Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator from Ohio is correct.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, the Senator from Ohio is correct.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, over the period of the past weeks and months, as the ranking member of our Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I have tried to point out the failing of this Congress and the fact that we have not addressed reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education bill, which we are charged to do--we had 22 days of hearings and we had a markup and legislation was reported out of our committee. It has been several months since that legislation was on the floor and then withdrawn by the majority leader. In spite of the efforts of many of us to bring that measure back on the floor of the Senate, we have been unable to do so. We think it is enormously important that we have an opportunity to do so. We are now some 3 weeks after the date that was suggested that we move into the adjournment for this Congress, and we have seen days go by, quorum calls held, and still no action. Now pending before the committee, we have the bankruptcy legislation, which is going to benefit in a substantial way the credit card industry. But we are not having the opportunity to address the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which can benefit families all across this country, with support for State and local communities. This issue, I think, is back before the Senate because, during the period of our national debate between the Vice President and Governor Bush, great attention has been given to the issues of education. Assurances were given to the American people representing the different positions of the candidates. We have pointed out--I did last week--some of the realities and some of the facts about what is happening in our public schools across this country. And also I pointed out the fact that Texas has not been keeping up with the rest of the country on objective tests. That was challenged by some colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Now we have the Rand Corporation--virtually a nonpartisan organization--which has done a very careful review of the Texas experience, and they agree with us and, in effect, agree with Vice President Gore on the issues of education. I am glad we are getting some clarification. We only have 2 weeks left in this campaign, but I am glad we are beginning to get some clarification on this issue. First of all, I remind our colleagues about what assurances were given to the American people about the commitment of our majority leader on the issues of elementary and secondary education. We only provide some 7 cents out of every dollar that goes into the local communities. States have the primary responsibility. Nonetheless, we can give some focus and attention to programs that have demonstrated positive results in terms of academic achievement and accomplishment. That really is the purpose for which these resources are out there, and also to give special emphasis to the most economically disadvantaged children in this country so they are not going to be left out or left behind. We come to this debate and discussion looking over the period of recent years. We wonder whether the positions that have been accepted by the Republican leadership are very much in conflict with the age-old positions of the Republican Party with regard to education, where they believe there should not be a role for any Federal aid to education. We had that debate in the early sixties. We have had it many times since then. Nonetheless, we have seen in the early 1990s when the Republican leadership assumed control of the Senate the first order of business for them was a massive rescission of moneys that had been appropriated and were going to be allocated to school districts that would have provided help and assistance to needy schools across the country. That money had been appropriated by the House and Senate and agreed to by the conference, signed by the President of the United States. One of the first orders of business by the Republican leadership was to rescind that money. We saw a rescission of about $2 billion. The initial request was considerably higher. It was reduced, but we had the rescission. Then in the 1990s we faced the onslaught of our Republican leadership who wanted to abolish the Department of Education. I think most Members and most parents across the country believe that when the President of the United States sits down with the Members at the White House, we want someone sitting at the President's elbow when there is a discussion and debate about domestic priorities in the United States, someone who is always going to say: What about education? What about education, Mr. President? Those voices are there, appropriately so, in terms of the security interests of the United States and defense, for the foreign policy of the United States, the Secretary of State. We have them there with regard to housing. We have them there in terms of the environment. We have them there in terms of commerce and transportation. Many Members believe we should have them there with regard to the issues of education. That was not the position of the Republican leadership. They said: No, we don't want to have that there. They tried unsuccessfully to eliminate the Department of Education. Nonetheless, we find the Department is there. It is considerably downsized. It has had an extraordinary record, with great improvement over the previous Republican Secretaries of Education in collecting the debts that are owed to the Department. They have reduced the student loan default rate from 22.4% in 1992 to 6.9% in 2000. Both the guaranteed and student loan collections have been much more efficient. Now there is a different attitude by the new Republican leadership. It is expressed by the Republican leader himself, going back to January of 1999: Education is going to be a central issue this year. . . . For starters, we must reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. January 29, 1999: But education is going to have a lot of attention, and it's not going to be just words. . . . June 22, 1999: Education