Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, another issue in which this Republican Congress is ignoring working families is immigration. Action on the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act is long overdue. The issues in this legislation are not new to Congress. The immigrant community--particularly the Latino community--has waited far too long for the fundamental fairness this legislation will provide. The Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act keeps families together. It rewards immigrants who work hard and pay taxes, and it makes our immigration policies simpler and fairer. Our proposal is based on the fundamental principle that immigrants in similar situations should be treated equally. The Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act includes parity for all Central Americans, and for Haitians and Liberians. In 1997, Congress enacted legislation granting permanent residence to Nicaraguans and Cubans who had fled their repressive governments. But Congress did not grant the same protection to other Central Americans and Haitians. The Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act will eliminate these disparities and create fair, uniform procedures for all of these immigrants. The Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act will also change the registry cut-off date, so that long-time immigrants who have been residing in this country since before 1986 will qualify to remain in the United States permanently, and it will restore a provision to the immigration laws that was unfairly allowed to expire in 1997. These proposals are pro-family, pro-business, fiscally prudent, and a matter of common sense. But that hasn't stopped the Republican leadership from opposing them and offering a blatantly inadequate substitute that pays lip service to fairness for Latinos and immigrants in our communities but denies them real help. Under even the most generous interpretation, the Republican proposal ignores the vast majority of immigrants and families. It will perpetuate the current patchwork of contradictory and discriminatory provisions enacted by the Republican Congress in recent years. Republicans propose two things. First, a new temporary ``V'' visa would be created that allows certain spouses and minor children of lawful permanent residents to enter or stay in the U.S. and be granted work authorization while waiting for their green card. To qualify for the visa, applicants must have had applications for entry pending for over three years. On the surface, this may sound like a good idea. But it unfairly picks and chooses among family members, granting relief to some, but not to others. The GOP proposal perpetuates the piecemeal and discriminatory immigration policies we are seeking to end. Second, the Republican plan would provide an opportunity for individuals to apply for green cards--but only if they were part of two particular class action lawsuits against the INS for improper handling of the 1986 amnesty program. This selective proposal is grossly inadequate. It provides relief only for individuals who sought counsel from a specific lawyer and joined a specific lawsuit, even though countless other individuals affected by the INS ruling are left out. Also, of those people who are actually covered by this plan, less than 40 percent are expected to prevail. Republicans acknowledge that the 1986 law was implemented unfairly. It is wrong and inconsistent to deny a remedy to all who were affected. It is wrong to help only those who were able to hire the right attorney, and who filled out the right forms. All eligible individuals should receive relief. Governor Bush praises his trillion dollar tax break for the wealthy, and criticizes Democrats for supporting targeted tax relief that helps some individuals, but not others. It's obvious that Republicans don't care about uniformity when the issue is immigration. It's unfair and unjust to pick and choose among immigrants who will receive this well- deserved and long-overdue relief. We have welcomed these individuals to the United States. They are part of our communities. We have come to know them as neighbors, friends, and colleagues. We should support those who have come here in their search for freedom, equality, and a better life. These are the same dreams our ancestors came here to find in the past. It is essential to pass the real Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act and treat immigrants fairly. Hard-working immigrant families deserve this long-overdue relief, and they deserve it now.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, there are two additional important issues that I would like to discuss tonight. There are few clearer examples of this Republican Congress siding with powerful special interests against average people than the pending bankruptcy bill. The bankruptcy conference report targets working men and women who comprise the vast number of Americans in bankruptcy. Two out of every three bankruptcy filers are workers who have lost their jobs because of layoffs or downsizing. One out of every five has huge debts because of health care expenses. 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, under pressure from the credit card industry, this Republican Congress is bent on denying all these innocent victims of financial hardship the safety net that the bankruptcy laws have provided for a century. 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 bankruptcy bill must include two important additions--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 for women. The current bill includes neither of these provisions. The bill does include a half-hearted, loop-hole filled homestead provision. It will do virtually nothing to eliminate fraud. With a little planning--or in some cases, no planning at all--wealthy debtors will still be able to hide millions of dollars 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--are treated differently by the bankruptcy system today. 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 bankruptcy fraud and abuse should include a loop- hole-free homestead provision. The President thinks so. As an October 12 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 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 that 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. The hypocrisy of this bill is obvious. 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 and their lobbyists are the focus of attention. The facts are clear. The bankruptcy bill before us is designed to increase the profits of the credit card industry at the expense of working families. If it becomes law, its effective will be devastating. It eminently deserves the veto it will receive if it ever reaches the White House.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I will be happy to.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Public Health Improvement Act of 2000 will bring far-reaching benefits to the health of millions of Americans. I commend my colleagues, Senator Jim Jeffords and Senator Bill Frist, for their leadership in bringing this important measure to the Senate floor today. The leadership of our colleagues in the House was also essential in developing this groundbreaking bill, and I thank Representatives Tom Bliley, John Dingell, Michael Bilirakis, and Sherrod Brown for their dedication and skillful work in bringing this legislation forward. The Act will help the nation meet many of the health challenges we face at the beginning of the 21st century. Few of these are more grave than the ominous threat of attack with a biological weapon. Like the lethal mushroom cloud of a nuclear bomb, a haze of anthrax spores released by a terrorist over one of our major cities could bring death and disease to millions of Americans. Chilling revelations from the former Soviet Union and other nations have revealed extensive and sophisticated programs to use deadly microbes as weapons of mass destruction. Just this week, we heard alarming news from Uganda about the deadly outbreak of Ebola fever. Yet viruses like Ebola were a subject of research in bioweapons programs whose aim was to make these viruses even deadlier and more contagious. Senator Frist and I have held numerous hearings in the Public Health Subcommittee on these public health threats. Witness after witness testified that the best way to defend the nation against these deadly biological weapons threats is to strengthen the ability of public health agencies to respond at the local, state and national levels. Given the importance of these agencies in safeguarding the health of the nation, we were appalled to hear that many public health agencies are underfunded, ill-equipped and poorly prepared to respond to these modern disease threats. In this electronic era, when we can send an e- mail message from Cape Town to Cape Cod in the blink of an eye, our nation's public health agencies often lack equipment as basic as a fax machine. At a time when scientists have deciphered the entire DNA sequence of the human genetic code, many of the nation's public health laboratories cannot conduct simple genetic tests to identify deadly microbes rapidly and accurately. Yet, in a disease emergency, swift action can keep a local outbreak from becoming a national epidemic. A few lost hours can mean thousands more lost lives. To counter the threat of infectious disease outbreaks--whether naturally occurring or resulting from bioterrorist attacks--we must strengthen our public health defenses. Expert testimony provided to our committee showed how much work needs to be done. We must begin by defining and assessing the capacities that public health agencies need to fight infectious diseases. Our bill authorizes grants to these agencies to enable them to assess their ability to respond effectively to infectious disease threats. Once assessments have been completed, state and local public health agencies will become eligible to receive grants to strengthen their capacity to fight infectious disease threats. While only a few states that have already completed capacity assessments will be eligible for these grants in the first year of this program, more and more states will become eligible in the years to come. Strengthening the nation's public health agencies will also assist in countering the threats posed by microbes that have become resistant to antibiotics. Not long ago, doctors were confident that most microbes could be easily treated with antibiotics. In recent years, however, this confidence has been shaken by the rise of deadly infections that cannot be cured by antibiotics. The World Health Organization estimates that 14,000 Americans die every year from drug-resistant infections, and that fighting these infections costs the United States $10 billion per year. These figures are distressing, and they are sure to become even more alarming in the future, as the number of resistant infections increases. We must clearly do more to halt that upward spiral. If we act now to contain the spread of antibiotic resistance, we can buy enough time for new antibiotics to be developed that provide additional defenses against microbes that are becoming increasingly resistant to the current generation of drugs. This legislation supports efforts to use existing drugs more carefully, monitor drug-resistant infections more diligently, and conduct research to find the next generation of antimicrobial treatments. The existing interagency task force on antimicrobial resistance has made a good start in tackling these problems. This group has carefully brought together federal agencies with special responsibilities in areas related to antimicrobial resistance, and has sought the advice of experts in formulating its Action Plan. Our legislation provides statutory authorization for this task force to continue its essential work. The activities already underway or planned by the task force will do much to invigorate federal efforts to fight antimicrobial resistance, and our committee will watch carefully to make sure that these promising plans are translated into effective action. The Food and Drug Administration has a special responsibility to protect the public from the growing threat of drug-resistant microbes in our nation's food supply. Numerous scientific studies have provided compelling evidence that there is a link between the overuse of antibiotics in food animals and the alarming increase in drug-resistant microbes found in meat and poultry. The FDA deserves credit for carefully gathering information about the risk of using antibiotics in food animals. The agency now has an opportunity to act decisively on this information, by setting regulatory thresholds for the presence of drug-resistant microbes in food at levels which will protect the public health. Both consumers and producers will benefit if the nation can be assured that its food supply is safe and uncontaminated. I am sure that many members of our committee and our colleagues in Congress will pay close attention to the decisions that the FDA makes on this important issue in the months to come. Countering emerging public health threats is only one part of this important legislation. The Act also includes important provisions to strengthen clinical research. These provisions, which the Senate approved last November as the Clinical Research Enhancement Act, will begin to reverse the alarming decline in the number of health professionals who conduct research directly related to the needs of patients. These provisions will also provide clinical researchers with the facilities they need to conduct their important work. Numerous expert reports and analyses have proven that support for patient-oriented research is inadequate in the United States. Too often, talented health professionals are deterred from careers in clinical research because of inadequate grant funding or the extreme financial pressure of high educational debt. In addition, there are too few clinical research centers which conduct high quality patient- oriented research. The Act addresses these deficiencies by authorizing grants for clinical researchers throughout their careers, by providing relief from the education debt burden that keeps many health professionals from pursuing careers in clinical research, and by authorizing grants to establish general clinical research centers. This legislation is not intended to single out any individual area of medical research for special study or emphasis. Instead, it provides broad support for clinical research so that clinical researchers can pursue whichever avenues of medical research have