Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on Tuesday night the American people witnessed the third and final Presidential debate between Vice President Al Gore and Governor Bush. We are now less than 3 weeks away from the election. As the debate demonstrated, the choices for the American people could not be clearer. Are we going to continue the economic prosperity of the past 8 years? Or are we going to waste it on excessive tax breaks for the wealthiest one percent of Americans? I remember in 1981 when the economic program of then President Reagan came to the Congress. It had the same kind of rhetoric around it. We are going to cut all of the taxes and increase defense spending and balance the budget, all at the same time. During that period of time, only a handful of us voted against it. It was so clear and obvious at that time that we were going to move into large deficits, which we eventually did--deficits in the hundreds of billions of dollars. I am always amused to hear from others who say it really wasn't the establishment of economic policies; it was just the American energy. If it had been the American energy, why wasn't it the American energy when we were running up deficits? It is quite clear that you had two entirely different economic policies that were being followed. One was a disaster. I am always interested in the fact that it was President Bush who called Ronald Reagan's proposal ``voodoo economics.'' Now we are coming right on back again to that similar kind of proposal of excessive tax breaks for wealthy individuals. That is the heart and soul of the Bush proposal, although it was difficult to quite understand what it was following the debate the other evening. Are we going to continue to have balanced Federal budgets? Or are we going to return to the bad old days of trickle-down economics that created the biggest deficits in our history? And perhaps most importantly--are we going to stand with working families to make the critical investments in education and health care that are needed to help children, help parents, help working men and women, and help senior citizens in their retirement years? These issues are critical not only for the Presidential race but in Congress as well. Governor Bush and the Republicans like to talk education and health care. But look what has happened in this Congress. For the first time in 35 years, they have not reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. They are 3 weeks late in providing the needed funds for the Nation's public schools. The time has expired. The new fiscal year is here. Yet we haven't done our business. We always leave the appropriations bill which funds the schools in this country for last. It is always interesting to me to hear and watch these promises that are made by the Republican leadership on education. On January 6, 1999, Senator Lott said: Education is going to be the central issue this year. . . . For starters, we must reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. On January 29, 1999, he said: But education is going to have a lot of attention, and it's not going to just be words. On June 22, 1999 the Majority Leader stated: Education is Number one on the agenda for Republicans in the Congress. On February 1, 2000 he said: 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. On February 3, 2000: We must reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. . . Education will be a high priority in this Congress. On 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. Why don't you bring up the appropriations to fund education? Why is it 3 weeks late? Why is it the last appropriations bill? Why is it that we didn't reauthorize it? Don't come and tell American families that education is number one in your priorities when for the first time in 35 years we don't have a reauthorization. What is the Republican leadership going to do? They are calling the bankruptcy bill back up--the bankruptcy bill. We had 14 days and 55 amendments on that bill. But that isn't enough. They are going to call that up later on for a vote this afternoon. They are going to try to jam that bill, which benefits a small group of credit card companies, rather than deal with the education of American families. That is their priority. Any American family can understand that. We are here. We are prepared to deal with the education program. Oh, no. We can't do that. We are going to go back to bankruptcy which is so important. Important for whom? Important for the credit card companies. Just as in their patients' bill of rights, they have not been able to quote a single health organization in the country that supports them because it is fraudulent. Every health group in the country supports the proposal that was passed by a bipartisan majority in the House of Representatives, and that was supported by the Democrats and a few Republicans in the Senate. Every health organization--over 300 of them. Now we have the industry itself saying no, no--the HMOs saying don't pass the good bill, because we don't want it. Now what happens? The credit card industry says they want this bill. And what happens? The Republican leadership is trying to jam that right down here. What has happened to education in between? Not only are we not reauthorizing it, but we are not funding it. It is 3 weeks late already. What happened to children in this country? If they hand their homework in 3 weeks late, they would be in the principal's office. They would be getting some kind of discipline in any school in the country. But, nonetheless, we are 3 weeks late. We haven't reauthorized it, and the appropriations have not been finished. I hope our friends on the other side are going to ease off when they talk about how committed their party is on education. I hope they are going to at least have the decency not to try to say: Oh, yes. We are really interested in education--we really do care about it. I was here when one of the first things the Republican leadership did in 1995 was to rescind some $1.7 billion that had been appropriated-- the greatest rescission on any single bill that I can remember in my service in 38 years. On what subject? Education. Who offered it? Republicans. How many supported it? Virtually the whole Republican Party. I was here a few years later after we were able to dull some of those rescissions when they came back and tried to abolish the Department of Education. Who offered it? Republicans. Who supported it? The Republican Party. Who opposed it? We did. Not just because it is an agency, but because many of us believe that any President ought to have in the Cabinet office someone talking about education every time that Cabinet meets. That is why we need a Department of Education. We have a department for housing. We have a department for the interior lands of this country. Many believe we ought to have a department for education. Not the Republicans. No, they wanted to abolish it. We have the rescinding of education funding. We have proposals to abolish the Department of Education. We have the refusal to authorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and we have the denying of funding of the existing law--3 weeks late. That happens to be the record. Now, we watched the other night the Republican candidate for office talking about how concerned they were. I wish he had called up our majority leader and said: Look, I am interested in education; why don't you take that up? Let's take up our proposals. We know what they are. We are prepared to vote on them. We are prepared to take those to the American people. Why isn't the other side prepared to do it? What are they so frightened of? What are they so scared of? All we have is silence. We have this empty Chamber where all of these other deals are going on--All these other deals that are not on education. They are on how we can try and get bankruptcy that will basically undermine families who in many instances are hard pressed, mothers who have not been able to get their alimony or child support and are going into bankruptcy. Half the bankruptcies are a result of health care costs for older workers. We cannot wait in order to draw out the last few dollars from those individuals for the credit card companies and shuffle aside education. That is what is happening. The American people ought to begin to understand it. The Republican leadership keeps on saying how important education is. On July 10, 2000 the majority leader said: I, too, would very much like to see us complete the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. . . . I feel strongly about getting it done. . . . We can work day and night for the next 3 weeks. On July 25, 2000 he said: We will keep trying to find a way to go back to this legislation this year and get it completed. Mr. President, SAT scores are the highest in 30 years. They have not moved up greatly, but they are going in the right direction for males and females. Of course, it isn't going in the right direction in the State of Texas. Texas falls below the national average on SAT scores between 1997-2000. The national scores are going up a little bit in the right direction. Texas is going along in the wrong direction for SAT scores. We have heard a great deal about what happened to the children in the State of Texas, being 48th of 50 for the number of children that are covered by health insurance. The other night, Governor Bush was talking about what a high priority they put on education and what they have done on education. This tells the story. These are the SAT scores, standard scores. This reflects the national average moving up over the last 3 years, while Texas has been moving down the last 3 years. We don't have any explanation. I know the Vice President didn't want to appear negative, but the fact is, I don't think drawing out what the records are should be considered negative. These are the facts. The American people ought to be able to understand them. The national average has gone up; in Texas the scores have gone down. I was here 30 years before we ever had a vote on education. We had Democratic chairs and Republican chairs. We had Senator Stafford, the education chairman of our committee; Senator Pell was the chairman. During that period of time, education was never a partisan issue. The American people don't want it to be partisan. But it is now. It is when you refuse to let us debate it and abide by the outcome. That is wrong. We ought to fund the education for the children in this country. The Republican leadership has not done it. We ought to be dealing with the education reauthorization prior to bankruptcy and other priorities, and the Republican leadership refuses to do it. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 more minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Are we under a time constraint?

Mr. KENNEDY. I will just read at this time this particular paragraph of the letter: Last year, numerous Senators, Administration officials, and bankruptcy experts expressed concern that certain elements of bankruptcy reform may increase the hurdles for financially troubled women and children to collect support payments and gain financial stability. Since then, a set of domestic support provisions has been added to the bill. Those provisions may be helpful to state support enforcement agencies and, in some instances, to women and children trying to collect support. However, those provisions are not at all responsive to the concerns originally identified. A close look suggests that these concerns persist: Women and children as creditors will have to compete with powerful creditors to collect their claims after bankruptcy. There it is: ``Women and children as creditors will have to compete with powerful creditors to collect their claims after bankruptcy''-- period. Who do you think is going to win? The powerful creditors or the women and the children? The women who might be out there trying to collect alimony, or the mothers who, as a result of a separation or divorce, are trying to get child support, or the creditors who are represented by powerful financial interests and a whole battery of lawyers? Who do we think is going to win? Those who have studied the bankruptcy laws--without being Republican or Democrat--have all stated their belief that creditors are going to win. As a result, the women and children are going to be put at risk. So we are going to hear a great deal about how this legislation protects women and children. It does not. It does not. And we will welcome the opportunity to engage in that debate as this process moves along. A second point that is mentioned in this letter--I will again just read a portion of it: Giving ``first priority'' to domestic support obligations does not address the problem. Arguing that the bill now favors the claims-- This is an additional reference to the point about women and children-- Arguing that the bill now favors the claims of women and children, proponents of this reform effort emphasize that the bill gives ``first priority'' to domestic support obligations. In practice, this change in priority is not responsive to the major problems for women and children in the bill. Why is this so? Changing the priority in distribution during bankruptcy will make a difference to women and children in less than 1 percent of the cases, and could actually result in reduced payments in some instances. Second: The priority provision does not affect priority or collection rights after the bankruptcy case is over. Collecting after bankruptcy--not during bankruptcy--is often the significant issue for support recipients. Here it is. They know how to work the language. The credit card companies know how to work the language to give the facade that they are protecting the women and children, but they are not. They are putting