is number one on the agenda for the Republicans in Congress this year. . . . Chamber of Commerce, February 1, 2000: We're going to work very hard on education. I have emphasized that every year I've been majority leader . . . and Republicans are committed to doing that. February 3, 2000: We must reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. . . . Education will be a high priority in this Congress. May 1, 2000: This is very important legislation. I hope we can debate it seriously and have amendments in the education area. Let's talk education. May 2, 2000: Question: . . . have you scheduled a cloture vote on that? Senator Lott: No, I haven't scheduled a cloture vote. . . . But education is number one in the minds of the American people all across this country and every State, including my own State. July 10: I, too, would very much like to see us complete the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. July 25, 2000: We will keep trying to find a way to go back to this legislation this year and get it completed. The fact is, for the first time in 35 years we do not have a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That is against the background, Mr. President, of what is happening out there across this country and what young children are doing. We have challenges in our education system. Here is a chart: ``More Students are Taking the SAT.'' That test, by and large, is necessary to gain entrance into the colleges; not virtually unanimous, but by and large it is required. Look at what has happened since 1980, when 33 percent of the children took it: 36 percent in 1985; 40 percent in 1990; 42 percent in 1995; and now in 2000, it is 44 percent. This is a reflection of the attitude of children in our high schools. The percentage of children taking the SATs is going up significantly. The children want to take those tests. They understand the significance of the SAT and the importance of a college education. The SAT test is demanding. It is hard. It is difficult. Children have to work extremely long hours to prepare for these SATs. The increasing numbers of students taking the SAT is a clear indication from the children of this country that they are serious about education and they want to be able to try to improve their academic achievement. Not only do we see their willingness to take the most strenuous of tests, which are the SATs, but they are also willing to take the advanced courses in math and science, probably the most difficult courses in our high school. We see what has been happening in precalculus: In 1990, 31 percent of students enrolled in precalculus; in 2000, 44 percent did. In calculus, the rate increased from 19 percent to 24 percent. In physics, 44 percent to 49 percent. These are the percentage increases of students who are taking the advanced courses in these subject matters--all on the rise. The number of children who are taking the SAT tests is on the rise. Let's take a look at the results. We have now more children taking the SAT tests. They are taking more demanding courses. What have been the results? We see across the board, going back from 1972 and 1975, 1980, the constant downward movement in terms of results. What we have been seeing since 1990 is the gradual, slow--and I admit it has been slow, but it is going in one direction, and that is up. There has been an improvement in SAT math scores and they are now the highest in 30 years. More kids are taking them, more kids are doing better. That is true across the board in terms of males as well as females. We have challenges in our education system. This is a reflection on what is happening generally across the country. These are the matters the Vice President has talked about, how he wants to strengthen those. Now we see what has been happening in the State of Texas. We saw what is happening generally across the country, that all the indicators are going up. Here we have Texas, falling far below the national average on the SAT scores from 1997 to the year 2000. I brought this up to the Senate floor last week, and a lot of my colleagues were dismissive. But let's look at this. This is the national test, the SAT. These are not homegrown tests in Texas and homegrown tests in Massachusetts, homegrown in other States. The SAT is a national standardized test. I will come back to that in a minute. These are the national averages for the SAT test. Notice the national average total scores since 1997 has gone up. That, I think, is a clear indication that the children, working harder, taking more challenging courses, have a greater desire, more of them, to go on to the schools and colleges. It is a very definite upward swing, although not great in terms of the total numbers. All of us want these higher. However, the fact remains that progress has been made and the national average is going up. But not, Mr. President, in the State of Texas. From 1999 to the year 2000, we have seen it flatten out. Going back to 1997, scores have declined; Texas scores have gone down. It is also interesting that Texas scores are well below the national average in the SATs. I think this is a pretty fair indication about the facts in the State of Texas. With all respect, I am not getting into criticizing the Governor or commenting on his desire to try to do better. But I do think that when he talks about it and he claims how well Texas is doing, it is fair enough to look at the facts and examine whether this is so. We have this as a result of these Scholastic Aptitude Tests that show Texas is well below the national average, and under Governor Bush it hasn't improved on the national average in the last several years, at least while he has been Governor. These are the earlier facts. Then we have the blockbuster report, the Rand Commission report, which basically sustains that argument that the schools may not have been making as large of improvements as claimed. It has been an important indictment of what has been happening on education in the State of Texas.