the greatest medical need or offer the most promising opportunities. In introducing and passing this legislation, it is our strong view that awards under the Act should be granted to investigators who show the greatest promise and who are conducting research of the greatest scientific or health value, regardless of the specific diseases or conditions they may be studying. The Clinical Research Enhancement Act will bear fruit now and in the coming years as new medical advances move more rapidly from the laboratory of the researcher to the bedside of the patient. The skill and dedication of the nation's clinical researchers deserve this support, and it is long overdue. The Act will also revitalize the nation's biomedical research facilities. Continued progress in medicine depends on modern and well- maintained research facilities--yet the nation's basic biomedical research facilities are in an alarming state of disrepair. To restore and rebuild the nation's biomedical research infrastructure, the Act incorporates the provisions originally passed in the Senate last year as the Twenty-First Century Research Laboratories Act. I commend Senator Harkin for his leadership on these needed provisions. I also commend our colleague, Representative Michael Bilirakis, for introducing and championing this legislation in the House. Earlier this year, the National Science Foundation conducted a comprehensive study of the nation's research facilities. The shocking facts uncovered by the analysis demonstrate the need for this important legislation. Over 60 percent of the universities and research institutions studied by the NSF had inadequate laboratory space in the biomedical sciences. The NSF found that 5 percent of the laboratory space at the nation's research institutions is in such poor condition that it needs immediate replacement. An additional 18 percent--or 4.6 million square feet of lab space--needs major repairs and renovations. Funding for such construction has not kept pace with the significant budget increases provided to the NIH in recent years. As a result, 54 percent of all research institutions have had to defer needed construction for research and development due to insufficient funding, resulting in a backlog of more than $2.1 billion in deferred construction. Funding from state, local and institutional sources can meet a significant proportion of this shortfall. But federal resources are needed too, to revitalize the nation's biomedical research laboratories. Under this legislation, NIH will be authorized to provide merit-based grants for construction or revitalization of essential laboratory facilities. The Act also authorizes grants to institutions to purchase the sophisticated scientific instruments that are increasingly required to conduct top quality biomedical research. As scientists learn more and more about the fundamental processes of life, advances in research rely increasingly on complex and expensive scientific instruments. In a matter of moments, an advanced DNA sequencer can find out vital information about the genes that affect health and disease. New microscopes and imaging devices can provide snapshots inside the body or within a single cell. The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology recently released a detailed survey about the needs of the nation's biomedical research institutions for scientific equipment. Over 80 percent of NIH grant recipients believed that shared scientific equipment and core facilities are essential to their research--but more than half felt that NIH's grant support is inadequate for purchases of this needed equipment. Future progress in medicine will increasingly depend on sophisticated and expensive equipment. Congress has a responsibility to accelerate this progress by providing adequate federal support for equipment. The Act also includes the House-passed Lupus Research and Care Amendments of 2000. These provisions authorize new resources for lupus research and new programs for treating this cruel disease. Lupus disproportionately affects women, and it affects African-American women in particular. Patients with lupus suffer a debilitating variety of symptoms that include inflammation of the joints, kidney failure, painful skin rashes, neurological impairments and many other painful conditions. While lupus is rarely fatal, it can often result in a lifetime of pain or disability for persons with the disease. There is no known cure for lupus, but the Act will advance our understanding of this disease, and provide assistance to persons who suffer from its consequences. The Act will also improve the treatment and detection of prostate cancer, by incorporating the provisions of the Prostate Cancer Research and Prevention Act that was passed by the Senate last November. Too often, men with prostate cancer go untreated because they fail to take advantage of screening procedures that detect the early symptoms of this deadly disease. Early detection is the key to surviving prostate cancer, and these provisions will assist the efforts of the Department of Health and Human Services to promote widespread screening for this disease. The Act also reflects the nation's commitment to improving the treatment and understanding of Alzheimer's disease and sexually transmitted diseases, by authorizing fellowships for clinical scientists conducting research in these areas. Large numbers of Americans today have friends or relatives who suffer from the terrifying loss of mental abilities brought on by Alzheimer's disease. We have made a significant investment in basic research, and we must ensure that the new treatments produced by research are brought rapidly to patients suffering from this disease. I commend my colleague from Massachusetts, Representative Ed Markey, for introducing the Alzheimer's Clinical Research and Training Awards Act of 2000, which has been incorporated into this Act. This measure authorizes clinical research awards to health professionals for research, study and practice at centers of excellence for Alzheimer's disease research and treatment. The Act includes a similar provision to increase support for health professionals engaged in clinical research on sexually transmitted diseases, which will improve the understanding and treatment of these disorders. Taken together, the provisions of the Public Health Improvement Act of 2000 will improve the lives of millions of Americans and help safeguard the nation's health in the years ahead. This significant legislation will help revitalize the capacity of the nation's public health agencies to respond effectively to public health emergencies, such as infectious disease outbreaks or bioterrorist attacks. It will help bridge the gap between discoveries made in the laboratory and improvements in patient care by providing new support for talented health professional to pursue careers in patient-oriented clinical research. This legislation will help rebuild the nation's laboratory infrastructure, which is in an alarming state of decay and disrepair. The Act also gives new emphasis to research into the causes and treatment of lupus, prostate cancer, Alzheimer's disease and sexually transmitted diseases. The Public Health Improvement Act of 2000 can help lay a firm foundation for more effective public health in a wide variety of areas, and I urge my colleagues to approve this much needed legislation. amending section 319

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank my colleague, Senator Frist, for his thoughtful remarks regarding the Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act, and I agree with them strongly. weapons of mass destruction

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. October 27, 1999: Ioniaferrio Bolton, 26, Dallas, TX; Donal Bryant, 31, Dallas, TX; Merritt J. Copenhefer, 41, Madison, WI; Aurelio Enciso-Murillo, 40, Oakland, CA; Angel Garcia, 21, Philadelphia, PA; Anthony McCullough, 25, Philadelphia, PA; Audley McIntosh, 49, Dallas, TX; Donald McNeil, 16, Philadelphia, PA; Jerome Oakley, 18, Baltimore, MD; Joseph Transon, 19, Baltimore, MD; Tyree Turner, 19, Philadelphia, PA; Paul Vo, 30, Houston, TX; and Unidentified Male, 52, Charlotte, NC. One of the victims of gun violence I mentioned, 16-year-old Donald McNeil of Philadelphia, was shot and killed one year ago today by another teenager in what police said was an argument over a girl. 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, today, along with Senators Chafee, Leahy, Harkin, Feingold, Reed and Jeffords, I am introducing legislation to help facilitate East Timor's transition to independence. Congressman Gejdenson has introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives. In August 1999, after almost three decades of unrest under Indonesian rule, the people of East Timor voted overwhelmingly in favor of independence. They did so at great personal risk. Anti-independence militia groups killed hundreds, hoping to intimidate and retaliate against those supporting independence. The militias also destroyed or severely damaged seventy percent of East Timor's infrastructure. Government services and public security were severely undermined. An international effort, led by Australia and including the United States, brought much-needed stability to East Timor. Now, under the United Nation's Transitional Authority, stability is taking hold again in East Timor, and normal life is slowly returning. In coming months, looking to America and other democratic nations as an example, East Timor's leaders will hold a constitutional convention to decide which form of democratic government to adopt. It is a process that reminds us of our own Constitutional Convention and would make our Founding Fathers proud. Late next year, after choosing a form of democratic government and electing leaders, East Timor is expected to declare its independence as the UN draws down. A new, democratic nation will take its rightful place in the world. This is a success story. It is a great success story. But it is far from over. East Timor remains one of the poorest places in Asia. Only 20 percent of its population is literate. The annual per capita gross national product is $340. The people of East Timor need and deserve our help. The extraordinary physical and moral courage they demonstrated over the years is impressive. The great faith in the democratic process they showed by voting for independence under the barrel of a gun must not go unrewarded. This bill is our chance to help them, and help now. Its purpose is to put U.S. governmental programs and resources in place now and to enable U.S. government agencies to focus on the imminent reality of an independent East Timor. If we wait until East Timor declares its independence before we do the preliminary work, we will lose crucial time and do a disservice to both the United States and to East Timor. Specifically, this bill lays the groundwork for establishing a firm bilateral and multilateral assistance structure. It authorizes $25 million in bilateral assistance, $2 million for a Peace Corps presence and $1 million for a scholarship fund for East Timorese students to study in the United States. It encourages the President, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Trade and Development Agency and other agencies to put in place now the tools and programs to create an equitable trade and investment relationship. It requires the State Department to establish an accredited mission to East Timor co-incident with independence. And it authorizes the provision of excess defense articles and international military education and training, after the President certifies that these articles and training are in the interests of the United States and will help promote human rights in East Timor and the professionalization of East Timor's armed services. The people of East Timor have chosen democracy. The United States has a golden opportunity to help them create their new democratic nation. But we must prepare for that day now. We must not miss this rare opportunity to help. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, I thank Senator DeWine and Senator Jeffords for their leadership. As Senator DeWine has pointed out, this has been a long, continuing struggle for the last 2 years. This has been a bipartisan struggle. We are grateful for the efforts of the House of Representatives. I wish to say on our side, the real champion for this program is on my left, Senator Mikulski, from the State of Maryland, who over the period of these last 2 years has been an absolutely tireless advocate on this particular issue, as she has been on so many others. We would not be here this morning in the final hours of this session if not for her strength and determination to see this measure move ahead. I think what she and others have understood is that it has been 5 years since we have seen this important legislation expire. As a result, we have seen even funding on the Older Americans Act. In that respect, there has been a falling behind in the attention to the services for our senior citizens. This is a much better bill than the last authorization; and it will benefit our senior population in a much more sensitive and extensive way. Hopefully, it will gain acceptance and support from our colleagues in the Senate and the House and will be sent to the President so we can strengthen the outreach programs that are lifelines to our senior citizens. So I pay particular tribute to my colleague, Senator Mikulski, for her leadership. I thank the administration and President Clinton for the strong priority that he has placed on this and the attention that the Secretary has given to getting this action. I think most of us know we are operating in a very highly charged political atmosphere as we are coming to the last 2 weeks of a political campaign for election to the House and the Senate. But the House of Representatives yesterday passed this bill 405-2. We are very hopeful that we will have a similar outcome. It does indicate that when people of good will want to move a process forward, it can be done. I commend all of those who have worked over a very considerable period of time and have really tried to find common ground on some very difficult and complex issues. Finally, I wish to highlight the very important aspects of this legislation. I think the most powerful and obviously important parts are the nutrition programs, which have been the largest and the longest standing of the programs--this traces back to 1965. Meals on Wheels and congregate meals have been an incredibly important program in permitting so many of our seniors to live at