them at greater risk. Why, with all the things that need to be done in this country at this time, we are trying to stampede the Senate into legislation that is going to put women and children at greater risk when they are facing hardships in their lives, is beyond my comprehension in one respect, but it is very understandable in another respect; and that is because of the same reasons that we are not getting a Patients' Bill of Rights up before us, because of the power of the HMOs and the HMO industry that are daily putting at risk the well-being and the health of American patients all across this country. Even though there is a bipartisan majority in the House and in the Senate, the Republican leadership is refusing to bring that bill up for a vote. At the same time, they are developing what they are calling balanced budget legislation to try to give allegedly a restoration of some funding to assist some providers because of the cuts that were made at the time of the balanced budget amendment a few years ago, which took a great deal more out of those providers than ever was intended. It is generally agreed that we would restore some of those funds. Who has the priority under the Republicans? The HMOs. They want to give them the money whether they agree to continue to provide the health care or not to our Medicare beneficiaries. They just dropped close to a million of them last year, and they are here with their hands out to get another payoff. Well, we should ask, why have we gotten this legislation? It is quite clearly because of the credit card companies that have been willing to make those contributions as well. Let the contributions fall where they may, whether they include the Democrats or the Republicans. There is no question the Republican leadership has put us in the position of bringing this proposal up in the final hours of the Congress. Proponents also argue that the bill provides relief to small businesses which are filing for bankruptcy, but the legislation in many ways makes it more difficult for small businesses to reorganize. The effect is, more and more small businesses will fail and thousands of American workers will lose their jobs. That is the reason the various organizations that represent workers are strongly opposed to it. We heard from one of our colleagues that this is going to make it a great deal easier for small businesses. Why then are organizations that are representing these workers coming out so strongly in opposition? They understand that the provisions of the small business proposal impose more onerous and costly requirements on small businesses than they do on big businesses. The bill requires that small business debtors comply with a host of new bureaucratic filing requirements and periodic reports. Large businesses are not subject to these requirements. Senior management of small business debtors must attend a variety of meetings at the U.S. trustee's discretion. Senior management of large businesses do not. Under this bill, small business debtors are subject to an extra layer of scrutiny by the U.S. trustee who must assess whether the debtor lacks business viability and should be dismissed out of bankruptcy. Large business debtors are not. Small business debtors are subject to repeated filing restrictions. Large business debtors are not. I am not suggesting that large businesses should be subject to all of these provisions. I am suggesting, however, that these provisions should be reconsidered.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will have more to say about this. I think it is very important to understand that traditionally when we get legislation, we ask who are the beneficiaries and who will pay the price for the legislation. We balance those various factors. Quite frankly, when we look at this legislation, the people who will bear the hardship for the fact that there is some abuse in the bankruptcy laws--that we could all agree need attention and need to be addressed--are the most vulnerable in our society and are paying an extremely unfair price. That is absolutely wrong. We are going to have a good opportunity to address that in the debate to come. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Internet is transforming all aspects of our society, including health care. Web-based businesses, such as Internet pharmacies, can offer convenience and an opportunity for privacy for large numbers of consumers buying online. The Internet also creates opportunities, however, for scam artists and unprincipled suppliers to market contaminated, expired, ineffective, or counterfeit medications to unsuspecting patients. Today, these bad actors can easily prey on patients who turn to the Internet for easy access or low-priced medications. Clearly, effective oversight is needed to protect consumers using the Internet and root out illegal operators without interfering with legitimate Internet commerce. Americans are entitled to the same protections on the Internet that they enjoy in other commercial settings. So far, existing Federal and State laws have had only limited success in protecting consumers from unlawful Internet sellers of prescription medications. Today, some physicians issue prescriptions for patients they have never seen, let alone seriously examined. Patients can purchase prescription drugs on the Internet without adequate safeguards that the drugs are appropriate and of high quality. Because web sites can be easily created and designed, patients may think they have purchased their medications from a U.S.-licensed pharmacy when, in fact, they have not. The prescription drugs they receive may be sold out of someone's garage or from a country with few, if any, standards for manufacturing, storing or shipping these products. Several states and Federal agencies have taken enforcement actions against unlawful Internet sellers, but with limited results. While the number of legitimate Internet pharmacies remains small, the number of illegal sellers continues to grow. We must do more to protect patients when they buy prescription drugs online. Patients should have the same protections when purchasing their medications over the Internet as when buying from a ``bricks-and-mortar'' pharmacy. At a hearing on Internet pharmacies by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in March, state and Federal regulators asked the Committee for additional enforcement tools to combat illegal sales of prescription drugs over the Internet. The National Association of Attorneys General called for Federal legislation to require Internet entities that sell prescription medications to disclose information about their businesses, and to give the states the authority to stop illegal sales nationwide, rather than only within their own borders. At a hearing by the House Commerce Committee in May, the Department of Justice asked for authority to freeze domestic assets of illegal foreign web sites. The Internet Prescription Drug Consumer Protection Act of 2000, which Senators Jeffords, Dodd, and I are introducing today, gives these needed tools to federal and state law enforcement officials to protect the public from those who sell prescription drugs illegally on the Internet. A companion bill is being introduced by Congressmen Bliley, Klink, and Upton in the House, and I commend Congressman Klink in particular for his leadership and guidance on this issue. Today's consumer protection laws were enacted before the development of the Internet. This legislation will fill the gaps in current law that permit these illegal sellers to evade prosecution. The bill is supported by the National Association of Attorneys General, the American Pharmaceutical Association, the American Society of Health- System Pharmacists, drugstore.com, and the National Consumers League. Our legislation recognizes that states need additional enforcement tools to take effective action against unlawful domestic Internet sellers, and Federal agencies need additional enforcement tools to take effective action against illegal foreign sellers. First, the Act requires Internet sellers of prescription drugs to disclose on their web sites and to the appropriate state licensing board their street address, telephone number, and states where they are licensed to sell their products. Consumers have a right to know with whom they are dealing on the Internet, just as they do when they walk into their local pharmacy. Second, the bill authorizes a state to go to federal court to obtain a nationwide injunction against an unlawful Internet seller. Currently, a state can stop an illegal web site operator from selling drugs to citizens in its state, but the illegal operator is free to sell in the other 49 states. For many illegal sellers, the risk of a state injunction is merely a cost of doing business. Under this legislation, illegal sellers will be out of business altogether. The Federal Government has little authority to bring criminals in other countries to justice. However, it can freeze the U.S. assets of foreign sellers if given the proper authority. This legislation gives the Department of Justice the ability to stop illegal foreign operators from collecting payments from U.S. customers. If they can't turn a profit, they'll stop selling. As electronic commerce evolves, cooperative multinational efforts will be needed to assure adequate protections for consumers. Our proposal lays the foundation to achieve this goal. It requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make recommendations to Congress for coordinating activities of the federal government with those of other countries to curb illegal Internet sales from abroad. Consumers also have an important role to play. Informed purchasers are well prepared to avoid illegal web sites. This legislation requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to educate the public about the potential dangers of buying medications online and about effective public and private sector consumer protections. This legislation is an important step toward making medications online a safe purchase for consumers. I look forward to working with my colleagues to expedite its passage. I ask that a summary of the bill and letters of support for it be printed in the Record. The materials follow. Internet Prescription Drug Consumer Protection Act of 2000: Summary Use of the Internet to buy prescription medications is growing rapidly, and many consumers can benefit from the convenience and potential privacy of this new option. Unfortunately, illegitimate sellers threaten patient safety in this quickly evolving environment. Many of these operations are fly-by-night or foreign businesses that easily evade prosecution. Consumers who buy prescription drugs from such web sites can be harmed from inappropriately prescribed medications, dangerous drug interactions, and contaminated drugs. Consumers may also be defrauded by paying money but never receiving the medications they ordered or receiving ineffective or counterfeit drugs. Because today's laws were enacted before the development of the Internet, there are gaps in current law that leave consumers vulnerable to unscrupulous business practices. This bill addresses these deficiencies by providing federal and state law enforcement authorities with the tools they need to adequately protect the public when buying medications online.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Internet is transforming all aspects of our society, including health care. Web-based businesses, such as Internet pharmacies, can offer convenience and an opportunity for privacy for large numbers of consumers buying online. The Internet also creates opportunities, however, for scam artists and unprincipled suppliers to market contaminated, expired, ineffective, or counterfeit medications to unsuspecting patients. Today, these bad actors can easily prey on patients who turn to the Internet for easy access or low-priced medications. Clearly, effective oversight is needed to protect consumers using the Internet and root out illegal operators without interfering with legitimate Internet commerce. Americans are entitled to the same protections on the Internet that they enjoy in other commercial settings. So far, existing Federal and State laws have had only limited success in protecting consumers from unlawful Internet sellers of prescription medications. Today, some physicians issue prescriptions for patients they have never seen, let alone seriously examined. Patients can purchase prescription drugs on the Internet without adequate safeguards that the drugs are appropriate and of high quality. Because web sites can be easily created and designed, patients may think they have purchased their medications from a U.S.