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I was just pointing out that we have this extraordinary report. I have it in my hand. It is the October 24, 2000 Rand Commission report: What do test scores in Texas tell us? It is an excellent report. I will have excerpts of it printed in the Record. But I hope those who are interested in this issue, trying to make up your minds over the period of these last 10 days, will have a good opportunity to examine that report. Let me just mention a few of the highlights of the report. First of all, the study was released, as I mentioned, on October 24. It raises serious questions about the validity of gains in Texas math and reading stores. The study compares the results of the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills, the test taken by Texas students, with the results achieved by those same students on the National Assessment of Education Progress tests. There were large discrepancies between the results of the Texas TAAS test and the national NAEP test. The student gains on the TAAS, the Texas test, are far greater than what has been found with the same group of students on the NAEP or other standardized national tests. Do we understand what we are saying? Significant improvement on the test just given to Texas students; but for the Texas students who took both the Texas and national test, we found a very dramatic disparity. In Texas, many teachers say they are spending especially--these are the conclusions of the Rand report--large amounts of class time on TAAS test preparation activities. Teachers in low-performing schools reported greater frequency of test preparation than did teachers in higher-performing schools. While this preparation may improve the TAAS scores, it may not help students develop necessary reading and math skills. Also, this could lead to a superficial appearance that the gap between minority and majority students is narrowing when no change has actually occurred. The exclusion of students with disabilities increased in Texas while decreasing in the Nation. Texas also showed an increase over time in the percentage of students dropping out of school and being held back. These factors produce a gain in average test scores that overestimates actual improvement in student performance. We understand now what is happening. Regarding those individuals with disabilities, students we have worked long and hard to make sure they are going to be a part of the student body and have the opportunities for educational advancement, if you can exclude some of them from test taking, as in Texas, plus most likely some of the poorer performing students have dropped out and won't be able to take any of those assessment tests, this is going to have an artificial inflator on test scores. That is the Rand Corporation that is making that conclusion. Also, Rand researchers hypothesize that a small but significant percentage of students may have topped out on the TAAS. In other words, some students may have scored as high as the TAAS would allow them to. If that happened, it would artificially narrow the gap on TAAS between white students and students of color because white students tend to earn higher scores than minority students. Thus, the reduced gap on the TAAS relative to NAEP may be a result of TAAS being too easy for some students. As with other tests, there have been documented cases of cheating on the Texas TAAS test. The NAEP is a national test, which students from around the country can take so States and communities--and parents, most importantly--are able to evaluate the differences between how their children are doing in school compared with how those in other parts of the State and other parts of the country are doing. According to the NAEP, Texas fourth graders were slightly more proficient in reading in 1998 than in 1994. However, the country as a whole also improved to the same degree. Thus, there was nothing remarkable about the reading score gains in Texas. Small improvements in Texas eighth grade math scores were also consistent with those observed nationally. There is nothing remarkable about the NAEP scores in Texas, and students of color did not gain more than whites. Score increases in Texas are identical to those nationwide when using the NAEP data. However, the gains on TAAS were several times larger than they were on NAEP. That is what we are hearing the good Governor talking about. That is what he is talking about. This puts it all in the light that that is not a true reflection of what is happening among the young people. The gains on TAAS were greater for students of color than they were for whites. The large discrepancy between the TAAS and the NAEP results raises concern about the validity of the TAAS scores and validity of claims regarding student achievement. According to the NAEP results, the gap between white students and students of color in Texas is very large and also increasing slightly. In 1998, the average fourth grade reading score for black students was at the 38th percentile compared to the average white student at the 67th percentile. This gap was slightly larger than the gap between these groups in 1994. In other words, the black-white reading gap increased during this 4-year period. The gap between the blacks and whites had actually increased during this period. In fourth grade math, the white-Hispanic NAEP gap grew in Texas but not nationally, and the white-black gap remained constant in Texas but actually shrank nationally. In short, the gap sizes between the whites and minorities on the NAEP were improving nationally but getting worse in Texas. That is not a satisfactory prescription for improving education. It suggests the Texas system is more an education mirage than an education miracle. I think it is important for parents--as they are looking now, trying to get beyond the cliches, beyond the slogans, beyond the set statements, beyond the give and take, even in those debates--to look at the record, and the record is very clear. That is that we have not seen the kind of advancement that has taken place in many other States that are doing a number of things that have been recommended, as we were going to have a chance to hear about in the debate on the ESEA. We find out the States that made the greatest advancement are States that had smaller class sizes, where they had continuing enhancement and proficiency for teacher education, mentoring