home, and also to benefit from nutritious meals in these congregate sites. It is an important nutritional aspect for many of our seniors who are hard pressed. This bills value in terms of our elderly population cannot really be measured in terms of dollars and cents. It includes important preventive health programs, absolutely essential transportation programs, and important employment opportunities as well. These opportunities enable many of our seniors continue to be useful, constructive, and productive workers, primarily focused on serving communities. There are extraordinary workers under this program. I have met so many of them in travels around my own State of Massachusetts. What they do in terms of adding an additional dimension of services in local communities is really extraordinary. Many people believe, with regard to programs in which they are particularly interested, that they get a great bang for the buck. This Nation, with this program, gets enormous advantages in terms of permitting our seniors to live in the kind of peace and dignity and with a degree of security in these areas which they would be hard pressed to have if this legislation were not on the books. The Older Americans Act was enacted in 1965, three years after I was first elected to the Senate. I am proud to have been one of its original supporters. Over the years since then, we have repeatedly expanded the act to meet more of the needs facing older citizens. Today, the Senate is about to approve a reauthorization of the act which keeps faith with the nation's senior citizens. Current law supports a broad array of home-based and community-based support services to enhance the health and well-being of persons over sixty years of age. This legislation preserves and strengthens these programs, which provide vital links between senior citizens and their communities. For seniors who are healthy and active, the act offers community service employment opportunities, preventive health services, and transportation services. It also supports a range of social activities, including congregate meals. The act supports more than 6,400 multipurpose senior citizen centers across the country. For those frail seniors who lack mobility, it helps to maintain a lifeline to the outside world. It provides daily home-delivered meals, in-home care services, home-maker services, and transportation to doctors and other caregivers, and it supports programs to protect vulnerable seniors from abuse and exploitation. The long-term care ombudsman program investigates and resolves complaints of elderly residents of nursing home facilities and other adult care homes. These programs make a significant difference for those they were designed to help. This legislation reaffirms our commitment to ensuring that older Americans continue to receive the services which are so essential to their quality of life. This reauthorization means increased federal financial support of these very worthwhile programs. Of all the Older American Act programs, nutrition assistance is the largest and longest running. It was created as a response to disturbing evidence that, due to poverty and isolation, many senior citizens were suffering from serious nutrition deficiencies, and that the lack of good nutrition was contributing to their poor health. Today, under the act, we are providing over 240 million meals a year to over 3 million senior citizens. Approximately half of these meals are provided in congregate social settings and the other half are delivered daily through the Meals on Wheels program to seniors in their homes. This program has broad-based community support. The many volunteers who deliver meals to the home-bound have greatly expanded the reach of the act. Unfortunately, we have not had sufficient resources to fully meet the need. Passage of this legislation will mean a substantial increase in the level of funding for these vital nutrition programs. The Senior Community Service Employment Program, authorized by title V of the act, is the nation's only employment and training program aimed exclusively at low-income older persons--and it will have an increasingly important role as the Baby Boom generation ages. The nation will have 1.4 million more low-income persons over the age of 55 in the year 2005 than there were in 1995, and many of them will want to continue working. Title V serves over 90,000 low-income elderly persons every year. Eighty percent of these participants are age 60 or over, and 16 percent are above 75 years of age. The jobs obtained through this program provide these men and women with needed economic support. But it does much more than that. It keeps them active and involved in their communities, not isolated at home. It provides opportunities to make important contributions to their communities and to learn new skills-- and it enhances their sense of dignity and self-esteem. In this legislation, we have significantly strengthened the Community Service Employment Program and provided for its much-needed expansion. As part of this legislation, we have also created a National Family Caregiver Support Program to help families who care for ill or disabled parents or elderly relatives at home. We know how difficult it can become for a family when an elderly person needs a high degree of continuous care. We know the importance of keeping a frail senior at home in a loving environment whenever it is medically possible. This new program will provide essential support services to help these seniors remain with their loved ones. These families deserve our assistance, and this new program will ensure that they receive it. Family caregivers will be able to obtain a broad range of support services, including respite care, in-home assistance, training in caregiver skills, and family counseling, all of which will make a major difference for these vulnerable seniors and their families. The federal government will fund 75 percent of the cost of these services, and the states will fund the remainder. We have authorized $125 million for the first year of this new effort, and we anticipate the program will grow in succeeding years. This reauthorization of the Older Americans Act is the product of a two-year bipartisan effort. Senators Jeffords, DeWine, Milulski, and I share a common commitment to preserving and strengthening these programs, which have done so much to improve the lives of millions of senior citizens. We also shared a common determination to break through the barriers which prevented reauthorization in the last two Congresses. I commend my three colleagues for their leadership in fashioning this legislation. Because of the bipartisan spirit in which they approached this task, they made the difficult possible. I also commend the important role of the Clinton administration. The Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services have been extremely helpful throughout the reauthorization effort. President Clinton deserves particular credit for proposing creation of the National Family Caregiver Support Program. The legislation before us is supported by the National Governors' Assn. and by nearly fifty organizations, which represent senior citizens, including: The Leadership Council of Aging Organizations; American Association of Retired Persons; National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare; National Association of Area Agencies on Aging; National Association of State Units on Aging; Meals on Wheels Association of America; Generations United; Green Thumb; National Council of Senior Citizens; National Urban League; National Council on Aging; National Caucus and Center on Black Aged; National Association for Hispanic Elderly; National Asian Pacific Center on Aging; National Indian Council on Aging; Alzheimer's Association; American Society on Aging; Gerontological Society of America; Association of Jewish Aging Services; National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys; Older Women's League; National Association of State Long Term Care Ombudsman Programs; and National Association of Nutrition and Aging Services Programs. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support from a number of these organizations may be placed in the Record. Their strong support demonstrates that this bill will truly benefit the older Americans it is designed to serve, and I urge the Senate to approve it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Jeffords, Senator Enzi, and Senator Reid for their effective work on this important legislation. And I also commend the American Nurses Association, the American Federation of Teachers, the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of Federal, State, County and Municipal Employees for their effective efforts in supporting it. Needle stick protection is vitally important to health care professionals and to the many others who come in contact with them. Last year, as many as 800,000 health care professionals suffered needle stick injuries. Over 1,000 health care workers were infected with serious diseases, including HIV, Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C. These injuries were preventable, and because of this bill, many future needle stick injuries will be prevented. The Center for Disease Prevention estimates that this bill will reduce needle stick injuries by as much as 88 percent. But numbers alone cannot convey the human tragedy of these injuries. One of my constituents, Karen Daley of Boston, is the President of the Massachusetts Nurses Association and was a registered nurse, a job she loved and found very fulfilling. In January 1999, while on duty in an emergency room in Boston, Karen was accidentally stuck by a contaminated needle. Six months later, she tested positive for HIV and Hepatitis C. Fortunately, Karen is in reasonably good health today, although she may never again be able to practice her chosen profession of nursing. The Needle Stick Safety and Prevention Act will help prevent tragic accidents like Karen Daley's. This bill requires employers to use, where appropriate, safety-designed needles and other sharp devices to reduce the potential transmission of disease to health care workers and patients. It is not enough to rely solely on one type of control, such as disposable needles and other equipment, when safer, appropriate medical devices are available and can be effective in reducing the risk of contaminated needle injuries. This bill also provides that employers must establish an injury log to record the kind of devices, and the location, of all needle stick accidents. This information must be considered when determining appropriate devices to be used. This bill strikes a critical balance between the reasoned judgment of health care professionals on patient safety and OSHA's responsibility to protect the health and safety of employees. The bill also provides that non-managerial employees and their representatives--those on the front lines of service delivery--must participate in determining the appropriate devices used in health care settings. Nothing in this bill would justify the establishment of an employer-dominated labor organization or the bypassing of a collective bargaining representative in violation of the National Labor Relations Act. I urge all of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to support this important legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself such time as I may use. Mr. President, the case has been very well stated by the Senators from Ohio, Vermont, and Maryland. I listened carefully to the points the Senator from New Hampshire made earlier today. It is worthy for our committee to give consideration to these points. I thought the Senator from Ohio and others thoroughly explained how steps were already taken to address those issues and went into considerable detail in explaining the provisions of the bill that will address the challenges which the good Senator raised. A great deal of time was taken by the committee to address those challenges. I think the committee has done a good job in addressing them. I do not think, therefore, that amendment is necessary to ensure the interests of the elderly people, as well as the taxpayers. We must remember that it is not unusual for auditors to identify expenditures which do not conform with the terms of a grant, and for the Department to require repayment of the disputed amounts. Disallowed costs are usually nothing more than good-faith errors or honest disagreements over the interpretation of the terms of a grant. For example, during 1998, the Employment and Training Administration of the Department of Labor which administers title V of the Older Americans Act, amongst the many workforce programs it supervises, reviewed 84 audits, examining $30 million in questioned costs, and ultimately disallowed $18 million in grantee expenditures. The disallowed costs included agencies of State and local governments, as well as private organizations, and the disallowance of costs is a routine part of supervision that in no way impugns the integrity of the grantees involved. The Gregg amendment is an extreme and unfair response to a problem which has already been remedied. The Department of Labor has already disallowed the insurance royalty payments which were the major focus of the inspector general's report on NCSC's Title V program grant, ordered the financial practice in question terminated, and demanded repayment of the disallowed costs. The cost items which DOL has disallowed cover the period between 1992 and 1996. The objectionable practices have been stopped. The matter is currently before an administrative law judge. Furthermore, the legislation reported from the HELP Committee already addresses the financial accountability of title V program operators. It establishes strong new performance measures which program operators must meet each year, and provides for removal of operators who consistently fail to meet performance standards. It sets strict limits on the purposes for which the funds can be used. It sets forth in statute a 14-point ``Responsibility Test'' which each program operator must pass in order to be eligible to participate in the title V programs. Section 514(d) requires a detailed examination of the organization's past performance in administering federal funds. The Department will have ample authority to disqualify those program operators whom it deems untrustworthy or unreliable. The procedures we have established are tough and fair. After extensive review of the Senior Community Service Employment Program, the committee believes that these new performance standards and responsibility