-licensed pharmacy when, in fact, they have not. The prescription drugs they receive may be sold out of someone's garage or from a country with few, if any, standards for manufacturing, storing or shipping these products. Several states and Federal agencies have taken enforcement actions against unlawful Internet sellers, but with limited results. While the number of legitimate Internet pharmacies remains small, the number of illegal sellers continues to grow. We must do more to protect patients when they buy prescription drugs online. Patients should have the same protections when purchasing their medications over the Internet as when buying from a ``bricks-and-mortar'' pharmacy. At a hearing on Internet pharmacies by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in March, state and Federal regulators asked the Committee for additional enforcement tools to combat illegal sales of prescription drugs over the Internet. The National Association of Attorneys General called for Federal legislation to require Internet entities that sell prescription medications to disclose information about their businesses, and to give the states the authority to stop illegal sales nationwide, rather than only within their own borders. At a hearing by the House Commerce Committee in May, the Department of Justice asked for authority to freeze domestic assets of illegal foreign web sites. The Internet Prescription Drug Consumer Protection Act of 2000, which Senators Jeffords, Dodd, and I are introducing today, gives these needed tools to federal and state law enforcement officials to protect the public from those who sell prescription drugs illegally on the Internet. A companion bill is being introduced by Congressmen Bliley, Klink, and Upton in the House, and I commend Congressman Klink in particular for his leadership and guidance on this issue. Today's consumer protection laws were enacted before the development of the Internet. This legislation will fill the gaps in current law that permit these illegal sellers to evade prosecution. The bill is supported by the National Association of Attorneys General, the American Pharmaceutical Association, the American Society of Health- System Pharmacists, drugstore.com, and the National Consumers League. Our legislation recognizes that states need additional enforcement tools to take effective action against unlawful domestic Internet sellers, and Federal agencies need additional enforcement tools to take effective action against illegal foreign sellers. First, the Act requires Internet sellers of prescription drugs to disclose on their web sites and to the appropriate state licensing board their street address, telephone number, and states where they are licensed to sell their products. Consumers have a right to know with whom they are dealing on the Internet, just as they do when they walk into their local pharmacy. Second, the bill authorizes a state to go to federal court to obtain a nationwide injunction against an unlawful Internet seller. Currently, a state can stop an illegal web site operator from selling drugs to citizens in its state, but the illegal operator is free to sell in the other 49 states. For many illegal sellers, the risk of a state injunction is merely a cost of doing business. Under this legislation, illegal sellers will be out of business altogether. The Federal Government has little authority to bring criminals in other countries to justice. However, it can freeze the U.S. assets of foreign sellers if given the proper authority. This legislation gives the Department of Justice the ability to stop illegal foreign operators from collecting payments from U.S. customers. If they can't turn a profit, they'll stop selling. As electronic commerce evolves, cooperative multinational efforts will be needed to assure adequate protections for consumers. Our proposal lays the foundation to achieve this goal. It requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make recommendations to Congress for coordinating activities of the federal government with those of other countries to curb illegal Internet sales from abroad. Consumers also have an important role to play. Informed purchasers are well prepared to avoid illegal web sites. This legislation requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to educate the public about the potential dangers of buying medications online and about effective public and private sector consumer protections. This legislation is an important step toward making medications online a safe purchase for consumers. I look forward to working with my colleagues to expedite its passage. I ask that a summary of the bill and letters of support for it be printed in the Record. The materials follow. Internet Prescription Drug Consumer Protection Act of 2000: Summary Use of the Internet to buy prescription medications is growing rapidly, and many consumers can benefit from the convenience and potential privacy of this new option. Unfortunately, illegitimate sellers threaten patient safety in this quickly evolving environment. Many of these operations are fly-by-night or foreign businesses that easily evade prosecution. Consumers who buy prescription drugs from such web sites can be harmed from inappropriately prescribed medications, dangerous drug interactions, and contaminated drugs. Consumers may also be defrauded by paying money but never receiving the medications they ordered or receiving ineffective or counterfeit drugs. Because today's laws were enacted before the development of the Internet, there are gaps in current law that leave consumers vulnerable to unscrupulous business practices. This bill addresses these deficiencies by providing federal and state law enforcement authorities with the tools they need to adequately protect the public when buying medications online.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first, I would like to say that the attack on the U.S.S. Cole is a tragedy for the nation. My thoughts are with the families and loved ones of the sailors who lost their lives, and I pray for the full recovery of those who were injured. I also urge an immediate investigation of this brutal terrorist act against our country in order to identify the terrorists and their backers and bring them to justice as soon as possible. I support the conference report to the Fiscal Year 2001 Defense Authorization Bill. It represents major progress in our commitment to defending our country and caring for the dedicated men and women who serve so well in our armed forces. I commend my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee for their skillful work in producing this consensus and bipartisan conference report. We have made worthwhile progress on many important issues affecting our armed forces. The nation owes a special debt to the men and women of the armed forces for their unwavering commitment to our country and their excellent performance in the challenges they faced in this past year. They stand in harm's way. They have helped end the aggression in Kosovo, enforced the peace in Iraq, and helped provide the foundation for a free and independent nation in East Timor. The contributions of our armed forces in those conflicts captured headlines, but it is important to recognize that our service members are preparing for and responding to a variety of contingencies. From defending the United States and our allies to participating in peacekeeping missions, to conducting counter-drug operations, to providing humanitarian assistance, the members of our armed forces today are prepared to carry out a wide range of duties in an efficient and professional manner. This conference report includes a number of important provisions that demonstrate the commitment by Congress to improving the quality of life of those serving our country today as well as those who have completed their service in the past. For those currently serving, the conference report includes a 3.7 percent pay raise, a full half-percent above the rate of inflation. Our commitment is not only to the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who defend our country but also to their families. The conference report authorizes the construction of new housing for 2,900 families. For families who live off-base, we have taken steps to meet our goal of reducing out-of-pocket housing expenses to zero within five years. The conference report helps to make the armed forces a more attractive career by implementing a program to allow active and reserve service members to enroll in the Thrift Savings Program, encouraging them to plan and save for their retirement. One of the most important accomplishments in this legislation is a prescription drug benefit for military retirees, their spouses and widows. It is a long overdue step toward making good on the Nation's promise to provide career personnel with lifetime health benefits. And we intend to continue the on-going effort to provide all retirees with affordable, comprehensive prescription drug coverage through Medicare. When we first considered the DOD authorization bill earlier this year, Senator Snowe and I drafted a proposal to create a comprehensive drug benefit. We worked closely with Chairman Warner and others to make coverage of prescription drugs a priority in this legislation. I am pleased that our legislation prevailed and was expanded in the conference. It is now clear to all that Congress has heard and heeded the needs of our military retirees, and addressed their number one priority--the cost of prescription drugs. As a result of our efforts, nearly 1.4 million Medicare-eligible military retirees and their spouses and widows--including more than 21,500 in Massachusetts--will have access to affordable prescription drugs, effective upon enactment. Under this legislation, military retirees will receive a retail and mail-order pharmacy benefit. Almost one-third of them--450,000--already have this benefit under the base closing agreement. The bill provides a 90-day supply of prescription drugs by mail for an $8 co-payment, or a 30-day supply of prescription drugs from a retail pharmacy for a 20 percent co-payment. There are no deductibles, and no additional premiums. Military retirees and their spouses and widows will receive the prescription drugs that their doctors prescribe. It is a generous benefit for those who have given so generously to the country during their working years. The legislation also assures comprehensive Medicare supplemental coverage through TRICARE. Together, these new benefits assure health security in retirement for those who have served in the armed forces. These benefits send a strong message to all men and women in uniform that we care about their service. It lets military retirees know that Congress listens, cares, and will act on their behalf. Despite success here today for military retirees, we must not forget the millions of other senior citizens who need help with prescription drugs, too. It's long past time for Congress to mend the broken promise of Medicare. Medicare is a compact between the government and America's senior and disabled citizens. It says work hard and pay in during your working years, and you will receive health coverage in your retirement years. But every day that promise is broken, because Medicare does not cover prescription drugs. It is time for Congress to make good on that promise, too. When Medicare was enacted in 1965, only three percent of private insurance policies offered prescription drug coverage. Today, virtually all private health insurance policies provide prescription drug coverage. Up to 20 million elderly and disabled Medicare beneficiaries--one- half of the total--have no prescription drug coverage throughout the year. Almost 14 million have never had drug coverage. Those who have coverage find that too often it is unreliable, inadequate or unaffordable. In fact, the only senior citizens who have stable, secure, affordable drug coverage today are the very poor, who are on Medicaid. The idea that only the impoverished elderly should qualify for needed hospital and doctor care was rejected when Medicare was enacted. Governor Bush and Congressional Republicans say they want to subsidize prescription drugs for the poor. But senior citizens deserve Medicare, not welfare. Too many seniors today must choose between food on the table and the medicine they need to stay healthy or to treat their illnesses. Too many seniors take half the pills their doctor prescribes--or don't even fill needed prescriptions--because they cannot afford the high cost of prescription drugs. Too many seniors are ending up hospitalized--at immense cost to Medicare--because they aren't receiving the drugs they need at all, or cannot afford to take them correctly. Pharmaceutical products are increasingly the source of miracle cures for a host of dread diseases. In 1998 alone, private industry spent more than $21 billion in research on new medicines and to bring them to the public. Congress is well on its way to doubling the budget for the National Institutes of Health. The miracle drugs developed by these public and private sectors investments save lives--and they save dollars too, by preventing unnecessary hospitalization and expensive surgery. But millions of Medicare beneficiaries are left out and left behind from the benefits of 21st century medicine because they cannot afford the price of admission. Elderly Americans need and deserve prescription drug coverage under Medicare. Any senior citizen will tell you that--and so will their children and grandchildren. It is time to make the needs of all seniors a priority as well. As a party, Republicans have always disliked Medicare. It was one of the first votes I cast when I came to the Senate, and it's still one of the best votes I've ever cast. Senator Bob Dole, however, once boasted that he voted against Medicare's enactment, and never liked it. According to historian Robert Dallek, Ronald Reagan saw Medicare as the advance wave of socialism that would ``invade every area of freedom in this country.'' House Majority Leader Dick Armey has said that it's a program he would ``have no part of in a free world.'' Newt Gingrich wanted Medicare to ``wither on the vine'' in the GOP effort he led to privatize Medicare and reduce its funding in order to pay for tax breaks for the rich. In contrast, under the leadership of the Clinton-Gore Administration, Medicare's financial outlook is the healthiest it has ever been. According to the most recent Trustee's Report, the Medicare Trust Fund will remain solvent for the next quarter century. Democrats want a universal, voluntary prescription drug benefit under Medicare. All beneficiaries would be eligible for affordable coverage within one year of enactment. In contrast, George Bush passes the buck to the states and private insurance companies. His flawed two-part program would force seniors