with teachers, afterschool programs, accountability. They had a number of those programs and even benefited from early education help and assistance as well. What we wanted to try to do is to have a debate on those particular matters that have made a difference in States around the country, where we had seen advancements in education. But we have been denied that opportunity. What basically the leadership, the Republican leadership, has denied us is the opportunity to have that debate, denied us the opportunity to raise these issues. What the American people are being asked is, let's just look back on what has happened in Texas. When we examine Texas, not out of partisanship, but using the objective standards for the SATs--they do not benefit a Democrat or Republican; they are focused on children--and if we take the Rand study which has been available and can be reviewed by anyone--we are finding out that this has been a mirage in terms of education. I want to spend a few moments going into another area which I think the American people ought to give some focus and attention to in these final few days, and that is on the critical issue of the credibility gap in health care. Few, if any, issues are of greater concern to American families than quality, affordable health care. Americans want an end to the HMO abuses. They want good health insurance coverage, they want a prescription drug benefit for senior citizens under Medicare, and they want to preserve and strengthen Medicare so it will be there for 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 year is clear. It is not just a choice between different programs. It is a choice based on who can be trusted to do the right thing for the American people. Al Gore's record is 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 and 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. I daresay, when Al Gore is elected President, a Patients' Bill of Rights will be the first major piece of legislation that passes this Congress. I am absolutely convinced that will be the case, Mr. President. 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 W. Bush does not 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. His health care 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 Patients' Bill of Rights. He said he wanted all people covered. He said he was in favor of a patient's right to sue, as provided under the Texas law. And he said he brought Republicans and Democrats together in the State of Texas to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights. That is what he said. But the reality is very different, as was pointed out in the New York Times after the debate on October 18. ``Texas record: Taking credit for patients' rights where it is not necessarily due.'' That is the understatement of the year. The reality is George W. 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.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, it is law.

Mr. KENNEDY. I think another Governor would have gotten the bill faster. If the Senator----

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am going to reclaim my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to yield to the Senator after I spell out exactly what happened in Texas.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will lay out the facts--and if I can have the attention of the Senator from Texas now--I will lay these facts out, and if the Senator from Texas finds a problem with these facts, then I will be glad to yield for that purpose to listen to what the facts are. These are what the facts are: 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 patient's right to sue as provided under Texas law. He said he brought Republicans and Democrats together in the State of Texas to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights. That is what he said. The reality is different. The Governor 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 and allowed it to become law without his signature. That is not the record of a person who is candid about where he stands and what he has done. Those are the facts. It is not a record that recommends him for national office for any citizen concerned about a strong, effective Patients' Bill of Rights. It is the record of a candidate who stands with powerful insurance companies and HMOs, not with American families. He was forced effectively to take a Patients' Bill of Rights. So when the Senator says, isn't it law today? yes, but it was required because of what happened in the legislature, not the leadership that was provided by the Governor on that issue. On health insurance, the record is equally clear--and equally bleak. Governor Bush claims he wants insurance for all Americans. He blames Vice President Gore for the growth in the number of the uninsured. But Governor Bush's record in Texas is one of the worst in the country. Texas has the second highest proportion of uninsured Americans in the country. It has the second highest proportion of uninsured children in the country. Yet Governor Bush has not only done nothing to address this problem, he has actually fought against the 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 Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997, we put affordable health insurance for children within the reach of every moderate and low-income working family. But George Bush's Texas was one of the last in the country to fully implement the law. Do we understand that? 