tests will effectively protect the interest of both the senior citizens who participate in the program and the taxpayers who fund it. senator gregg's ``dear colleague letter'' The Senator from New Hampshire claimed in a ``Dear Colleague'' dated September 27 that: ``Under current law, nine grantees--mostly aligned with the Democratic Party and organized labor--receive over $400 million in federal grant dollars on a noncompetitive basis.'' This statement is both factually inaccurate and highly misleading. Firstly, over $400 million does not go to private organizations under the Senior Citizens Community Employment Act. Of that amount, $96 million actually goes directly to state government agencies, and an additional $28 million goes to the U.S. Forest Service. Secondly, the largest private grantee is Green Thumb, which receives $107 million each year. Green Thumb's principal activity is operating senior employment programs and its political involvement is minimal. AARP receives $51 million and the National Council on the Aging receives $38 million. They are broadbased advocacy groups for senior concerns, not aligned with any political party. Another $38 million is divided amongst four organizations focused on serving low income minorities--African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and American Indians, and $15 million is provided to the National Urban League to support its senior employment efforts. The National Council of Senior Citizens, which the Senator from New Hampshire has so sharply criticized, receives less than 15 percent of the total appropriation for title V. While I certainly disagree with the allegations he has leveled against NCSC, it would be grossly unfair to impugn the legitimacy of the entire Senior Community Service Employment Program based on those allegations even if his claims about NCSC were accurate. The same organizations which are receiving funds today to operate senior employment programs were selected to operate those programs in the Reagan and Bush administrations, as well as in the current administration. The facts clearly demonstrate that these program operators were not selected because of their partisan ``alignment,'' as the ``Dear Colleague'' letter implies. They have been selected because of their strong track record of delivering employment services to seniors. ncsc/nscerc programs As I noted earlier, the inspector general reports which the Senator from New Hampshire discussed cover the period from 1992 to 1996. In fact, NCSC has not been the recipient of grants to operate senior employment programs since that time. As a result of legislation passed by Congress in 1995, NCSC as a 501(c0(4) organization became ineligible to be a grantee. A new 501(c)(3) organization, the National Senior Citizens Education and Research Center (NSCERC) was established to receive the grant and operate the program. Federal funds received by NSCERC have been used by NSCERC to operate the senior employment program. Thus, the activities, political and otherwise, which NCSC may have engaged in since that time are not relevant to the operation of the Senior Community Service Employment program in any way. Let's look at the program which NSCERC operates and the impact it has on the lives of thousands of older Americans each year. One hundred and forty-four senior employment projects are operated by NSCERC in 27 states and the District of Columbia. More than 15,500 seniors are enrolled in these programs each year, working in public and non-profit organizations. Most of these older workers would be living below the poverty line but for this program. Three quarters of them are women and half are minorities. A third of them never graduated from high school. Without this program it would be extremely difficult for them to find employment. This program makes an enormous difference in their lives. (Worker Profiles). The impact of the program extends far beyond the seniors who are employed in it. They perform a broad variety of community services, including teaching children as aides in schools and day care centers, performing clerical work in libraries and in government and charitable organization offices, delivering meals to homebound elderly, assisting with in-home health care services, and driving senior citizen transport vans. Their work touches the lives of countless people--the very young and the very old, the sick, the frail, and the disabled. We should not make light of their contributions, nor of the importance of the non- profit senior employment program operators who make the program possible. Let me give you a few examples. NSCERC works with the Flint Michigan Community School system and operates a Senior AIDES project in the schools. Dr. James E. Ray, the Superintendent of Community Education explains the importance of the program: Flint Community Schools and NSCERC have piloted a unique Title V intergenerational tutor training program. This initiative has proven to be very successful in meeting the educational and emotional needs of our at-risk elementary school children, while at the same time providing income assistance and social purpose for low-income senior citizens. It has been so successful in fact that a consultant for the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recommended that DOL partner with the U.S. Department of Education to expand the program nationwide. NSCERC works with the Mexican American Opportunity Foundation in Los Angeles to help Hispanic children bridge the language barrier. Martin Castro, president of the foundation, describes the program: Since 1978, our agency, the Mexican American Opportunity Foundation, has operated three Title V Programs through contractual agreements with the National Council of Senior Citizens and now with the National Senior Citizens Education and Research Center. Our three Senior AIDES Programs, with a combined enrollment of almost 300 Senior Aides, have provided thousands of Hispanic elderly with the opportunity to remain in the workforce while simultaneously increasing their skills to obtain unsubsidized employment . . . This partnership has allowed our organization to develop a comprehensive intergenerational model in teaching preschool children in a bilingual and bicultural environment. It has allowed our preschool children in East Los Angeles, the majority of whom speak only Spanish, to learn English by the time they enter Kindergarten. Senior Aides assigned to our child care centers have contributed enormously to the success of this teaching model. NSCERC and its predecessor NCSC have worked with Seniors Inc. in Colorado to operate that state's largest program. Seniors Inc.'s executive director Lewis Kallas explains the significance of NSCERC's participation: Seniors Inc. is Colorado's largest Title V local sponsor with 225 senior positions in 18 countries. We have contracted with Colorado's Aging Services Division and NSCERC to effectively administer the Title V Program since 1970. Our long and positive relationship and experiences with NCSC, and now NSCERC, have resulted in a Colorado program that serves as a national model. Much of this success is directly attributed to the National Council of Senior Citizens and NSCERC. These national organizations do business with one thing in mind--the needs of older and vulnerable senior citizens--My insight is not in passing; but rather historic and based upon real experiences that I now have enhanced the lives of thousands of low-income Colorado seniors. While the prime purpose of the program is to fund community service employment for low income seniors, it also helps to train these workers and place many of them in unsubsidized jobs. Of the nine national organizations and fifty states that operate senior employment programs, NSCERC has one of the highest success rates in placing senior workers in unsubsidized jobs. It has the third highest placement rate amongst national organizations, and its placement rate is higher than the rates achieved by 41 of the states. (1998) ``disallowed costs'' The Senator from New Hampshire has made it sound as if having ``disallowed costs'' means a program operator has engaged in serious misconduct. That is simply not an accurate portrayal. Agencies which receive substantial federal grants are audited routinely. It is not unusual for the auditors to identify expenditures which do not conform with the terms of a grant, and for the Department to require repayment of the disputed amounts. ``Disallowed costs'' are usually nothing more than good faith errors or honest disagreements over the interpretation of the terms of a grant. For example, between 1997 and 1999, the Employment and Training Administration of the Department of Labor, which administers title V of the Older Americans Act amongst the many workforce programs it supervises, reviewed 71 audits--examining $102.4 million in questioned costs out of $1.9 billion in federal grants examined, and ultimately disallowing $76.8 million in grantee expenditures. The percentage of costs questioned by the inspector general was 5.3 percent, and the percentage disallowed by the Department of Labor was 4.0 percent. The grantees found to have ``disallowed costs'' included agencies of State and local governments as well as numerous private organizations. The disallowance of costs is a routine part of grant supervision, and in no way impugns the integrity of the grantees involved. The inspector general's audit which questioned certain expenditures by NCSC covered the fiscal years 1992 through 1995. The audit was completed in February of 1999. Based on that audit, the Department of Labor issued its final determination disallowing $5 million in costs over the three year period. During that period, NCSC had received approximately $180 million in funding for the operation title V programs. Thus, the amount disallowed constituted less than 3 percent of the federal funds which NCSC received during that period. Most of the disputed amount involved one administrative practice by NCSC which was disapproved by the auditors. A subsequent audit covering fiscal year 1996 led to an initial determination of $1.3 million in disallowed costs for that period. Most of the disallowance arose from the same disputed administrative practice. Again, this disallowance involved less than 3 percent of the $61 million in funding which the organization received to operate title V programs. The administrative practice which gave rise to the disallowances involved payments from a health insurance company which provided coverage to NCSC members and to title V program participants. The health insurance premiums for senior citizens participating in the title V program were properly paid from the title V grant. Under the terms of the policy, the insurance company made a payment to NCSC at the end of each year based upon the profit it made on the account during that year. NCSC viewed those payments as ``royalties'' for the use of the organization's name by the insurer in soliciting business. Such royalties would belong to the organization. The DOL auditors viewed those payments as ``rebates.'' If they were rebates, then the portion attributable to title V participants should have been credited to the federal grant. The treatment of those payments from the insurer constitutes an overwhelming majority (approximately 80 percent of the costs which DOL has disallowed). When the issue of these disputed payments from the insurance company was raised by the first inspector general's Report in early 1999, the practice was stopped. Federal funds have not been used to purchase insurance for more than one year. Over $3 million has been placed by NCSC in an escrow account to cover a portion of the reimbursement which the Department of Labor is seeking. The issue of whether the payments were ``royalties'' or ``rebates'' is currently pending before an administrative law judge. Like all disputes regarding disallowed costs, this case will be resolved through the established legal process. Congressional intervention in that legal process would be wrong. The administrative practice which the auditors objected to is no longer taking place. It was terminated more than one year ago. No congressional action is needed to prevent this practice from occurring in the future. Any attempt to change the law retroactively or to impose harsh additional penalties after the fact would be unfair and unconstitutional. Congress is expressly prohibited from passing ex post facto laws, and that is what the Gregg amendment would be. conclusion There are governmentwide regulations established by the Office of Management and Budget which set forth the standards for debarring a grantee from further participation in a federal program. The disallowance of costs in the NCSC/NSCERC matter is not the type of incident which would even remotely justify debarment under the existing rules. There is no rational basis for establishing a different debarment standard for title V of the Older Americans Act than for every other program in the federal government. Yet, that is what the Gregg amendment would do. It would set a much harsher standard and apply that standard retroactively. The amendment should be soundly rejected. The rules governing debarment should remain uniform throughout the federal system. These rules certainly should not be changed retroactively for one program. The Senate should not allow this issue to jeopardize passage of the Older Americans Act, which is so important to the well-being of so many senior citizens across America. The legislation before you represents a delicate consensus which has been reached across the aisle and between the Chambers. Its provisions have been carefully negotiated over a 2- year period. It is supported by the National Governors' Association and by more than 40 senior citizens organizations. The House of Representatives has already passed it. The Gregg amendment would unravel that consensus. If the Gregg amendment were to pass, the Older Americans Act would not be reauthorized this year. We should not allow this narrow issue to stand in the way of a very important bill. We owe it to millions of seniors to look at the big picture--to reauthorize the Older Americans Act and to create the National Family Caregiver Program. So I again commend all of our colleagues, the chairman of our committee, Senator DeWine, and particularly the good work of the Senator from Maryland. Their work has been indispensable. I think we have a very solid piece of legislation. I hope we will get an overwhelming vote in the Senate in support of it.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. KENNEDY. Sure.

