed it. In the second bill, there was also no issue about the caps on pain and suffering. Texas already had caps on pain and suffering under its general tort law, and everyone assumed that those caps would apply to lawsuits against HMOs. There was never any discussion of this issue. The fact is that Governor Bush, despite what he says today, simply does not believe that health plans should be held accountable. That is why he refused to sign the law allowing suits against HMOs. Once again, he has distorted his record in Texas--and both the record and the distortions call into serious question where he would stand as President. Governor Bush is quick to challenge the integrity of others. But on this issue, his integrity is on the line as well. ``Distort, dissemble, and deny'' on an issue as important as this is not a qualification for the next President of the United States. On health insurance, the record is equally clear--and equally bleak. Governor Bush claims he wants insurance for all Americans. He blames Vice President Gore for the growth in the number of the uninsured. But Governor Bush's record in Texas is one of the worst in the country. Texas has the second highest proportion of uninsured Americans in the country. It has the second highest proportion of uninsured children in the country. Yet, Governor Bush has not only done nothing to address this problem, he has actually fought against solutions. In Texas, he placed a higher priority on large new tax breaks for the oil industry, instead of good health care for children and their families. When Congress passed the Child Health Insurance Program in 1997, we put affordable health insurance for children within reach of every moderate- and low-income working family in America. Yet George Bush's Texas was one of the last States in the country to fully implement the law. Despite the serious health problems faced by children in Texas, Governor Bush actually fought to keep eligibility as narrow as possible.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield the floor. Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Parliamentary inquiry. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. I understand we will have some time. The House has not concluded with the continuing resolution. I understand it is agreeable with the leaders that the time remaining will be divided equally. Is the time remaining equally divided between the two sides?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I want to address the concerns of my friend, the Senator from Texas, in her comments earlier. I want to make very clear I have no complaint against the State of Texas. It has an outstanding history and has produced some great leaders, including Sam Houston, Sam Rayburn, President Johnson. My complaint is not against Texas at all, it is against the clear misstatements of Governor Bush about his Texas record. The facts are there. I am not attacking the State of Texas. I am sure many citizens of Texas share my concerns about the United States. It is proper and necessary to talk about these issues. They are important. They are important in the national Presidential debate because they aren't being addressed by this Congress. The Republican leadership has blocked responsible action on education. For the first time in 35 years, Congress has failed to reauthorize ESEA. We are now 4 weeks late in passing an education funding bill. Since the majority has stifled any debate on education in this Congress, it is appropriate and necessary to speak on the Senate floor about how education will be treated in the next Congress under the next administration. The American people deserve a Congress that will act on education, not ignore it. When we think about what will happen to education next year, we must look at the Presidential candidates and how they will address education. It is essential to look at the record of Governor Bush, the Republican candidate for President. That is what I have done. On the children's health issue, when the Congress passed the CHIP program in 1997, we put affordable health insurance for children within reach of every moderate- and low-income working family in America. Yet George W. Bush's Texas was one of the last States in the country to fully implement the law. Despite the serious health problems faced by children in Texas, Governor Bush fought to keep eligibility as narrow as possible. In fact, the Bush campaign's defense of this unacceptable record is almost as telling as the record itself. According to the New York Times, the Bush campaign acknowledged that Governor Bush fought to keep eligibility narrow, but that he did so because he was concerned about costs and the spillover effect on Medicaid. This so-called spillover effect is the increase in enrollment of children in Medicaid that occurs when the Children's Health Insurance Program is put into effect. Vigorous outreach efforts are made by state governments to identify children who qualify for the new program--but the same outreach identifies many other children who should have already been enrolled in Medicaid. In other words, Governor Bush not only opposed expanding eligibility for the new CHIP program--he was also worried that the very poorest children--those already eligible for Medicaid--might actually receive the coverage to which the were clearly entitled. That is not just what I am saying. That is also the conclusion of the New York Times when it reviewed the facts. It's no wonder that Governor Bush's Texas Administration was cited by a federal judge for its failure to live up to a consent order to let families of poor children know about their eligibility for Medicaid and about the health services to which they were entitled. An article in Time magazine says it all. It is titled, ``Tax Cuts Before Tots. Candidate Bush is pushing his compassion, but poor kids in Texas have not seen much of it.'' And under a box entitled ``Lost Opportunity? Bush and Poor Kids,'' the article makes four key points: [Bush] helped to secure tax cuts by underfunding Medicaid, causing a $400 million shortfall in the program. He delayed the state law to expand Medicaid coverage for 303,000 new kids. They went five years without health insurance. He fought efforts to require automatic coverage for families forced off welfare rolls. Now, my Senate colleagues from Texas offered all sorts of explanations for Governor Bush's miserable record on health care for children. They said that the court case I referred to was begun before Governor Bush took office. That is true. But the consent decree settling the case was agreed to by Governor Bush's administration in February of 1996. And the latest action by the federal judge was based on the Bush's administration failure to live up to the consent decree that it had agreed to. The Bush administration did not keep its word. Children were not its priority. Defenders of the Governor say that Texas could not implement the CHIP program promptly because its legislature only meets every two years. But other states have legislatures that meet only two years, and they were able to get their programs going more promptly. In fact, Texas was the next to last state in the entire country to approve a Chip plan-- the next to last state. Governor Bush's misstatements on his Texas record do not end with uninsured children. In the debates, Vice President Gore pressed Governor Bush on the Texas record on the uninsured. Governor Bush said that Texas was spending $4.7 billion a year for uninsured people. But it turns out that actually only one-quarter of that amount was being spent by the State of Texas. The vast majority of the spending was by hospitals and doctors for charity care, and by county governments, not by the state. On the Texas record on the uninsured, Governor Bush claimed that the percentage of the uninsured in Texas had gone down, while the percentage of the uninsured in America had gone up. In 1998, the overall percentage of the uninsured dropped by identical amounts both nationally and in Texas--4.9 percent in Texas and 4.9 percent nationally. But, because of Governor Bush's inaction on children, the percentage of children in Texas who were uninsured dropped only half as much as the drop nationally--10 percent nationally and only 5.2 percent in Texas. When Governor Bush took office, Texas ranked second from the bottom of all 50 States in covering children and citizens of all ages. Today, after six years under his watch as Governor, Texas still ranks second from the bottom. There is still time for the truth to be told. I am hopefully that every American will examine the records of the two candidates carefully. On health care, there should be no question at all as to which candidate stands with the powerful special interests and which candidate stands with the American people. The choice is clear. Governor Bush stands with the powerful, and Al Gore stands with the people. I reserve the remember of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. May we have order, Mr. President? The Senator is entitled to be heard.