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. This is what happened in 1994: The Governor takes office; Texas ranks 49th. The year 2000: Bush runs for President; Texas ranks 49th. These are the facts. People might not like those facts. People might not want to talk about those facts, but these are the facts. If you have different facts, let's have them. Texas: One of the last States to implement CHIP. October 1997, CHIP funds were available. November 1999, Texas implements the full CHIP program. We had a program where the funds were there. We did not have to appropriate the additional funds. Still it took 2 years. Children cannot wait 2 years when they are sick. They cannot wait when they have a sore throat, or cannot see the blackboard, or cannot see the teacher. They need help and assistance, and the fact it took 2 years, I think, is inexcusable. Bush places a low priority on children. Bush fights to restrict CHIP eligibility to children below 150 percent of poverty. Most of the other States, a great majority of the other States, went to 200 percent of poverty. Maybe the Senator from Texas has an explanation for that. Texas has been one of the only States that has been cited, not by the Senator from Massachusetts and not by Democrats, but by a Federal judge for failure to enroll children in Medicaid. That is the record, Mr. President. You might not want to hear about it, but that is the record. Now, perhaps the most ominous revelation about the Governor's attitude towards 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 across the country who don't take their children to the doctor when they have a sore throat or a 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 in a tidal wave of medical debt. Insurance is far more than a Washington term. It is 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 challenge facing America. Few issues are more important to senior citizens and their families. They deserve a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. And we should try to 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. The Vice President stands with the senior citizens. 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 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 are not 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 the Vice President has pointed out, for the first 4 years, the Bush plan would cover low-income seniors only. Al Gore cited the example of a senior citizen named George McKinney. He said: George McKinney is 70 years old, has high blood pressure. His wife has heart trouble. They have an 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 drugs 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 is fuzzy math, then education reform is even more urgent than any of us realized. 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 plan, 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 would take years in many States. George Bush's prescription for middle-income seniors is clear--take an aspirin and call your HMO in 4 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 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. George W. 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 copayments 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 does not cover the drugs their doctors prescribe, they are out of luck. The Bush plan is an insurance industry's dream, and a senior citizen's nightmare. 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 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 evidently 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 through the 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 the powerful special interests and which candidate stands with the American people. The choice is clear. Governor Bush stands with the powerful, and Al Gore stands with the people. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Briefly for a question, and then I would like to make a presentation, and then I will be glad to yield.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. But there is not a time limitation, is there?

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask my response not be charged to the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, does the Senator from Texas deny that Texas is 48th out of 50 States in terms of the total number of uninsured children? Does she deny that?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleague, Senator Helms, in expressing my strong support for this legislation to benefit international broadcasting employees. The bill is important for several reasons. A new special immigrant visa class will be established to cover individuals working in the United States for the International Broadcasting Bureau or one of the grantee organizations affiliated with the Broadcasting Board of Governors. Included among the grantee organizations are the well- respected Radio Free Asia, the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe. In creating a special immigrant visa category, we are making a concerted effort to address the recruitment shortages plaguing these worthwhile broadcasting organizations. This legislation will help to attract qualified foreign employees for available positions with the international broadcasting industry here in the United States. The mission of the United States with respect to international broadcasting makes it important for us to be able to attract and retain a large number of foreign language broadcasters. They must have a unique combination of journalistic skills, including fluency in various languages and an in-depth knowledge of the people, history and cultures of other nations. To carry out its mission, the Broadcasting Board of Governors and its grantees must employ a minimum of 3,400 broadcasters and support staff, such as reporters, writers, translators, editors, producers, announcers, and news analysts. Historically, the Broadcasting Board of Governors has been unable to obtain sufficient numbers of U.S. workers with the rare combination of skills needed for this mission. As a result, we have had to look to other nations to attract the necessary talent. No current visa category exists which properly suits the needs of the international broadcasting industry. Neither the H-1B nor J-1 non- immigrant visas are appropriate for the Broadcasting Board of Governors to use as a means to recruit foreign broadcasters and support personnel. Each of these categories has restrictions which make it difficult to recruit qualified applicants. This legislation overcomes these problems by adding a special immigrant category under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Up to one hundred immigrant visas will be available each fiscal year for foreign nationals employed by the Broadcasting Board of Governors. Spouses and dependent children will also be able to benefit from this legislation. This proposal will provide significant assistance for the international broadcasting industry in