Mr. KENNEDY. That is fine.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see my friend from Vermont on the floor. If he wanted to make some other remarks on this legislation, I would certainly yield for that purpose, if I could get the floor back after he has concluded. I want to address the Senate on another related matter on health care.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield then to the Senator from Vermont and ask unanimous consent that after he concludes, I be recognized.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, few, if any, 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 it will be there for both today's 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, 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 program 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 to protecting Medicare. He has consistently stood for patients and against powerful special interests. Al Gore lays out a constructive, solid 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. 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, 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 did support a national Patients' Bill of Rights. He said he wanted all people covered. He said that he was in favor of a patients' 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 the reality is very different. Governor Bush 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's not the record of a person who is candid about where he stands and what he has done. And it's not a record that recommends him for national office for any citizen concerned about a strong, effective Patients' Bill of Rights. It's the record of a candidate who stands with powerful insurance companies and HMOs, not with American families. And it isn't a record that shows leadership, either. In Congress, the House of Representatives passed a good Patients' Bill of Rights by an overwhelming bipartisan margin. That bill is supported by all the organizations of doctors, nurses, and patients. No other proposal enjoys support from any of those groups. Yet it remains mired in the Senate because of the adamant opposition of the Senate Republican leadership. On the most recent vote on this bill, we were one vote shy of having a majority. Governor Bush is now the leader of his party. One phone call from Governor Bush to Trent Lott and that bill would be law today. But Governor Bush has declined to make that call, just as he has declined to support the Patients' Bill of Rights itself. Yesterday, my good friend from Texas stated that the only reason Governor Bush vetoed that first bill and let the right to sue under the second program become law without his signature was that there was a disagreement on how much the caps on pain and suffering would be. I regret that my colleague has been misled. The fact is there was no provision for lawsuits in the first Patients' Bill of Rights bill vetoed by the Governor. To reiterate, there was no provision for lawsuits at all in the first bill, yet the Governor vetoed it. In the second bill, there also was no issue about the caps on pain and suffering. Texas already had caps on pain and suffering under their existing general tort law, and everybody assumed those caps would apply to lawsuits against HMOs. There was never any discussion of this issue. The fact is that Mr. Bush, despite what he may say today, simply doesn't believe health plans should be held accountable. That is why he refused to sign the law allowing suits against HMOs. Once again, he distorted his record in Texas, and both the record and distortions call into serious questions where he would stand as President. In the course of the debate yesterday, my colleagues from Texas said they were tired of hearing Texas ``trashed''. They implied that I had said offensive things about their State. Let me be clear. I think Texas is a wonderful State. I have many good friends in Texas. Texas has produced statesmen who have made our country a better place--from Sam Houston to Lyndon Johnson. It produces much of the oil that keeps our country running. I have no quarrel with the State of Texas. My quarrel is with George W. Bush's distortion of his record in Texas. My quarrel is with the priorities that the Bush record in Texas demonstrates. My quarrel is with the idea that the interests of powerful special interests are more important than the interests of patients. My quarrel is with the idea that tax cuts for the wealthy are more important than health care for children. 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 uninsured. 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 the reach of every moderate- and low-income working family. 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. 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 acknowledges that Governor Bush had 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 Medicaid-eligible children that occurs when the Children's Health Insurance Program is put into effect. Vigorous outreach efforts by State governments would identify children who qualify for the new program, and many other children would also be identified who qualify for Medicaid. In other words, Governor Bush not only opposed expanding eligibility for the new program, he was worried that uninsured children eligible for Medicaid might actually receive the coverage to which they were already entitled. It is no wonder his 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 to enroll their children in 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.'' Under a box entitled ``Lost Opportunity? Bush and Poor Kids,'' the author makes the following points: Bush helped to secure tax cuts by underfunding Medicaid, causing a $400 million shortfall in the program. He delayed on 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. There it is, Mr. President. That isn't the Senator from Massachusetts talking, that is Time magazine and their conclusion based upon the facts in Texas. Yesterday, my colleague from Texas offered all sorts of explanations for Governor Bush's miserable record with regard to covering children. She said 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 recent action by the Federal judge was based on the Bush administration's failure to live up to the consent decree to which it agreed. The Bush administration did not keep its word. Children were simply not its priority. She said Texas could not implement the CHIP program promptly because its legislature only meets every 2 years. But other States have legislatures that meet every 2 years and they were able to get their programs going more promptly. In fact, Texas was the next to last State in the whole country to approve the CHIP program. Now my colleagues yesterday and my friend from New Mexico today raised a red herring in trying to defend the indefensible. They claimed that I criticized Governor Bush for failing to spend all his CHIP money and said that 40 other states had not spent their full allotment. I did nothing of the kind. many states had difficulty in implementing the program promptly and fully enough to spend all their allotted funds. But they did not delay for almost three years in passing their programs. They do not set up barriers that make it difficult for children that enroll. They do not put a higher priority on tax cuts than children's health. Their Governors, by and large, did not fight to keep eligibility narrow instead of broad. But Governor Bush has done all these things, and then he tries to mislead the American people about his record. The fact is that Bush's shoddy record on children goes well beyond CHIP. Far more uninsured children are eligible for Medicaid than CHIP, and Bush fought efforts to get them enrolled. He fought a bill to provide for automatic re-enrollment in Medicaid of children whose parents lose cash welfare payments. Texas remains one of only ten states that impose an assets requirement on children seeking Medicaid eligibility, and it is one of just a handful of states that require parents to go in person to the welfare office to apply for their children. In fact, Governor Bush's record is so bad that, although Texas has more than one million children who are uninsured, Texas is one of the few states where the number of children enrolled in CHIP or Medicaid actually declined in 1999. When it comes to health care for children, George W. Bush gives new meaning to the term ``compassionate conservative.'' Based on his record, he is compassionate because he claims to understand the pain of uninsured children and their families, and he is conservative because he won't do anything about it. Governor Bush's misstatement of his Texas record does 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, doctors, and county governments. On the Texas record on the uninsured, Governor Bush stated that the percentage of the uninsured in Texas had gone down, while the percentage of the uninsured in America has gone up. In fact, in 1994, when Governor Bush took office, the percent of the uninsured in Texas was 24.2. By 1998, that percentage had increased--not decreased--to 24.5. The number of the uninsured had grown by 300,000. 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 who were uninsured dropped almost twice as much nationally as in Texas--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, Texas still ranks second from the bottom. Perhaps the most ominous revelation about Governor Bush's true attitude to this issue came in the third debate, when he said, ``It's one thing about insurance, that's a Washington term.'' Insurance a Washington term? Governor Bush should try telling that to hard-working families in Texas and across the country who don't take their children to the doctor when they have a sore throat or fever because they can't afford the medical bill. He should try telling that to the young family whose hopes for the future are wrecked when a breadwinner dies or is disabled because an illness was not diagnosed and treated in time. He should try telling that to the elderly couple whose hopes for a dignified retirement are swept away on a tidal-wave of medical debt. He should tell that to the 200,000 families who are forced into bankruptcy every year because of medical bills they cannot pay. He should tell that to the nine million families who spend more than one- fifth of their income on medical costs. He should tell that to the parents of the four hundred thousand children suffering from asthma who never see a doctor--to the parents of the five hundred thousand children with recurrent earaches who never see a doctor--and to the parents of the more than five hundred thousand children with severe sore throats who never see a doctor. Mr. President, he should tell that to the 27,000 uninsured women who are diagnosed with breast cancer every year--and are 50 percent more likely to die of the illness, because they are uninsured. He should tell that to the 83,000 Americans who die every year because they are uninsured and, as a result, do not receive timely or adequate medical use. Insurance is far more than just a Washington term. It's a Main Street term in every community in America, and its lack of availability is a crisis for millions of families across the country. Prescription drug coverage under Medicare is another major aspect of the health care challenges facing America. Few issues are more important to senior citizens and their families. They deserve a prescription drug benefit under Medicare--and we should provide it in a way that strengthens the promise of Medicare, not in a way that breaks that promise and breaks faith with the elderly. The differences between Vice-President Gore and Governor Bush on this issue are fundamental. Governor Bush stands with the big drug companies, and Vice-President Al Gore stands with senior citizens. But Governor Bush has sought at every turn to blur the differences between their two plans in a way that is so misleading as to make a mockery of his own attacks on the Vice-President's credibility. Vice-President Gore laid out his vision for Medicare in clear terms. He wants a guarantee--a lock-box--to assure that the current Medicare surplus will be used only for Medicare--and not diverted to other purposes. He wants to use some of the surplus to strengthen Medicare and keep it solvent for the future. He wants an immediate prescription drug benefit under Medicare that will benefit all senior citizens, not just very low income seniors. He wants to assure that senior citizens who prefer to stay with the current Medicare program and retain the right to choose their own doctors are not penalized for that choice or coerced into joining an HMO. In spite of direct challenges from Vice-President Gore, Governor Bush refused to endorse a lock-box. It's not part of his priorities, and the reason is clear. He needs to use some of Medicare's surplus to finance his massive tax cuts for the rich. Vice-President Gore has clearly pointed out the many flaws in Governor Bush's prescription drug plan for senior citizens. But Governor Bush has no response on the merits. Instead, he hides behind phrases like ``fuzzy numbers'' and ``scare tactics.'' But the numbers aren't fuzzy, and senior citizens should be concerned. Let's look at the facts. Prescription drug coverage under the Bush plan is not immediate, and most senior citizens would be left out. As Vice-President Gore has pointed out, for the first four years, the Bush plan would cover low income seniors only. Al Gore cited the example of a senior named George McKinney. He said, ``George McKinney is 70 years old, has high blood pressure. His wife has heart trouble. They have income of $25,000 a year. They cannot pay for their prescription drugs. And so they're some of the ones that go to Canada regularly in order to get their prescription drugs.'' Governor Bush responded, ``Under my plan, the man gets immediate help with prescription