to wait too long and do too little for too few. Phase One of the Bush plan would be a state block grant program similar to one of the proposals by Senator Roth. Eligibility is limited to senior citizens whose incomes are below $14,600--which leaves 70 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries with no coverage. Senior citizens want Medicare, not welfare. They have spent their working years building our country, and they should not have to beg for prescription drugs in their golden years. It would take years to implement the Bush block grant program. Last February, the National Governors Association unanimously rejected this approach in a resolution that said, ``If Congress decides to expand prescription drug coverage to seniors, it should not shift that responsibility . . . to the states.'' States should not be asked to pick up the slack for Congress' failure to fill Medicare's biggest gap. Phase Two of the Bush plan picks up where Newt Gingrich left off. Under the guise of Medicare ``reform,'' the Bush proposal relies on private insurance companies to provide Medicare benefits. Prescription drug coverage under phase two would not start until 2004. It is contingent on passage by Congress of broad Medicare changes that would create a ``premium support'' program, which would eliminate the government's obligation to contribute 75 percent of the premium for individuals enrolling in Medicare. A similar plan was estimated to raise premiums for the elderly in traditional Medicare by up to 47 percent in the first year. Bush claims that the elderly could keep their current Medicare, but many would be forced to join HMOs, because conventional Medicare would quickly become unaffordable. The Bush plan will turn many senior citizens over to the tender mercy of the private insurance industry, and force them to give up their doctors and join HMOs to have access to an affordable drug benefit. In addition, under Governor Bush's plan, the government would subsidize only 25 percent of an undetermined premium that could vary drastically from state to state. Never in the history of Medicare have senior citizens been asked to pay such a high proportion of the cost of any benefit. According to CBO estimates for a similar plan, the Bush proposal costs so much and provides so little that it is unlikely to help even half of the senior citizens who are currently without drug coverage. The ongoing revolution in health care makes prescription drug coverage more essential now than ever. Coverage of prescription drugs under Medicare is as essential today as was coverage of hospital and doctor care in 1965, when Medicare was enacted. Senior citizens need that help--and they need it now. So I say to my colleagues--while we are making good on broken promises, it's long past time to cover prescription drugs under Medicare for all elderly Americans. If we can cover military retirees, we can cover other senior citizens too. Another major achievement in this bill is the inclusion of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act, a gratifying breakthrough for basic fairness. These workers deserve this compensation, and it is decades overdue. As we now know, the nuclear build-up in the Cold War years exposed many hard-working, patriotic employees in the nation's defense plants to dangerous radioactive and chemical materials at far greater levels than employers were willing to admit. Many of these workers now suffer from debilitating and fatal illnesses directly related to that exposure. For too long, the government shamefully ignored the plight of these workers and failed to accept responsibility for it. I commend Secretary of Energy Richardson for his leadership in bringing this issue to light and dealing so effectively with this tragic chapter in our recent history. I also commend Senators Thompson, Bingaman, Voinovich, McConnell, DeWine, and Bunning for their leadership and persistence in achieving this bipartisan compromise. This workers' compensation program is based on sound science and traditional principles of workers' compensation. It is designed to make the claimants whole by paying medical benefits and compensating them for lost income due to death or disability that resulted from work for the federal government or one of its contractors. I supported giving workers the option of choosing to receive their actual lost wages, instead of a lump sum payment, and I am disappointed that the House Republicans refused to include this provision in the final bill. Despite this oversight, this new program is a substantial victory for these energy workers. They made great sacrifices for our country during the Cold War, and they have already waited too long for this relief. Another important provision in the conference agreement is a new GAO study of the effectiveness of existing disability programs in the military health system in meeting the needs of disabled dependents. Too often, active military personnel are forced to turn to Medicaid as the only way they can get good health care for their disabled child--even though there are programs authorized under the military health system to assist disabled dependents. In some cases, choosing Medicaid makes it impossible for active duty parents to accept a military promotion-- because they would earn too much money for their child to qualify for Medicaid. It is time to overhaul these programs and make them more effective, so that no military personnel have to impoverish themselves and their family in order to obtain needed health care for their disabled children. I am pleased that this legislation also includes a provision that at long last lifts the unfair stain placed on Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and General Walter C. Short in the wake of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Admiral Kimmel and General Short were the Navy and Army commanders at the time of that attack. Despite loyal and distinguished service, they were unfairly scapegoated for the nation's lack of preparation for that attack and the catastrophe that took place. They were the only two officers eligible for advancement under the 1947 Officer Personnel Act who did not receive advancement when they retired. The provision in this bill asks the President to advance them posthumously, so that now, at this late date, these two men will finally be treated fairly like their peers. This provision moves us another step forward on the path of justice and equality, and I am delighted by its inclusion. Although the conference report makes progress on many issues, I am very disappointed that this legislation fails to take strong and needed action on the important issue of hate crimes. Earlier this year, with the support of a broad group of law enforcement organizations, civil rights groups, and community and religious organizations, strong, bipartisan majorities in both the Senate and the House voted to include a needed anti-hate crimes provision in the defense authorization bill. By stripping the hate crimes provision from the bill in the conference, the Republican leadership has callously ignored these votes and the clear will of Congress. On hate crimes, the Republican leadership has failed the leadership test and turned its back on the need to protect all our citizens from bigotry and prejudice. Hate crimes are a national disgrace--an attack on everything this country stands for. They send a poisonous message that some Americans are second class citizens who deserve to be victimized solely because of their race, their ethnic background, their religion, their sexual orientation, their gender or their disability. For too long, the federal government has been forced to stand on the sidelines in the fight against these senseless acts of hate and violence. If America is to live up to its founding ideals of liberty and justice for all, combating hate crimes must be a national priority. If the national outcry is loud enough, we still have a chance to act on this issue in the remaining days of this Congress. We also have a responsibility to address the problem of unexploded ordinance on active and formerly live-fire training facilities. On the Massachusetts Military Reservation, UXO poses a contamination threat to the soil and groundwater in the area. It is time to take action on this problem now, before it causes tragic and irreparable harm to the environment and the people who live in the area. The conference report authorizes $8 million to develop and test new technologies to detect UXO and map the presence of their contaminants. While this is a good step, it cannot be the last step. The Department of Defense should take on the task of removing UXO from current and former training facilities. This step would ensure the continued operation of live-fire ranges and make former ranges safe for their communities and future reuse. In addition, we must deal with the new generation of threats faced by our service members and the American public at large. As we enter the 21st century, our country is faced with new challenges from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the risk of terrorist attacks both at home and abroad, and cyber-warfare. This legislation takes steps to protect us from each of these dangers. The conference report authorizes the creation of five additional Civil Support Teams, comprised of National Guard personnel specially trained to detect and respond to the suspected use of chemical, biological, radiological, or other weapons of mass destruction against cities and people. Strong support is given to threat reduction programs to continue work with the nations of the former Soviet Union to reduce the dangers of proliferation. These steps include an additional $25 million above the President's request to eliminate strategic nuclear weapons in Russia. The number of cyber-attacks against the Department of Defense increased dramatically last year, totaling 22,000 raids on DOD computer systems. With computers being an essential part of the command, control, communications and intelligence functions of our armed services, it is easy to see how disruptive these attacks, if successful, could be. The conference report recognizes the seriousness of this threat and creates an Institute for Defense Computer Security and Information Protection to ensure our military can protect itself from this type of threat. The Seapower Subcommittee, under the leadership of our distinguished chair, Senator Snowe, heard testimony over the past year on concerns about the Navy's force structure, shipbuilding rate, and the readiness of our fleet. The conference report supports the Secretary of the Navy's decision to increase research and development on DD-21 to begin the next generation of our destroyer fleet, and asks the Navy to report on the feasibility of receiving delivery of this advanced ship by 2009. But many of us are concerned about the delays that the program has already faced, as well as the effects of the delays on the fire-support requirements of the Marine Corps and on our country's shipbuilding industrial base. The conference report authorizes the extension of the DDG-51 multi- year procurement through fiscal year 2005. The extension of this procurement will ease the strain placed on many of our shipyards, and could raise the Navy's overall shipbuilding rate to an acceptable level of nine ships for each of those years. This provision is good for the taxpayer as well, as it can save the American public almost $600 million compared to building these ships at a slower rate. In closing, this legislation makes progress on many of the serious challenges facing our armed services, and makes important commitments to those in uniform and those who have retired from the services. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to approve the conference report.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I greatly appreciate the absolutely splendid presentation by my friend and colleague, Senator Wellstone. I agree with him on so many issues. His statement today was one of his very best. We can certainly understand the extraordinary work he has done, along with Senator Brownback and others, to make sure this legislation is considered. All of us will forever be grateful to him for his leadership in this extremely important area. I certainly am. I thank him for an absolutely splendid presentation. Mr. President, I'm pleased that the Senate is finally about to pass the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act. The current authorization for the Act expired on September 30, and it has taken far too long to bring this important extension to the Senate floor. A woman is beaten every 15 seconds as a result of domestic violence. Every year, one-third of the women who are murdered are killed by their husbands or partners, and approximately one million women are stalked. Conservative estimates indicate that 60 percent of disabled women, up to 25 percent of pregnant women, and 1 out of 25 elderly people have suffered domestic violence. This isn't a problem that only affects adults. Each year, 3.3 million children are exposed to domestic violence. In homes where abuse of women occurs, children are 1,500 times more likely to be abused as well. Whether they witness the violence or are actually assaulted by the abuser, many children learn shocking behavior from adults. 