meeting its goals and recruitment needs in providing essential news coverage for many of the most dangerous regions of the world. The people employed by organizations like Radio Free Asia, the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe are exceptionally talented and courageous. They and their families make substantial sacrifices, and they put themselves at great personal risk to carry out their important responsibilities. These dedicated men and women deserve our full support. I strongly urge my colleagues to pass this needed legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Tinker St. Clair, who is retiring at the end of this year after 21 years of outstanding service to the Senate as doorkeeper. Tinker goes back many many years with the Kennedy family. In a sense, I inherited Tinker from my brothers. At the time of the 1960 Presidential campaign, Tinker was active in Democratic Party politics in McDowell County in the heart of coal country in West Virginia. Tinker supported Jack in the key West Virginia Presidential Primary that year, and he campaigned effectively for my brother throughout southern West Virginia. Jack won a dramatic victory in that primary, and it put him solidly on the road to the White House. So it's fair to say that the New Frontier was born right there in West Virginia, and Tinker St. Clair was very much a part of that victory. Tinker was also there for my brother Robert Kennedy in his Presidential campaign in 1968. For the past 21 years in the Senate, Tinker has been a great friend of mine as well, and a great friend of many other Senators on both sides of the aisle. Day in and day out on the Senate floor, Tinker's welcoming smile and wonderful personality have warmed our hearts and minds. He is often here with us, sitting in the back of the Chamber, listening intently to our debates, offering an encouraging word when we arrive and when we finish speaking, reminiscing about past days in the Senate and past campaigns in West Virginia, telling us with pride about his children, his grandchildren, and in recent years, his great-grandchildren. When Tinker leaves us this year, he will leave a place in our hearts that will be impossible to fill. But as he said the other day, he feels it is time, as the West Virginia mountaineer he's always been, to sit on the porch and enjoy his family. As this session of Congress comes to an end, I express my warmest wishes to Tinker for a long and happy and healthy retirement. He has surely earned it. He has served West Virginia well, he has served the Senate well, and he has served the Nation well, and we will miss him very very much.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, all of us who know and admire our distinguished colleague in the House of Representatives, Congressman Marty Meehan, were saddened to learn of his father's death earlier this month. At the funeral service for his father on October 14 in Lowell, Massachusetts, Congressman Meehan delivered an eloquent tribute to his father that deeply touched all of those who were present. He described in vivid terms and in many wonderful stories the lifelong love and support that Mr. Meehan gave to his family. I believe that Congressman Meehan's moving eulogy to his father will be of interest to all of us in Congress, and I ask unanimous consent that it may be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Is there a time limitation?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, are we in morning business?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to, first of all, thank my friend and colleague, the Senator from Minnesota, for his very eloquent statement, and most of all for all of his good work in protecting working families in this country on this extremely important piece of legislation. I, too, am troubled, as I mentioned earlier today, by the fact that with all the unfinished business we have in the Senate that now with the final hours coming up next week, we are being asked to have an abbreviated debate and discussion on the whole issue of bankruptcy without the opportunity for amendments. Effectively, we are being asked to take it or leave it on legislation which is going to affect millions of our fellow citizens. I had wished that we had scheduled other legislation, as I mentioned earlier today. I wish we were willing to come on back to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act or in terms of a Patients' Bill of Rights or a prescription drug program for our seniors in our country. As someone who has been traveling around my own State, this is what I hear from families all over Massachusetts: Why isn't the Senate doing its business? Why didn't it do its business reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act? This is the first time in 34 years that it has not done so. Why is it 3 weeks late in terms of appropriating funding for education, of which we hear a great deal in the Presidential debates? And in the Congress, aren't we somehow sensitive to what our leaders are saying in the Republican and Democratic parties about the importance of education? Here we are now 3 weeks late, and the last appropriation, evidently, is going to be the education one. That is not the way that we think we ought to be doing business. So we find ourselves coming back to this issue--or will next week--on the question of whether we are going to accept bankruptcy legislation. I want to make a few points at the outset of my remarks: some proponents of this legislation argue that all the outstanding concerns about the bill have been resolved and that the problems have been fixed. That is simply untrue. It is a myth that women and children are protected under the provisions of this bill. Over 30 organizations that advocate for women and children wrote us and said that by increasing the rights of many creditors--including credit card companies, finance companies, auto lenders, and others--the bill would set up a competition for scarce resources between parents and children owed child support, and commercial creditors, both during and after bankruptcy. Contrary to the claims of some, the domestic support provisions included in the bill would not solve these problems. I have here a list of advocates for women and children who are opposed to this bill. I listened recently, a few hours ago, to a very impassioned statement by one of my colleagues about how the women and children were being protected. Here is a list--and I will include the list in the Record--of groups that, for the life of their years, have been advocates for children and women. These groups say that provisions in the conference committee report are going to put children and women at serious risk and that the proposed bankruptcy law will do a significant disservice to their rights. This is not only what these various groups have said, but this is also the conclusion of the 82 bankruptcy scholars I have listed that I will include in the Record. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter written by 82 bankruptcy scholars to our colleagues outlining the provisions of the conference report that put women and children at risk be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as we are coming into the final hours, the final days of the Senate session, there are still a number of measures which need focus and attention and priority. I welcome the leadership that is being provided now by the President and a number of our colleagues to try to make sure that before we leave town we try to remedy a situation that has developed since we passed the Balanced Budget Act in 1997. Included in that balanced budget effort were cuts that were directed to the health care providers. It was estimated at that particular time that the cuts would be about $100 billion. What we have found out over the last several years is that the projected cuts have been well over $200 billion. As a result, there have been unintended consequences that have developed. It seems only fair that when we look at the steps that were taken in the past that resulted, and continue to result today, in some very dramatic adverse impacts to a number of different providers in our health care industry, that we remedy that situation. It is particularly important to remedy their situation when we have the fortuitous economic situation in terms of the surplus that we are faced with. I doubt very much--in fact, I am quite sure--that if we had known in 1997 the actual impact the projected cuts were going to have on health care providers, that those particular provisions of the Balanced Budget Act would have been successful. I am sure they would not have been successful. I certainly would not have voted for those provisions. But I welcome the opportunity to join with a number of our colleagues to try to remedy the situation. It is the responsible thing to do. It is absolutely necessary. It is not only affecting many of our excellent health care providers in our urban areas, but it also reaches out to many rural communities. We have had an excellent presentation from our friends as to what these cuts have meant for rural health care and rural health care providers. Let me mention, for a few moments, what is happening to some of the different health care providers now. We are very fortunate in Massachusetts to have some of the best teaching hospitals in the world. These teaching hospitals are the backbone of our quality health care system in America and the world. We are facing many challenges in our health care system. The most obvious one today is a Medicare prescription drug benefit. That is the challenge that comes first to the minds of people when we talk about health care needs and needed changes in our Medicare system. That is a very legitimate challenge. We think of our Patients' Bill of Rights. Many of us deplore the fact that we have not addressed these issues in the Senate. It is irresponsible that we have not taken action on a Patients' Bill of Rights. Although we have a majority of the Members of the House and a majority of the Members of the Senate in favor of a strong Patients' Bill of Rights, still we are denied the opportunity of addressing the issue. We know that every day we fail to do so, there are tens of thousands of Americans who are suffering as a result. We are unable to free ourselves from the power of the HMO industry to successfully pass legislation that would allow doctors to make health care decisions, unfettered by the decisions of bean counters from the HMOs who are more interested in profits than in the health of individuals. That is certainly one very important issue. I think we fail in this Congress by the fact that we have not addressed it. I am constantly amazed as I travel around my State, and the States of Pennsylvania and New York and a few other places where there are candidates running for Congress. One of the first pieces of legislation they say they support is a Patients' Bill of Rights, which obviously has nothing to do with the strong Patients' Bill of Rights that has been supported by more than 300 health providers representing women and children and the disabled, cancer research groups, the doctors, the nurses, the medical professionals. That is one issue. The second, as I mentioned, is a prescription drug benefit. We also are now focusing on teaching hospitals. These are the hospitals that provide the training and teaching for our future medical professionals including doctors, some of the applied health professionals, and advanced practice nurses. We have the best teaching hospitals in the world. We ought to keep them healthy, not endanger them. By not providing a healthy and robust provision in legislation in these final 2 days, we risk endangering our teaching hospitals. What do these teaching hospitals do? No. 1, they provide the best teaching. Secondly, they provide about 30 percent of the indigent care in our country, primarily--obviously--in the communities in which they serve. They play a very important role in providing health care to those who have no health insurance. Third, they are also the places that are developing the new technologies and techniques used in treating some of the most complicated cases. From there the research disseminates; other hospitals and other health care delivery centers benefit from the research done at teaching hospitals. These teaching hospitals are really the jewels of our health care system, and we cannot put