drugs. It's called immediate helping hand. Instead of squabbling and finger-pointing, he gets immediate help.'' He kept accusing Vice-President Gore of using ``fuzzy math'' and ``scare tactics.'' But Governor Bush's own announcement of his Medicare plan proves Al Gore's point. This is what Governor Bush said: For four years, during the transition to better Medicare coverage, we will provide $12 billion a year in direct aid to low income seniors . . . Every senior with an income less than $11,300--$15,200 for a couple--will have the entire cost of their prescription drug covered. For seniors with incomes less than $14,600--$19,700 for couples--there will be a partial subsidy. George McKinney has an income of $25,000. He would clearly be ineligible for help under Governor Bush's plan. If Governor Bush thinks that's fuzzy math, then education reform is even more urgent than any of us realized. And in the third debate, Governor Bush finally admitted that the first phase of his program is only for ``poor seniors.'' George McKinney is not alone. The vast majority of senior citizens would not qualify for Governor Bush's prescription drug program--and many of those who did qualify would not participate. Even this limited program for low income seniors would not be immediate, because every state in the country would have to pass new laws and put the program in place--a process that could take years in many states. The low priority that Governor Bush places on this problem is also demonstrated by the fact that sixteen states have enacted programs to help low income senior citizens with their prescription drug costs, and Texas is not one of them. George Bush's prescription for middle-income senior citizens is clear--take an aspirin and call your HMO in four years. Governor Bush's prescription drug plan would also require senior citizens to go to an HMO or an insurance company to obtain their coverage. In the first debate, Vice-President Gore pointed out that most senior citizens ``would not get one penny for four to five years, and then they would be forced to go into an HMO or an insurance company and ask them for coverage. But there would be no limit on the premiums or the deductibles or any of the terms or conditions.'' Again, Governor Bush did not respond to the Vice-President's specific points. Instead, he claimed that the Vice-President was trying to ``scare'' voters. The facts are clear. Governor Bush's policy paper states that, ``Each health insurer, including HCFA-sponsored plans that wish to participate . . . will have to offer an ``expanded'' benefit package, including out-patient prescription drugs . . . . This will give seniors the opportunity to select the plan that best fits their health needs.'' In other words, to get prescription drug coverage under the Bush plan, you have to get it through a private insurance plan. How high will the co-payments be? How high will the premiums be? How high will the deductible be? Governor Bush has no answer. Those important points are all left up to the private insurance companies. Governor Bush says senior citizens will have the opportunity to select the plan that best meets their health needs. But what they will really have is the opportunity to select whatever plan private insurers choose to offer. If it costs too much, senior citizens are out of luck. If it doesn't cover the drugs their doctor prescribes, they're out of luck. The Bush plan is an insurance industry's dream, and a senior citizen's nightmare. Governor Bush believes that private insurance companies and HMOs are the best way to provide prescription drug coverage to seniors. I don't question his sincerity. But I do question his unwillingness to defend his position in an open debate in front of the American people. When Vice-President Gore points out the facts, it isn't enough to evade the issue by calling the facts ``fuzzy math'' or a ``scare tactic''. The ads that the Republican National Committee is running for the Bush campaign against the Gore plan reach new lows in disinformation. Under the Bush plan, senior citizens would have to get their prescription drugs through an HMO or private insurance company, but the GOP ads stand reality on its head by stating that under the Vice- President's proposal, senior citizens would have to obtain their coverage from a ``government-run HMO.'' In fact, under the Vice President's plan senior citizens would obtain their drug coverage through Medicare, in essentially the same way they obtain physician and hospital coverage today. The Gore plan specifically guarantees that it will cover any drug that a senior citizen's doctor prescribes. That's not true under the Bush plan--and it is a glaring omission. Another issue in the debate over prescription drug coverage has not received sufficient attention--the linkage in Governor Bush's proposal between prescription drug coverage and other cutbacks in Medicare. When the American people and senior citizens understand what Governor Bush is proposing, they will reject it resoundingly. Governor Bush has been very clear. His drug benefit won't be available to senior citizens unless they are willing to accept severe changes in Medicare's coverage of their doctor's bills and hospital bills. He reiterated that point in the second debate. He said, ``I think step one to make sure prescription drugs are more affordable for seniors . . . is to reform the Medicare system.'' Prescription drug coverage that senior citizens need should not be held hostage to changes in Medicare that senior citizens don't want--and it won't be held hostage under Al Gore's plan. Governor Bush thinks that Medicare is obsolete and should be sent to the scrap heap. He favors a new model--in which senior citizens have to join HMOs or other private insurance plans or pay exorbitant premiums. But Medicare is still far and away one of the most successful social programs ever enacted. Senior citizens don't think that Medicare is ready for the scrap heap. They don't want to have to give up their family doctor and join an HMO in order to obtain coverage. But under the Bush plan, the price of staying in current Medicare and keeping your own doctor could be a premium increase of as much as 47 percent in the very first year, according to the Medicare actuary. For the vast majority of senior citizens, this heavy financial pressure could force them to give up their current Medicare coverage and their own doctor, and join an HMO. Under the leadership of the Clinton-Gore administration, Medicare has gone from a condition of imminent bankruptcy to one in which Medicare will be solvent for the next quarter century--the longest period of projected Medicare solvency in the program's entire history. The independent Medicare Commission recently considered a proposal similar to the Bush plan, and the Commission said it could cause Medicare to become insolvent as early as 2005--just five years from now. If so, Congress would be faced with the stark choice of raising taxes, cutting benefits, or raising premiums. That's the Bush plan--and it's not a plan to protect senior citizens. It's a plan to privatize Medicare, and turn it over to the tender mercy of HMOs and the private insurance industry. On prescription drugs and every other aspect of Medicare, the choice between the two presidential candidates is very clear--and it is clear on every other aspect of health care. The Bush record in Texas is one of indifference and ineptitude--of putting powerful interests ahead of ordinary families. The Bush record in the campaign is one of consistent deception and distortion. The Bush proposals are at best inadequate and at worst harmful. Tax cuts for the wealthy are not as important as health care for children and prescription drugs for seniors. The American people understand that--but Governor Bush does not. Al Gore has a career-long record of fighting for good health care for families, for children, and for senior citizens. The current administration has a solid record of bipartisan accomplishment, ranging from protecting the solvency of Medicare to improving health insurance coverage though enactment of the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill and the Child Health Insurance Program. Al Gore's program responds to the real needs of the American people with real resources and a detailed action plan. I am hopeful that every American will examine the records of the two candidates carefully. On health care, there should be no question as to which candidate stands with 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.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to just take a few minutes to review the education record. I think I have tried to outline in as an objective way as possible what the record is with regard to health, particularly with regard to children in the State of Texas, the Governor's record on the Patients' Bill of Rights, on the CHIP program, and also on the Medicaid program. I think one can't review that record--not only my statements or the statements in the most recent Time Magazine which have drawn effectively the exact same conclusion--and not reach the conclusion that children have not been a priority on the political agenda of Texas over the period of the last six years. On the issue of education, I spoke briefly yesterday in the Senate. I am troubled, as many of our colleagues, that we are not having cloture on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In spite of all of the assurances that were given by the majority leader and Republican leadership, we still failed to do it. I commend again our colleagues, Senator DeWine, Senator Jeffords, Senator Mikulski, and others for effectively concluding the Older Americans Act shows even in these final hours that bipartisanship can work in a very important area. I welcome the chance to work with our colleagues on the committee and the chairman to make sure that we are going to take action. That is an enormously important piece of legislation for our seniors. Education is enormously important for families as well. In spite of the fact that assurances were given by the majority, we still have not done so. For the first time in 35 years, we have not completed our work and reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. What has to be a central distress to all families is it appears now that the appropriations that are going to fund the Elementary and Secondary Education Act will be the last train out of the station. They are more than 3\1/2\ weeks late after the end of the fiscal year. It is troublesome to me to hear all of the statements about the importance of prioritizing education when we see that we have basically failed to do our work here in the Senate on this issue. I want to take a moment to find out what we might look to in terms of the future, again looking to what has happened in Texas over the period of these last several years. On the issue of the record on education in Texas, it is more of an ``education mirage'' than an ``education miracle.'' Under Governor Bush, in 1998, according to the National Center for Educational Statistics, Texas ranked 45th in the nation in high school completion rates. Seventy-one percent of high school dropouts in Texas are minorities. Hispanic students in Texas dropped out at more than twice the rate of white students in the State. In August, the College Board reported nationally that from 1997 to 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. Let me review that very quickly. Since we have had a lot of talk and we have had a lot of sound bites on education, let's look at what has happened. We will come back to what happened under the last several years in these same areas at the national level, which the Vice President was involved in and which he would like to see continued and expanded. On Tuesday, Governor Bush heard more bad news. The Rand Corporation released a study that raises serious questions about the validity of the gains in student achievement claimed by the Governor. On CNN in August, the Governor 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, George W. Bush trusted the conclusions by Rand. On CNN, in September, Governor Bush said: One of my proudest accomplishments is I worked with Republicans and Democrats to close the achievement gap in Texas. The recent Rand study shows his claim is false. The achievement gap in Texas is not closing; it is widening. On Fox News, 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. But, the Rand study shows that the tests cited by Governor Bush to support his claim are biased. They found the gains in student achievement are the product of a discredited practice called ``teaching to the test,'' and that claims of real success in student achievement far exceed the actual results in Texas. The Rand study also says the gains in student achievement in Texas may be inflated, questioning the validity of the scores. According to the study, gains on the Texas State test are far greater than the results for the same students on standard national tests. The Rand study questions the value of the Texas State test because it involves teaching to the test instead of real learning. The Bush education plan has the same serious flaw. It focuses on tests, tests, and more tests. We, as a country, have more tests than any other country in the world. Inevitably, schools will focus more and more on test preparation, as happened in Texas with the State tests, and less on real teaching. In the end, it is education that suffers and so do the students. In addition, in Texas more and more students with disabilities are excluded from taking the test, and more and more students are dropping out or being held back. That is not a satisfactory prescription for improving education. Instead, we should look at the success of States such as North Carolina, which is improving education the right way by investing in schools, teacher