12 percent of high school dating couples have suffered abuse in their relationships, and often these teenagers are themselves victims of abuse at home. Eighteen year-old Tanyaliz Torres and her mother were stabbed to death by her father in Springfield, Massachusetts. Fifty-eight-year-old Mabel Greineder of Wellesley, Massachusetts was stabbed and bludgeoned to death by her husband. From October 1999 through September 2000, 24 Massachusetts women and children were killed as a result of domestic violence. It is a national epidemic that touches every community in the country. The Violence Against Women Act was enacted in 1994 to address this problem and provide greater safety and peace of mind for millions of women and their families. The act creates a partnership between the public sector and the private sector at every level--Federal, State, and local. Its goal is to establish a safety net of new programs and policies, including community-based services for victims, a National Domestic Violence Hotline, needed technological assistance, and larger numbers of well-trained law enforcement officers and prosecutors. The national Hotline gives women across the country immediate access to the help they need. Since its initiation in 1996, it has received over 500,000 calls. When a Spanish-speaking woman in Arizona needed shelter for herself and her three children, the Hotline called a shelter in Phoenix, found a Spanish-speaking counselor, and gave the caller the counselor's name and directions to the shelter. In the countless cases, the Hotline is an invaluable resource, and we must do all we can to support it. In Massachusetts, $20 million under the Violence Against Women Act has been awarded to advocacy organizations, law enforcement personnel, and State and local governments. The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head received funding to develop and strengthen tribal justice strategies to remedy violent crimes against Indian women and to develop and strengthen services for victims. The act also supports HarborCOV--Harbor Communities Overcoming Violence--a Massachusetts program serving Chelsea and Greater Boston. In addition to its core services, HarborCOV has an economic development component which helps survivors move from welfare to work. Employment training and employment referrals are also provided to help domestic violence victims find jobs. The reauthorization will ensure that support for these programs and others will continue. It also includes important new measures, such as transitional housing assistance and a $175 million authorization for shelters, which will be significant additional tools in the battle against domestic violence. One of the most important provisions in the bill is the Battered Immigrant Protection Act. This provision helps battered immigrants by restoring access to a variety of legal protections undermined by the 1996 immigration laws. The Violence Against Women Act passed in 1994 included provisions that allowed battered immigrants to apply for legal status without the cooperation of their abusers, and enabled victims to seek protective orders and cooperate with law enforcement officials to prosecute crimes of domestic violence. Unfortunately, the subsequent changes in immigration laws have reduced access to those protections. Thousands of battered immigrants are again being forced to remain in abusive relationships, out of fear of being deported or losing their children. The pending bill removes obstacles currently hindering the ability of battered immigrants to escape domestic violence safely and prosecute their abusers. It restores and expands vital legal protections like 245(i) relief. This provision will assist battered immigrants, like Donna, who have been in legal limbo since the passage of the 1996 immigration laws. Donna, a national of Ethiopia, fled to the U.S. in 1992 after her father, a member of a prominent political party, was murdered. In 1994, Donna met Saul, a lawful permanent resident and native of Ethiopia. They married and moved to Saul's home in Massachusetts. Two years later, Saul began drinking heavily and gradually became physically and verbally abusive. The abuse escalated and Donna was forced to flee from their home. She moved in with close family friends who helped her seek counseling. She also filed a petition for permanent residence under the provisions of the Violence Against Women Act. Unfortunately, with the elimination of 245(i), the only way for Donna to obtain her green card is to return to Ethiopia, the country where her father was murdered. The possibility of returning there terrifies her. This legislation will enable her to obtain her green card here, where she has the support and protection of family and access to the domestic violence counseling she needs. Under this act, battered immigrants will also have up to one year from the entry of an order of removal to file motions to reopen prior deportation orders. The Attorney General may waive the one year deadline on the basis of extraordinary circumstances or hardship to the battered immigrant's child. This Act will also expand remedies for battered immigrants living abroad with spouses and parents serving in the United States military or other federal positions. Current law only allows battered immigrants residing in the United States to request this relief. This bill will make it easier for these immigrants and their children to escape abusive relationships and obtain the help they deserve. The legislation also grants the Attorney General the discretion to waive certain bars to immigration relief for qualified applicants. For example, battered immigrant women acting in self-defense are often convicted of domestic violence crimes. Under the 1996 immigration law, they became deportable and are denied relief under the Violence Against Women Act. The Attorney General will be able to use the waiver authority to help battered immigrants who otherwise qualify for relief. Also, recently divorced battered immigrants will be able to file self-petitions. Current law allows only battered immigrant women currently married to their abusive spouses to qualify for relief. As a result, many abusers have successfully rushed to the court house to obtain divorces, in order to deny relief to their immigrant spouse. This provision will prevent this unfair result and ensure that victims are not wrongly deprived of the legal protection they need. These and other important measures will do a great deal to protect battered immigrants and their children from domestic violence and free them from the fear that often prevents them from prosecuting these crimes. Congress enacted the Violence Against Women Act in 1994 to help all victims of domestic violence, regardless of their citizenship. It is long past time to restore and expand these protections. I am also pleased that the legislation includes authorization for increased funds for the National Domestic Violence Hotline. Consistent with last year's funding, the bill authorizes $2 million a year for the hotline and ensures that the Hotline will be an effective source of assistance, providing vital services to women, children, and their families. A second, equally important part of the bill we are considering today is the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which condemns and combats the trafficking of persons into forced prostitution or forced labor, a practice that is tantamount to modern day slavery. Enactment of this legislation will strengthen laws that punish traffickers and ensure protection for their victims--most of whom are women and children. One of the most important of these provisions expands assistance and protection to victims of severe forms of trafficking, ensuring that they receive appropriate shelter and care, and are able to remain in the United States to assist in the prosecution of traffickers. Relief from deportation is also critical for victims who could face retribution or other hardship if removed from the United States. Sara, a native of Sri Lanka, was promised a lucrative job as a housekeeper. Upon arrival in the U.S., Sara was virtually imprisoned in her employer's Massachusetts home, and subjected to physical and sexual assault. She bore three children as a result of rape. After 5 years of living in captivity and isolation, she was finally able to escape. This legislation will provide persons like Sara with the protection and rights they need to assist in the prosecution of these despicable crimes. Finally, this legislation also includes an important provision to provide compensatory damages to Frank Reed and other American citizens who were victims of Iranian terrorism. In 1986, Frank Reed, of Malden, MA, was kidnapped in Lebanon. At the time, he was a private citizen and president of the Lebanese International School. During his 44-month captivity, he was blindfolded, chained, tortured, and held in solitary confinement for 2 years. His captors periodically fed him arsenic, from which his health still suffers. In 1990, he was released to Syrian Army intelligence officers in Beirut, who took him to the U.S. Embassy in Damascus. I met him when he returned to the United States after his tragic and traumatic ordeal. A U.S. judge ordered the Iranian Government to provide Frank Reed and his wife with $26 million in compensatory damages, but the Government has refused to comply. Under the legislation we are approving today, the U.S. Government will provide the funding. The amount will be recovered in turn by the U.S. Government from the Iranian Government through a Foreign Military Sales Account that holds $400 million. Frank Reed suffered immensely at the hands of his brutal captors, and so did his family, and he deserves this compensation. I strongly support the Violence Against Women Act of 2000, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, and the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act. This legislation will ensure that we are doing much more to protect women from violence and abuse, and it deserves to be enacted as soon as possible.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last week, the Census Bureau released new figures on the number of the uninsured. Thanks to a prosperous economy and the Children's Health Insurance Program, the number of the uninsured declined for the first time in more than a decade. But that decline was small, and it is no cause for complacency. The number of uninsured is still far too high--43 million Americans have no insurance coverage--and any weakening in the economy is likely to send the number higher again. It's a national disgrace that so many Americans find the quality of their health determined by the quantity of their wealth. In this age of the life sciences, the importance of good medical care in curing disease and improving and extending life is more significant than ever, and denying any family the health care they need is unacceptable. Earlier this year, along with a number of my colleagues in the House and Senate, I introduced bipartisan legislation to extend the Child Health Insurance Program to include the parents of participating children and to increase the enrollment of eligible children in Medicaid and CHIP. It received a majority vote in the Senate, but it was defeated on a procedural motion. I hope that we will be able to pass it promptly next year, as an initial effective step to reduce the number of the uninsured. Today, I am introducing an additional measure. The Basic Access to Secure Insurance Coverage Health plan--or BASIC Health plan. Congressman John Dingell is introducing a companion measure in the House. Our proposal uses the model of the Child Health Insurance Program to make subsidized coverage available--through private insurance or Medicaid--to all Americans with incomes below 300 percent of poverty--$25,000 a year for an individual and $42,000 a year for a family of three. Almost three-quarters of the uninsured are in this income range. Our plan also includes innovative steps to encourage current and newly eligible individuals and families to enroll. It is a major step toward the day when access to affordable health care will be a reality for all Americans, and I hope it will be enacted as well next year. The need for BASIC is clear. One of our highest national priorities for the new century must be to make good health care a reality for all our people. Every other industrialized society in the world except South Africa achieved that goal in the 20th century--and under Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki, South Africa has taken giant steps toward universal health care today. But in our country, the law of the jungle still too often prevails. Forty-three million of our fellow citizens are left out and left behind when it comes to health insurance. The dishonor roll of suffering created by this national problem is a long one. Children fail to get a healthy start in life because their parents cannot afford the eyeglasses or hearing aids or doctors visits they need. A young family loses its chance to participate in the American dream, when a breadwinner is crippled or killed because of lack of timely access to medical care. A teenager is condemned to go without a college education because the family's income and energy are sucked away by the high financial and emotional cost of uninsured illness. An older couple sees its hope for a dignified retirement dashed when the savings of a lifetime are washed away by a tidal wave of medical debt. Even in this time of unprecedented prosperity, more than 200,000 Americans annually file for bankruptcy because of uninsured medical costs. And the human costs of being uninsured are often just as devastating. In any given year, one-third of the uninsured go without needed medical care. Eight million uninsured Americans fail to take the medication that their doctor prescribes, because they cannot afford to fill the prescription. Four hundred thousand children suffer from asthma but never see a doctor. Five hundred thousand children with recurrent earaches never see a doctor. Another five hundred thousand children with severe sore throats never see a doctor. Thirty-two thousand Americans with heart disease go without life- saving and life-enhancing