them at risk. And they are at risk. The proposal that is being advanced by the Republicans is basically a nice blank check to the HMOs, the industry that is leading the fight against the Patients' Bill of Rights. Yet there is no guarantee that they will continue to provide health care to people in our society or to Medicare recipients. More than 900,000 Medicare recipients will be dropped from HMOs next year. Yet we find the Republicans shoveling billions of dollars into HMO coffers without any assurance that they will use those resources to look after the elderly. The Republicans are shoveling the funds into HMOs rather than investing in a prescription drug program for our seniors. We know we have the teaching hospitals on the one hand. Next we have the community hospitals. The community hospitals are the backbone of health care delivery in our communities. They are the primary health delivery provider in communities all across this country. They have an irreplaceable position. They are exceedingly hard pressed and stressed in being able to perform this function. They need some relief. Any legislation ought to have provisions in it to help provide needed assistance to community hospitals. Then there is the home health care system--the visiting nurses, home health care agencies. We have seen a significant decline in home health care agencies and home health care services generally. At a time when our senior population is going to double over the next 20-25 years, we are seeing a significant decline in home health care services, which makes absolutely no sense. We end up finding out that if patients aren't going to be able to receive home health care services, they will have to go into the more costly hospitals and nursing homes. It makes no sense from a health standpoint, and it certainly makes no sense from a humane standpoint. Our nursing homes are facing bankruptcy in increasing numbers. We have seen scores of bankruptcies of nursing homes in my own State of Massachusetts. The number of nursing homes going bankrupt is increasing every single day. They are in desperate straits. Not only are they in desperate straits, but other health care providers, such as the hospice program that provides such important help and assistance to those who have terminal illnesses, are in desperate straits as well. It isn't just those of us who have these facilities in our States. We have heard eloquent statements from those who come from rural areas. We want to work with them as well. We are not trying to rob Peter to pay Paul. We ought to have something that is going to address the needs of rural areas, and we welcome the opportunity to work with our colleagues. Under the leadership of Senator Daschle and Senator Reid, Senator Moynihan on the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, and others, an excellent program has been developed from our side. We want to try to make sure that that is going to be considered. We don't want to be shut out of the process, as we are shut out of a lot of issues here. We have heard a good deal of debate about desiring bipartisanship. Well, for a good part of the time I have been in the Senate, when we had these kinds of matters that needed to be discussed or debated, we had Republican and Democratic leaders working these matters out with the Administration. But we are finding out that this apparently is a solo flight by our Republican friends, to the great disadvantage of our health care system. That makes no sense. The President has indicated he would veto this early proposal that has been put forward by the Republicans as a nonstarter. I certainly would defend that position and welcome the opportunity to discuss it or debate it, whatever will be necessary, because their proposal just does not do the job. It is one of the key remaining issues we have as we come to the end of this session. Finally, I do hope we will be able to have included in the final wrap-up in our balanced budget refinement the Grassley-Kennedy bill that helps parents of children who have disabilities. Last year, in a bipartisan effort, we developed legislation that permitted those individuals who were disabled to go into the labor market and not lose their health insurance. We had a good debate on it. We passed it. Now we find people saying, Why did it take you so long? What is happening is these individuals are moving towards greater independence and self- reliance. They are becoming taxpayers and paying into the public system rather than just drawing from it. It has taken a good deal of time to achieve, but it has been enormously important. What we are saying now, Senator Grassley and I--and I pay tribute to Senator Grassley for the hard work he has done on this in the Finance Committee--is help parents who have children with severe disabilities. So many parents have children who have severe disabilities. The parents are unable to take any increase or any enhancement of their own pay because if they do, they will no longer qualify for Medicaid. And if they no longer qualify for Medicaid, they lose the health care they get for their children under Medicaid, and they can't afford the health care bills. These parents have to refuse pay increases and advancement to remain below the income levels for Medicaid coverage. Of course, this not only does an enormous disservice to that individual but also to the other members of the family. Many of these children with severe disabilities have brothers and sisters, yet the parent still has to work at a wage below the Medicaid level in order to qualify for health coverage of their children. It makes no sense. It is wrong. We have legislation that will address it, and we hope that will be considered. We say once again that the proposal our Republican friends are putting forth is a nonstarter, because we know what they are trying to do; that is, to give a great bundle of cash--so to speak a blank check--to the HMOs that have been resisting our ability to take actions to protect American patients. It makes no sense. It is unfair, and it is fundamentally wrong. We are going to do everything we can to try to fashion a proposal that is balanced, fair, and that really meets the health care needs of our people.