quality, and afterschool programs in order to produce better results for students. Governor Bush's plan mandates more tests for children but it does nothing to ensure schools actually improve so that children will obtain a better education. It is clear that Governor Bush is out of touch with parents and students when it comes to education. Governor Bush says everything in education is failing--it is all doom and gloom. His solutions go back to the old scheme to abandon public schools and refuse to make needed investments in education. He mandates more and more tests for children, but does nothing to help create the change needed to ensure that all the children pass the tests. He turns his back on what works and resorts to right wing policies instead, which are inadequate to meet the challenges of genuine school reform. Early education initiatives are especially important. Study after study has shown that children who have quality learning experiences early in life have a greater ability to learn in school, to work successfully with their teachers and their peers, and to master needed skills. We can do more--much more--to put this impressive research into practice. But Governor Bush has no plan to expand access to preschool education. He has no plan to expand Head Start--only empty rhetoric about reforming the program. Assistance for low-performing schools is also essential. We know that with needed investments, failing public schools will improve. In North Carolina, low-performing schools are given technical assistance by special state teams that provide targeted support to help turn around those schools. In the 1997-98 school year, 15 schools were selected and received intensive help from these state assistance teams. In August 1998, the state reported that most of these schools had achieved ``exemplary'' growth--and none continue to be identified as low- performing. In the 1998-99 school year, 11 schools were identified and received help from the assistance teams. Nine schools met or exceeded their growth targets at the end of the year. That's the kind of aid to education that works, and we should support it in all states. Instead, Governor Bush abandons low-performing schools--and proposes instead a private school voucher plan that drains needed resources from troubled schools and traps low-income children in them. Another major problem hindering schools' ability to teach students effectively is the fact that many schools have obsolete, crumbling and inadequate facilities. All teachers and students deserve safe, modern facilities with up-to-date technology. Sending children to dilapidated and overcrowded classrooms sends an unacceptable message. It tells them they don't matter. No CEO would tolerate a leaky ceiling in the boardroom--and no teacher should have to tolerate it in the classroom. We have an obligation to children and parents to modernize the nation's schools--to build more schools, so that there are more classrooms and less overcrowding, and more computers and other equipment. It is long past time to end the days when the worst building in town is the school house with its crumbling walls and broken pipes and leaky roofs that plague students and teachers and classrooms. But congressional Republicans have repeatedly refused to address these pressing needs. Governor Bush doesn't do nearly enough either. He makes only a token investment in school construction, and he ignores communities' needs to repair crumbling and unsafe schools. Smaller classes are also an indispensable element of school reform. Research documents what parents and teachers have always known--that small classes improve student achievement. Teachers are able to maintain discipline more effectively. Students receive more individual attention and instruction. Students with learning disabilities are identified earlier, and their needs can be met without placing them in costly special education. Instead of applying this basic and widely accepted principle, Governor Bush eliminates the current and increasingly effective effort to help communities reduce class sizes. We must also make a stronger commitment to help communities attract, train and support the highest quality teachers and principals. Two million new teachers will be needed over the next 10 years, because of the large number of teachers nearing retirement and the continuing large increases in student enrollment. The shortage of teachers is compounded by the shameful fact that 50 percent of teachers leave the profession within 5 years. Instead of using our budget resources to strengthen programs that work to improve teacher quality and put well-trained teachers in all classrooms, Governor Bush would simply hand over a block grant to states--a blank check--and hope that state governors will spend the federal aid in ways that improve teacher quality. Clearly, America can do better than that. We have to do better than that. We must also do more to make college accessible and affordable. Parents and students across the country are also struggling to pay for college. The opportunity for a college education should not be determined by the level of family income. Any student who has the ability, who works hard, and who wants to attend college should have the opportunity to do so. We should do more--much more--to make college affordable for every qualified student. We also need to do more to help train workers who have lost their jobs because of corporate down-sizing or business relocations, so they can find other good jobs in their communities. Workers need opportunities to upgrade their skills to remain competitive, especially in the modern economy. Better services and real training for dislocated workers will give them the skills they need to continue their careers. It will also help to meet employers' growing needs for well-qualified workers. But, Governor Bush has no plan to make college more affordable or help these dislocated workers. He expands Pell grants primarily for the first year of college only. He makes only a limited effort to help the nation's workers upgrade their skills. The vast majority of Americans want us to address these challenges more effectively. We know that many schools across the country are doing an excellent job. The real challenge is to do what it takes to create better schools and better college opportunities for all students. Like Governor Bush, this Republican Congress deserves a failing grade for its lack of support for school reform. Too often, we have abandoned states and local school districts in their efforts to provide students with a good education. Too often, Congress has stood on the sidelines and declined to be an active participant in the nation's education policy. It is only through a strong and cooperative commitment at every level--federal, state, and local--that the nation can adequately meet its education needs. We have a responsibility to do all we can to meet the pressing challenge to guarantee that students will graduate from school and college well-prepared for careers in the new information-age and in our technologically-advanced economy and our competitive global society. That's what Al Gore and Democrats in Congress are proposing--a constructive and more effective balance between accountability for better results and additional resources for programs that work to improve schools. We will ensure that every child receives a good early education, by ensuring that preschool is available to all children. We will help communities improve public schools. Our goal is to put a well-trained teacher in every classroom. We understand that when class size goes up, opportunity for learning goes down. We will help schools reduce class size, so the nation's students can be taught more effectively. We will make major investments in helping communities to build new schools, to alleviate overcrowding and to repair and modernize obsolete and dilapidated classrooms and facilities. We will hold states and schools accountable for results, so that all children have the opportunity to meet high standards. We will expand opportunities for college and later learning by making college tuition tax deductible and by increasing Pell grants. We will reach out to millions of disadvantaged young children and help them to see and believe that college can be a realistic option for their future. We will help the nation's workers obtain the on-going skills training they need, and provide tax credits for employers who offer worker training. In all of these ways, Al Gore's approach to education is the right direction for the nation's future. We have reached the final days of this Congress, and we have yet to give needed priority to education. Negotiations are underway, and there is still a chance to meet our commitment to families and communities across the country, and do what is needed to meet their education needs. At the end of this Congress, families across the country will assess what we have done to meet these priorities, and the verdict has to be, ``too little, too later.'' This Republican Congress deserves a failing grade on education, and no ``election eve conversion'' is enough to avoid that failing grade. The American people share our Democratic commitment to the nation's students, parents, schools and communities. We have already made students and families across the country wait too long for this needed education assistance. We have seen the SAT math scores at their highest in 30 years. This is a very modest improvement nationwide, but all the indicators are going in the right direction as compared to Texas, and scores have increased both for males and females. The number of students taking advanced math and science classes from 1990 to 2000: There is an increase in the number of students taking precalculus, calculus, and physics; students are taking more difficult and challenging courses. They are doing better on the national standardized tests. That is because they want to go to college because there is an increasing opportunity available to them under the proposals made by the administration. That is catching on with students all over the country because we are finding more and more students are taking the SAT. More and more students are taking the difficult, challenging, rigorous tests. Students are doing better in spite of the fact more are taking more difficult and challenging courses, and the national trends are moving in the right direction. That is completely contrary to what has happened in the State of Texas. This is not to suggest we don't have many areas of our country and many school districts that don't need a great deal of help and assistance. However, what we are seeing as a result of the administration, which Vice President Gore has been a part of, and he has been strongly supportive of, these education programs are moving in the right direction. They are moving in the right direction. When he talks about smaller class sizes, better trained teachers, mentoring in terms of teaching, afterschool programs, new technology, and accountability, it is being based upon the schools and school districts which are effectively breaking the mold where we are getting children with enhanced achievement and accomplishment. That is what I think families want in this country, not just cliches. I also wish to mention a final point of contrast between Governor Bush and the Vice President on the early education initiatives and how important they are. Study after study has shown that children who have quality learning experiences early in life have a greater ability to learn in school, to work successfully with their teachers, their peers, and master needed skills. We can do much more to put this impressive research into practice. We have some bold initiatives which are bipartisan. I commend the leadership, Senator Stevens, Senator Jeffords, and others who have been a part of this effort for some period of time. I think we have some real movement here. That debate has been independent of the broader issues on elementary and secondary education. I know in the Vice President's proposal, in terms of investing in the future, this early education program has an important commitment. I remind our colleagues that this whole area was an area that had bipartisan support a number of years ago when the Governors met in Charlottesville. The first recommendation was made to the American people that the Governors were going to be committed. We were challenging the administration. The Congress was ready to learn. Children ought to be ready to learn when they go to school. ``Ready to learn'' means giving those children the kind of confidence building that is so essential in the very early years, when their brains are in formation. Various Carnegie commission reports have demonstrated the early interventions help build confidence. They also demonstrate children begin to appreciate learning in these early formative years. Second, the children develop interpersonal skills which are enormously important when they begin their education experience. Finally, the tests show they develop a sense of humor, which I think is probably of value in carrying one through life. This early intervention has been particularly and repeatedly emphasized and stressed by the Vice President. It ought to be taken into strong consideration.