bypass surgery or angioplasty--because they are uninsured. Twenty-seven thousand uninsured women are diagnosed with breast cancer each year. They are twice as likely as insured women not to receive medical treatment before their cancer has already spread to other parts of their bodies. As a result, they are 50 percent more likely to die of the disease. Overall, eighty-three thousand Americans die each year because they have no insurance. The lack of insurance is the seventh leading cause of death in America today. Our failure to provide health insurance for every citizen kills more people than kidney disease, liver disease, and AIDS combined. Today our opportunity to finally end these millions of American tragedies is greater than ever before. Our prosperous economy gives us large new resources to invest in meeting this critical need. Recently, some Republicans in Congress have finally joined Democrats in urging our country to meet the challenge of providing health coverage to the 43 million Americans who are uninsured. The BASIC plan can be a bridge for both Republicans and Democrats to come together. It is based on the model of the Child Health Insurance Program, which enjoys broad bi-partisan support in every state in the country. It emphasizes a Federal-State partnership to make care accessible and affordable. Insurance is provided primarily through the private sector, but without employer mandates. The BASIC plan is designed to supplement, not replace, the current employment-based system of health care. It will also build on Medicaid, which effectively serves so many of the very poor, the working poor, the disabled, and people with AIDS. Federal subsidies under BASIC will be targeted to those without insurance today. We should not disrupt the health coverage that 161 million Americans now receive through their employers. It makes no sense to encourage those who already have reliable employer-based health insurance to turn instead to a new government-subsidized program. The cost to taxpayers would balloon needlessly, and force us to reduce benefits in order to cut costs. The proposal builds on and expands proven programs that are already in place. States will provide coverage under Medicaid for all very low income people, consistent with the mandate that already exists in federal law to provide Medicaid coverage for all children with family incomes below 100 percent of poverty. Medicaid's broad benefits and minimal cost-sharing are ideal for very low income people, because they cannot afford to contribute significantly to the cost of their own care. For low and moderate income individuals and families, the plan follows the CHIP model. States will have the choice of providing coverage through Medicaid or contracting with private insurance companies to offer subsidized coverage to those eligible to participate. The state would pay the insurance company a premium for each individual enrolled. For higher income enrollees, the individual would make a premium contribution as well. One-third of all the uninsured today are poor, and almost three- quarters of the uninsured have incomes below 300 percent of poverty. A program of subsidies targeted on these low and moderate income Americans will put affordable health insurance within reach of the vast majority of the uninsured. One of the biggest problems we face in expanding health insurance coverage through such a program is assuring that those who are eligible actually participate. We have learned a great deal from the experience under CHIP on how to achieve this objective. We know that simple, mail- in forms are important. We know that public information campaigns and the involvement of community-based organizations can be valuable. We know that programs with presumptive eligibility are effective--so that people can be signed up right away, without waiting until the eligibility verification process has been completed. We know that enrolling people for a year at a time without subjecting them to reapplications or reverification of income more often than once a year is critical. Through steps like these, we can see that the uninsured are not only eligible for the program but actually participate in it, so that they actually have the financial protection and access to timely medical care they need. The BASIC Health plan will not require employers to contribute to the cost of coverage. But it will require them to make the BASIC plan coverage available through the workplace, and forward the premiums of workers to the insurance company that the workers choose. This step is a minimum obligation that responsible employers should be willing to accept--and it can significantly increase the number of the uninsured who actually have coverage. Eighty-two percent of uninsured Americans today are workers or dependents of workers. Our message to all of them is that help is finally on the way. The cost of the BASIC place is an estimated $200 billion to $300 billion over the next ten years--approximately the cost of the prescription drug plans that many of us have proposed under Medicare. It's a substantial amount of the surplus, but as we know from the success of Medicare, few if any federal dollars are better spent. In sum, every child deserves a healthy start and life. Every family deserves protection against the high cost of illness. All Americans deserve timely access to quality, affordable health care. The American people want action. It is time for all of us to make the cause of health care for all a national priority. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the BASIC plan and a fact sheet on the problem of the uninsured be included in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to support the CARE Act Amendments of 2000. I commend the many Senators who worked hard and well on the issue of HIV and AIDS. Senator Jeffords and Senator Hatch have championed this issue since 1990 when the CARE Act was first proposed, and Senator Frist has been an impressive leader in recent years. Their leadership has and the leadership of many others has raised our collective conscience about the HIV/AIDS crisis. Our goal in this legislation is to ensure that citizens with HIV disease continue to receive the benefits of advances in therapies and a system of support that has achieved remarkable success in recent years. For 20 years, America has struggled with the devastation caused by HIV/AIDS. It is a virus that knows no color, religion, political affiliation, or income status. AIDS continues to kill brothers and sisters, children and parents, friends and loved ones--all in the prime of their lives. This epidemic knows no geographic boundaries and has no mercy on those it strikes. HIV/AIDS has become one of the greatest public health challenges of our times. The CARE Act has directed needed resources to accelerate research, develop effective therapies, and support the 900,000 persons and families living with HIV/AIDS in America, and it clearly deserves to be extended and expanded. AIDS has claimed over 420,000 lives so far in the United States and it continues to claim the most vulnerable among us, especially women, youth, and minorities. We have good reason to be encouraged by medical advances over the past ten years, but we still face an epidemic that kills over 47,000 people each year. Like other epidemics before it, AIDS is now hitting hardest in areas where knowledge about the disease is scarce and poverty is high. The epidemic has dealt a particularly severe blow on communities of color, which account for 73 percent of all new infections. Women account for 30 percent of new infections. Over half of new infections occur in persons under 25. An estimated 34 percent of AIDS cases in the U.S. occur in rural areas, and this percentage is growing. As the crisis continues year after year, it becomes increasingly difficult for anyone to claim that AIDS is someone else's problem. We all share in a very real way in being touched by the epidemic. Fortunately, we have been able to slow the progression of this devastating disease. Many people living with HIV and AIDS are alive today and leading longer and healthier lives. AIDS deaths declined by 20 percent between 1997 and 1998, thanks to advances in care and effective new treatments. The smallest increase in new AIDS cases--11 percent--took place in 1999, compared with an 18 percent increase in new cases just a year before. We are helping people earlier in their disease progression and keeping them healthier longer. Nevertheless, an estimated 30 percent of persons living with AIDS do not have insurance coverage to pay for costly treatments. As a result, heavy demands are placed on community-based organizations and state and local governments. For these Americans, the CARE Act Amendments of 2000 will continue to provide the only means to obtain the care and treatment they need. In Massachusetts, there has been a 77 percent decline in AIDS and HIV-related deaths since 1995. But the number of cases increased in women by 11 percent from 1997 to 1998. Fifty-five percent of persons living with AIDS in the state are persons of color. Massachusetts is fortunate to have a state budget that provides funding for primary care, prevention, and surveillance efforts. But no state is economically sufficient enough to provide the significant financial resources needed to enable all persons living with HIV disease to obtain the medical and supportive services they need without the Ryan White CARE Act. The CARE Act will continue to bring hope to the over 600,000 individuals it serves each year in dealing with this devastating disease. This reauthorization builds on past accomplishments, while recognizing the challenge of ensuring access drug treatment for all who need it, reducing health disparities in vulnerable populations, and improve the distribution and quality of services. Funds totaling $3.4 billion over the next five years will target the hardest hit 51 metropolitan areas in the country under Title I of the Act. Local planning and priority-setting under Title I assures that each of the eligible metropolitan areas responds to local HIV/AIDS needs. Safeguards are put in place to ensure that Title I areas are protected from drastic shifts in funding that can destabilize their HIV care infrastructure by limiting these losses to a maximum of 15 percent over its FY 2000 levels without compounded the effects of the loss from year to year. We also have assured EMAs the opportunity to reset the clock each time they find they do not need hold harmless protection in order to allow them the needed time and resources to plan prioritize, and redirect resources in response to major shifts that may occur in funding and in the local epidemic. Under Title II, $4.4 billion over the next five years will provide emergency relief to assist states in developing their HIV health care infrastructure. These funds will also provide life-sustaining drugs to over 61,000 persons each month. In addition, these funds will provide assistance for emerging communities that are increasingly affected by HIV/AIDS, but do not currently qualify for additional assistance, while assuring that base Title II funding losses do not occur in any fiscal year for any state or territory. Title III programs will receive $730 million during the five year period to assist over 200 local health centers and other primary health care providers in communities with a significant and disproportionate need for HIV care. Many of these communities are located in the hardest hit areas, serving low income communities. An additional $30 million in funds under Title III will provide planning and capacity development grants for hard-to-reach urban and rural communities. In Title IV, $2700 million over the next five years will be used to meet the specific needs of women, infants, youth, and families. An additional $42 million will assure that oral health care is available to persons with HIV/AIDS who are uninsured. One hundred and forty-one million dollars in funding over the five-year period will assure that we continue our investment in improving the skills of the healthcare workforce. In total, the CARE Act will authorize over $8.5 billion in funding to fight HIVS/AIDS over the next five years. I commend the dedication of the AIDS community and the Administration in working with Congress over the past year to bring forward the best possible legislation. I also commend Sean Donohue and William Fleming of Senator Jeffords' staff, Dave Larsen of Senator Frist's staff, and Stephanie Robinson and Idalia Sanchez of my staff for their effective work on this landmark legislation. The Senate's action today reaffirms our long-standing commitment to provide greater help to those with HIV/AIDS and to families touched by this devastating disease. America has the resources to win the battle against AIDS. We must face this disease with the same courage demonstrated by Ryan White, the young man with hemophilia who contracted AIDS through blood transfusions, and for whom the original act was named. Ryan White touched the world's heart through his valiant effort to speak out against the ignorance and discrimination faced by persons living with AIDS. This legislation carries on his brave work and I urge the Senate to approve it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am proud to be a co-sponsor of the Access to Books for Children Act, the ``ABC'' Act. I commend Senator Jeffords, Senator Dodd, and Senator Murray for their leadership on this legislation. Many successful programs are helping children learn to read well. But too often, the best programs are not available to all children. As a result, large numbers of children are denied the opportunity to learn to read well. 40 percent of 4th grade students do not reach the basic reading level, and 70 