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Today, the Senate is about to approve a reauthorization of the Older Americans Act which keeps faith with the nation's senior citizens. These programs provide vital links between senior citizens and their communities. For seniors who are healthy and active, the act offers community service employment opportunities, preventive health services, and transportation services. It also supports a range of social activities, including congregate meals. The act supports more than 6,400 multi- purpose senior citizen centers across the country. For those frail seniors who lack mobility, it helps to maintain a lifeline to the outside world. It provides daily home-delivered meals, in-home care services, home-maker services, and transportation to doctors and other caregivers, and it supports programs to protect vulnerable seniors from abuse and exploitation. This legislation reaffirms our commitment to ensuring that older Americans continue to receive the services which are so essential to their quality of life. This reauthorization should mean increased Federal financial support for these very worthwhile programs. As part of this legislation, we have also created a National Family Caregiver Support Program to help families who care for ill or disabled parents or elderly relatives at home. We know how difficult it can become for a family when an elderly person needs a high degree of continuous care. We know the importance of keeping a frail senior at home in a loving environment whenever it is medically possible. This new program will provide essential support services to help these seniors remain with their loved ones. These families deserve our assistance, and this new program will ensure that they receive it. Family caregivers will be able to obtain a broad range of support services, including respite care, in-home assistance, training in caregiver skills, and family counseling, all of which will make a major difference for these vulnerable seniors and their families. We have authorized $125 million for the first year of this new effort, and we anticipate the program will grow in succeeding years. Massachusetts families will receive over $3 million dollars to help them care for their elderly loved ones. The Senior Community Service Employment Program, authorized by title V of the act, is the nation's only employment and training program aimed exclusively at low-income older persons--and it will have an increasingly important role as the Baby Boom generation ages. Title V serves over 90,000 low-income elderly persons every year. The jobs obtained through this program provide these men and women with needed economic support. But it does much more than that. It keeps them active and involved in their communities, not isolated at home. It provides opportunities to make important contributions to their communities and to learn new skills--and it enhances their sense of dignity and self-esteem. In this legislation, we have significantly strengthened the Community Service Employment Program and provided for its much-needed expansion. The legislation already addresses the financial accountability of title V program operators. It establishes strong new performance measures which program operators must meet each year, and provides for removal of operators who consistently fail to meet performance standards. It sets strict limits on the purposes for which program funds can be used, and established a 14-point financial responsibility test which every program operator must pass. The Department will have ample authority to disqualify those program operators whom it deems either untrustworthy or unreliable. The procedures we have established are tough and fair. The Gregg amendment is not needed. Reauthorization of the Older Americans Act has been co-sponsored by over 70 Senators. It is supported by the National Governors' Association and by more than forty citizens organizations. It was overwhelmingly approved by the House of Representatives yesterday on a vote of 405-2. It is the product of a delicate bipartisan and bicameral consensus. Any change in the bill at this late date would have the effect of killing the reauthorization of the OAA for this session. That would be a serious loss for the millions of seniors who depend on this program, and are counting on us to reauthorize it. Please oppose the Gregg amendment so that we can finally enact this important bill this year. I think the real test of a civilization is how it honors its elderly people, its senior citizens. I think that is a very fair criterion and it is one we ought to be reminded about. After all, these are the men and women who fought the wars, brought the country out of the Depression, and continued to make sacrifices for their children. We have enacted legislation historically, with Social Security, to try to keep these individuals out of poverty and also a Medicare program to address their needs. This Older Americans Act is of great importance to millions of our senior citizens, to make sure they can live a quality life. It is not a prescription drug program. No, it is not, but it does provide vital services: Nutrition programs, preventive health care programs, transportation programs, feeding programs, in-home delivered meals programs. It is something that is really a lifeline for millions of our senior citizens. It is an employment program for many of our elderly people who want to provide services in local communities in nonprofit organizations. The amendment before us, the amendment that has been put forward by Senator Gregg, brought a matter to the committee that the committee considered. I just hope our colleagues listen to the excellent presentations of the Senators from Ohio and Vermont, that would indicate that on these issues, this legislation responds to those questions and does it well. This is an opportunity, with the defeat of the Gregg amendment, to pass this legislation and be on the road to provide meaningful services to our senior citizens. I hope the Gregg amendment will be defeated and we will have an overwhelming vote in support of the legislation. I yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act which just received the Senate's unanimous approval is the product of a two-year bipartisan effort. Earlier today, I said Senators Jeffords, DeWine, Mikulski, and I share a common commitment to preserving and strengthening these programs, which have done so much to improve the lives of millions of senior citizens. I commend my three colleagues for their tremendous leadership in fashioning this legislation. Now, I would like to recognize the members of our staffs who did the work that made this bill possible: Rhonda Richards and Abby Brandel from Senator Mikulski's office, Karla Carpenter from Senator DeWine's office, Sean Donohue, Hollis Turnham and Mark Powden from Senator Jefford's office, and Jeffrey Teitz, Michael Myers, and Jerry Wesevich from my office. We assigned them an extremely difficult task. Efforts to reauthorize the Older Americans Act had failed in the last two Congresses. This year, at each point when the differences appeared too wide, these individuals found a creative way to bridge the divide. They managed to build the consensus which has enabled this legislation to pass both the House and Senate so overwhelmingly.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, as I understand it, if this is not objected to, then we are in a period of morning business without a time limitation.

Mr. KENNEDY. That is the order as stated by the Senator from Vermont. Am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield for that purpose, if he wants to make that request at this time with the understanding that I be recognized.

Mr. KENNEDY. Parliamentary inquiry? I believe when I started to speak there was still time.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support passage of the Minority Health and Health Disparities Research and Education Act of 2000. I commend Senator Frist for his leadership on the issue of health disparities in our minority and underserved communities. I also commend the many Senators on both sides of the aisle who worked hard to ensure that the principles of equal justice and opportunity apply to health care. Health care should be a basic right. With our current economic prosperity and the extraordinary recent advances in medicine, we should be able to guarantee that right to all Americans. The extraordinary advances in health care in recent decades have not been shared by all our citizens. Minority communities suffer disproportionately from higher rates of death from cancer, stroke, and heart disease, as well as from higher rates of HIV/AIDS, diabetes, and other severe health problems. Africa American men who contract prostate cancer are more than twice as likely to die from it as white men. Vietnamese American women are five times more likely than white women to contract cervical cancer. Hispanic women are twice as likely to contract cervical cancer. Native Hawaiian men are 13 percent more likely to contract lung cancer. Alaskan Native women are 72 percent more likely to contract colon cancer and rectal cancer. In addition, African Americans and Hispanic Americans are more likely to be diagnosed with cancer after the disease has reached an advanced stage. For African Americans, the result is a 35 percent higher death rate. The reality of poverty clearly affects the nation's health. Nearly 20 million white Americans live below the poverty line and many live in rural areas such as Appalachia, where 46 percent of counties are designated as health professions shortage areas and high rates of poverty contribute to health disparity outcomes. The lack of a health care facilities or benefits often means poor health care and often a poor prognosis for what might have been a preventable or curable condition. In the Appalachia regions of Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia, the rates of the five top causes of death in the U.S. all exceeded the national, average in 1997. Lack of availability and access to health care for poor and underserved regions often goes hand in hand with higher morbidity and mortality rates. Higher rates of heart disease in white males between the ages of 35 and 64 and cervical cancer in white females are also found in Appalachia. We must find better answers to identify and overcome the barriers to care that lead to dire outcomes in underserved communities. While we have continued to make progress in the reduction of child poverty, child mortality, teenage pregnancy, and juvenile violence, we continue to see wide disparities by race and income, with communities of color and those in poverty lagging behind others. Infant mortality rate has declined nationally from 10.9 infant deaths for every 1,000 live births in 1983 to 7.2 in 1998. But among African Americans, the rate is 13.7--more than twice the rate of any other group. In addition, far too many people across this nation lack the health insurance that is necessary for access to basic health care. Over one-third of Hispanic Americans are uninsured, the highest rate among all ethnic groups and two and a half time the rate of 14% for whites. Nearly one- fourth of African Americans, and about one-fifth of Asian Americans are also uninsured. In Massachusetts, significant progress has been made in improving the overall health status and access to health care. We are one of a handful of states in the country to devote the tobacco settlement money entirely to health care. Yet our significant commitment to health care is not translating into equal access or improved health status for all of our citizens. Health status differs by racial/ethnic group and by income group and the differences are reflected in the alarming discrepancy in mortality rates. The infant mortality rate for African- Americans is 11.7--over twice as high as the overall statewide rate of 5.3. The same pattern exists for the HIV/AIDS-related mortality rate, which is more than six times greater for African-Americans and more than four times greater for Hispanics. African American women are more likely to lose their lives to breast cancer, and nearly six times a many Asian-American women and nearly two times as many Hispanic women have never taken a Pap test, which is essential in detection cervical cancer. Clearly, too many citizens are not benefitting from the advances made in science, medicine, and the economy. The Minority Health and Health Disparities Research and Education Act addresses the biomedical, behavioral, economic, institutional, and environmental factors that have caused health disparities in communities of color and in undeserved communities around our nation. It provides needed resources for research, data collection, medical education, and public awareness, in order to understand the root causes of diseases and poor health outcomes and to develop strategies to meet the health needs of these vulnerable communities. Each of these aspects has an important role to play in the reduction and eventual elimination of the unacceptable disparities that now exist. Title I of the bill establishes a Center for Research on Minority Health and Health Disparities at the National Institutes of Health. It also provides resources to educational institutions to train minority individuals as biomedical research professionals. Title II focuses on identifying, evaluating, and disseminating information on the factors that contribute to health disparities. Title III addresses the critical need for trained and culturally competent health care professionals by providing resources to develop effective educational support. Title IV enhances the collection of data on race and ethnicity to determine what steps the federal government should take to ensure that all necessary information is collected. Title V provides funding for a public awareness and information campaign to inform minority communities of the health conditions that are affecting them disproportionately and of the programs and services available to them. Passage of the Minority Health and Health Disparities Research and Education Act demonstrates our strong commitment a healthier future for all our citizens. America has the resources to accomplish this goal and I urge the Senate to achieve it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that David Bowen, a fellow on the committee, be granted privileges of the floor for the remainder of the session.