percent of 4th graders are not proficient in reading. Children who fail to acquire basic reading skills early in life are at a disadvantage throughout their education and later careers. They are more likely to drop out of school, and to be unemployed. This important grant will help many more children learn to read well--and learn to read well early--so that they have a greater chance for successful lives and careers. The programs authorized in the ABC Act complement the work already under way in Massachusetts and other states under the Reading Excellence Act and under the America Reads program. In 1996, President Clinton and the First Lady initiated a new effort to achieve greater national progress on child literacy by proposing their ``America Read Challenge.'' This worthwhile initiative encourages colleges and universities to use a portion of their Work-Study funds to support college students who serve as literacy tutors. Institutions of higher education across Massachusetts are already creating strong relationships with their surrounding communities, and participation in this initiative enhances those relationships. Today, over 1,400 colleges and universities are committed to the President's ``America Reads Work Study Program,'' and 74 of these institutions are in Massachusetts. The Reading Excellence Act was enacted in 1999 to provide competitive reading and literacy grants to states. States that receive funding then award competitive subgrants to school districts to support local reading improvement programs. The lowest-achieving and poorest schools will benefit the most. The program will help children learn to read in their early childhood years and through the 3rd grade using effective classroom instruction, high-quality family literacy programs, and early literacy intervention for children who have reading difficulties. Massachusetts is one of 17 states to receive funding under this competitive program. In addition to good instruction, children need to have reading materials outside of school--and even before they start school. They also need adults to read with them, so that they can develop a love of reading early in life. The ABC Act authorizes three programs to provide children from birth through high school age with low-cost or no-cost books. The programs complement one another by reaching different communities through different means, so that every child can have a book to read. The act reauthorizes $25 million for the successful Reading Is Fundamental Program, which distributes books to school-age children. This program has been especially effective in Massachusetts. It is helping over 45,000 children at 70 sites across the state obtain access to books. As a teacher from Methuen said, ``RIF continues to excite our students by providing them with books they can call their own, exposing them to a variety of literature, and offering these children worlds unknown.'' Founded in 1966, Reading Is Fundamental serves more than 3.5 million children annually at 17,000 sites in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories. Over two-thirds of the children served have economic or learning needs that put them at risk of failing to achieve basic educational goals. By the end of 2000, it will have placed 200 million books in the hands and homes of America's children. The act also authorizes $10 million for the Secretary of Education to award grants to organizations that provide low-cost or no-cost books for local tutoring, mentoring, and family literacy programs. Programs such as First Book have been very successful in encouraging reading. In 1998, First Book was able to distribute more than 2.4 million new books to children living below the poverty line throughout the United States. First book originally committed to distribute two million new books to children over 3 years and add 100 additional First Book communities. Through the extraordinary efforts of its Local Advisory Boards and national partners, First Book has met and far exceeded its book distribution pledge of 2 million books, and has met its expansion goals. We should continue to support programs like First Book that involve businesses and community resources in programs to help ensure that all children have access to books. The ABC Act also authorizes $10 million for the Secretary of Education to award grants to the organizations that provide free books to children under age 5 in pediatric clinics. Programs like Reach Out and Read in Boston are shining examples of how to provide children with access to books and prereading skills through health checkups with their pediatricians. For the past 10 years, through private funding, Reach Out and Read has been helping young children ages 0-5 get the early reading skills they need to become successful readers. Reach Out and Read currently serves 930,000 children in 556 local sites in 48 states. Evaluations of the program show that Reach Out and Read increases parents' understanding of reading and their attitude towards reading--especially to their children. Parents are ten times more likely to read to their children if they have received a book from a pediatrician. Children's brain activity is stimulated by reading, enhancing their intellectual and language development. In addition, the program is cost-effective-- on average, the cost is only $5 per child. Holyoke Reach Out and Read is run by Holyoke Pediatric Associates, a large medical practice serving 30,000 clients from Holyoke and surrounding communities in Massachusetts. Sixty percent of the clients are low-income or medicaid eligible families. The program distributed over 3,000 books to children in 1999. It may seem unusual to talk about literacy in a hospital, but it makes perfect sense. To see that children learn to read, everyone needs to lend a hand. Physicians can be a major part of being of the effort. They can help children and parents understand that reading will enhance the well-being of every child, just as milk and vitamins do. A good book may turn out to be the most important thing a doctor prescribes for a child. Reach Out and Read is making it possible for many more young children to have access to books and take the first steps toward learning to read and toward becoming good readers in their early years. It is bringing books and the love of reading to many new children every day. Reading is the foundation of learning and the golden door to opportunity. But for too many children, it becomes a senseless obstacle to the future. Children need and deserve programs like Reading Is Fundamental, First Book, and Reach Out and Read. None of us should rest until every child across the nation has the opportunity to own a book, enjoy a book, and read a book. The nation's future depends on it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. In addition, I believe it is important to exclude from that fee any employer that is a primary or secondary education institution, an institution of higher education, as defined in the Higher Education Act of 1965, a nonprofit entity which engages in established curriculum-related clinical training of students registered at any such institution, a nonprofit research organization, or a governmental research organization.

Mr. KENNEDY. In conclusion, I would simply like to thank Senator Abraham for his ongoing willingness to work on these important programs for training and educating Americans so that they will be ready to take these jobs, and the leadership he has consistently shown on these issues.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we in the Senate cannot originate a revenue measure to fund the new training and education program. But it would be a serious mistake to enact a final bill that does not call on employers to pay $1,000 per visa for the training and education necessary to improve the skills of U.S. workers and students.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, our Nation's economy is experiencing a time of unprecedented growth and prosperity. This strong economic growth can, in large measure, be traced to the vitality of the fast- growing high technology industry. Information technology, biotechnology and associated manufacturers have created more new jobs than any other part of the economy. The rapid growth of the high-tech industry has made it the nation's third largest employer, with 4.8 million workers in high-tech related fields, working in jobs that pay 70 percent above average income. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that the number of core IT workers will grow to a remarkable 2.6 million by 2006--an increase of 1.1 million from 1996. With such rapid change, the economy is stretched thin to support these new businesses and the growth opportunities they present. The constraint cited most often on future growth of the high-technology industry is the shortage of men and women with the skills and technical background needed for jobs in the industry. Several factors are contributing to this shortage, including an inaccurate, negative image of IT occupations as overly demanding, the under-representation of women and minorities in the IT workforce, and outdated academic curricula that often do not keep pace with industry needs. All of us want to be responsive to the nation's need for high-tech workers. We know that unless we take steps now to address this growing workforce gap, America's technological and economic leadership will be jeopardized. The H-1B visa cap should be increased, but in a way that better addresses the fundamental needs of the economy. Raising the cap without seriously addressing our long-term labor needs would be a serious mistake. The legislation before us today includes provisions that respond to what American workers, students and employers have been telling Congress: that any credible legislative proposal must begin with a significant expansion of career training and educational opportunities for our workers and students. Expanding the number of H-1B visas to meet short-term needs is no substitute for long-term solutions to fully develop the potential of our domestic workforce. It makes sense to ask that more of our workers be recruited and trained for these jobs. I commend Senator Lieberman, Senator Conrad, and other colleagues for their valuable contributions to the proposed training provisions. The training provided will ensure that the H-1B program will provide our workers with the skills needed to benefit from this growing economy and to help our companies continue to grow. a reasonable increase in the h-1b visa cap is justified, but it must be temporary and sufficiently tailored to meet existing short-term needs A temporary influx of foreign workers and students is needed in the short-term to help meet the demands by U.S. firms for high skilled workers. But we shouldn't count on foreign sources of labor as a long- term solution. It is unfair to U.S. workers, and the supply of foreign workers is limited. It makes sense to insist that more of our domestic workers must be recruited into and placed in these jobs. Countless reports cite age and race discrimination as a major problem in the IT industry, along with the hiring of foreign workers and lay-off of domestic workers. A Dallas Morning News article describes how Ken Schiffman of Texas received only one or two responses to his resume over a long period of time, until he deleted all direct and indirect references to his age. After that, he received 26 messages in one day. A human resource executive at a trade association confirms that this problem is a constant issue. Employers often ask the age of an applicant and reject older applicants without ever interviewing them. John Miano, head of the American Programmer's Guild, argues that once a worker is laid off, it is very difficult to find a new job, in contrast to younger workers. Companies often unfairly view older workers as ``dirty linen.'' These and countless other experiences support the need for a more responsible approach to H-1B legislation. And similar problems face women and minorities who are under- represented in the IT workforce. Although many new jobs are created in the IT industry each year, we also know that thousands of IT workers were laid off in 1999. For example 5,180 workers lost their jobs at Electronic Data Systems, 2,150 at Compaq, and 3,000 at NEC-Packard Bell. We also know that some IT companies classify their workers as independent contractors or temporary workers, rather than as employees, to avoid paying them benefits. In fact, it has been said that ``if all categories of contingent workers are included--temporary, part-time, self-employed, and contract workers--almost 40% of all employment in Silicon Valley are contingent workers.'' This mis-classification scheme also contributes to numerous positions being seemingly ``unfilled,'' because official ``employees'' are not performing those functions. This practice perpetuates an artificially higher number of ``open'' positions than actually exist. Although it makes sense to provide an increase in the H-1B cap through FY 2002, the unprecedented cap exemptions in the Hatch bill are unwarranted. Those exemptions would permit 40,000 workers above the 195,000 cap to receive an H-1B visa. The resulting figure is well above the number of visas that even the most ardent IT lobbyists claim are needed. Exempting all those with advanced credentials will result in a significant increase in the number of persons within the cap who have less specialized skills, and who are in occupations ranging from therapists to super models. This is not the direction in which the H-1B visa program should be moving. The bill should not focus solely on the number of visas available for foreign skilled workers. It should also emphasize employers' needs for as many workers with the highest professional credentials as possible, who possess specialized skills that cannot be easily and quickly reproduced domestically. I am strongly in favor of supporting our institutions of higher education and research groups. But the two types of exemptions in the bill overlap and are unnecessarily complex. The first exemption addresses a genuine need of universities who face difficulty competing with the high tech industry for visas. But universities and research organizations would be just as easily served by reserving for them 12,000 a year within the cap. The second exemption is for students graduating in the U.S. with any advanced degree, as long as they apply within a certain time frame. But it should not matter when they graduated or where they graduated. The exemptions will cause administrative problems that we should not impose on INS. Instead, we should ensure that workers with an advanced degree have priority for H-1B visas within the cap, and are subject to the same requirements as all other applications. No evidence exists that proves or even implies that there is a shortage of American advanced degree holders in all subject areas. Yet the bill ignores this point and specifically permits all foreign graduates to receive a visa. The unprecedented exemptions contained in this bill will only add to the already troublesome task faced by INS to process visas. We should not make a bad situation for U.S. students and the INS even worse by passing this bill with the current exemptions. The exemptions in the bill and the abundance of IT workers they would create are an irresponsible approach to increasing the cap, especially given the very real existing questions about the true extent of the IT skill shortage. As we address the needs of the IT industry, in addition to raising the H-1B visa cap, we must place laid off workers in new jobs, enforce our labor laws, and recruit and train more women, minorities, and people with disabilities, so that the current IT workforce gets the pay, benefits, working conditions and job opportunities to which they are entitled.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Abraham, Senator Leahy, and others in cosponsoring the Travel, Tourism and Jobs Presentation Act. This measure will reauthorize the Visa Waiver Program and make it permanent. This visa waiver program allows individuals from designated low risk, high volume countries to enter the United States as temporary visitors for business or pleasure without first obtaining a visa. Individuals visiting the United States under the visa waiver program must complete an admission form prior to arrival. Their visit may last only ninety days, with thirty days extensions allowed only in the case of emergency. Countries participating in the visa waiver program must meet certain requirements, such as possessing a low non-immigrant refusal rate for B-1/B-2 visas and utilizing, or currently developing, a machine readable passport program. Finally, the Attorney General must determine that each country's participation in the program will not compromise United States law. By eliminating the visa requirement, the visa waiver program facilities international travel and increases the number of visitors for business and tourism. These effects generate economic growth and stimulate international trade and commerce. According to the INS, over 17 million visitors to the United States arrived under the visa waiver program in FY 1998. The program is strongly supported by the State Department because it reduces consular workloads, allowing the officers to shift staff and scarce resources to other pressing matters, as well as reducing costs. Despite operating efficiently and providing enormous benefit to the United States economy and the State Department for the past eleven years, the visa waiver program remains a pilot program. This bill reauthorizes this important program and makes it permanent. This legislation also strengthens security precautions under this program by requiring participating countries to incorporate machine readable passport programs by October 2003 and nationals from these countries to possess readable passports by 2008. In addition, the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, must continue to evaluate the effect of a new country's inclusion in the visa waiver program on law enforcement and national security. Continuing countries in the program are evaluated every five years. I am especially pleased that Portugal was recently added to the visa waiver program. Travel between our two countries is significantly easier because cumbersome paperwork and delays have been eliminated-- obstacles that needlessly prevented Portugese families from visiting their loved ones here in the United States. Portugal's inclusion in the Program will benefit thousands of Portugese families in Massachusetts and around the nation. Although I strongly support this important bill, I have very serious concern about the amendment that Senator Helms has offered amending the Conyers provision of the visa waiver bill. Representative Conyer's provision simply states that visas that are wrongfully denied based on race, sex, disability or other unlawful grounds cannot be included in computations determining a country's admission into the visa waiver program. The amendment Senator Helms offers pertaining only to the Conyers provision. It seeks to preclude judicial review of any visa denying visas, denial of admission to the United States, the computation of visa refusal rates, or the designation or non- designation of any country. I have reluctantly agreed to it because it is surely symbolic and will have no practical legal effect. Under current law, consular visa determinations, the denial of admission under the visa waiver program, or determinations regarding designation of a country into the visa waiver program are not subject to court review. Nonetheless, court stripping provisions, whether symbolic or not, are anathema to our judicial system. I thought that Republicans had learned the importance of judicial review in the Elian Gonzalez case. Such provisions allow life-shattering determinations to be made at the unreviewable discretion of an administrative functionary. The most fundamental decisions are being made on the basis of a cursory review of a few pages in a file, or a perfunctory interview, without the possibility of any appeal or judicial review. This is a recipe for disastrous mistakes and abuse. This excellent program has been a pilot program for too long. Its enormous benefits to the United States economy and the efficiency it creates for the federal government are obvious. It is time we make this light of this fact and make this important program permanent. I urge all of my colleague to support this important bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to gain Senator Sessions as a cosponsor of the James Madison Commemoration Commission Act. It is appropriate that we honor James Madison for his exemplary contributions to our country. The Commission will build on the success of the James Madison Fellowship Foundation, which Senator Hatch and I cochair. We are very proud of the work of the Madison Fellows. They are among the most accomplished, talented, and dedicated educators in the Nation. They are committed to educating children across the country about the value of learning, the importance of the Constitution, and the significance of public service. I hope that this new Commission honoring James Madison will breathe new life into the Constitution for people across the country.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I express my appreciation for the Democratic leader's excellent statement and comment. I was listening particularly to the wrap-up and recalling a number of the majority leaders with whom I had the good opportunity to serve bringing into real relief how at that time we did have the engagement of the issues and the resolution of questions of public policy. That was the time-honored tradition of this body. It hails back to the time of the Constitutional Convention and our Founding Fathers and what they believed we ought to be about. I hope his words will be taken to heart by our colleagues as welcoming into these final days of this session. We are now in the final days of this session. This afternoon, we will mark the end of the current fiscal year by passing a bill--a continuing resolution--that acknowledges that Congress was unable to complete its work. So now we're going to put government funding on auto-pilot while our Republican friends figure out what to do. We started this year--the first of the new millennium--with great hope. We were going to pass new laws to meet the urgent needs of families across America--to improve health care and education, and provide jobs for working families. The question is, did American taxpayers get their money's worth? So far in this first year of the new millennium, we have enacted: 27 laws naming new federal buildings; 7 laws granting awards to individuals; 3 technical corrections to existing laws; 4 laws establishing small foreign assistance projects; 4 commemoratives, and 2 laws establishing new commissions. We found time in our busy schedules to pass a sense of Congress resolution calling for democracy in a Latin American country. We relocated people from one South Pacific atoll to another. We encouraged the development of methane hydrate resources. We allowed the Interior Department to collect new fees for films made in our parks. We eliminated unfair practices in the boxing industry. We renamed the Washington Opera as the National Opera. We passed a new law providing assistance to neotropical migratory birds. I have no doubt that each of these laws was necessary. But nowhere on the list did we pass the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to strengthen the nation's public schools. Nowhere on this list is the Patients' Bill of Rights. Nowhere do we find a Medicare prescription drug benefit for senior citizens. Nowhere is a long-overdue increase in the minimum wage. Nowhere does Congress strengthen our laws against hate crimes. Nowhere on the list are new gun laws to keep our schools and communities safe. If ever a ``Do-Nothing'' label fit a Congress, it fits this ``Do- Nothing'' Republican Congress. Our country as a whole is enjoying an unprecedented period of prosperity--the longest period of economic growth in our nation's history. But for millions of Americans, it is someone else's prosperity. Working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, a person earning the minimum wage earns only $10,700 a year--$3,400 below the poverty line for a family of three. Over the past three decades, the extraordinary benefits of our record prosperity have been flagrantly skewed in favor of the wealthiest members of society. We are pleased with the Census Bureau Report this week showing that the poverty rate dropped to its lowest level since 1979. Yet, poverty has almost doubled among full-time, year-round workers since the late 1970s--from about 1.5 million to almost 3 million by 1998, according to a June 2000 Conference Board report. Today, the top one percent of households have more wealth than the entire bottom 95 percent combined. Yet, despite this historic period of economic growth, minimum wage workers are not able to afford adequate housing. The National Low Income Housing Coalition recently found that the current minimum wage fails to provide the income necessary to afford a two bedroom apartment in any area of this country. Often, workers are putting in longer hours on the job, and more family members are working. A study released by the Economic Policy Institute this month shows that in 1998, lower income families are working 379 more hours a year than they were in 1979. The increase in working hours for African American and Hispanic families is even more dramatic. Middle-class African American families work an average of 9.4 hours more per week than their white counterparts. Hispanic families work five hours a week more than whites at every income level. Parents are spending less and less time with their families--22 hours less a week than they did 30 years ago, according to a study last year by the Council of Economic Advisers. Serious health and safety problems result when employees are forced to work long hours. A recent front page article in the New York Times told the story of Brent Churchill, a power lineman, who died in an on-the-job accident after working two and a half days on a total of 5 hours of sleep. There are signs that at least House Republicans are finally coming around to our way of thinking. They have offered the President a plan to raise the minimum wage. This positive development gives us real hope that we can raise the pay of the lowest paid workers before we adjourn. But we cannot misuse an increase in the minimum wage as an excuse to cut workers' overtime pay, as the GOP proposes. The overtime pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act have been in place for over 60 years, and they protect the rights of 73 million Americans. Republicans also want to use any minimum wage legislation as a vehicle to repeal protections from millions of Americans who work hard as inside salespeople, funeral directors, embalmers, and computer technicians. These changes would punish these workers for advances in technology that have made businesses more efficient. They would take away basic protections from precisely those occupations where long hours are most at issue. The Republican proposal also freezes the guaranteed cash wage for waiters and waitresses, and other tip employees. These men and women are usually among the lowest paid workers and often struggle to make ends meet. Finally, the tax breaks in the Republican proposal are not reasonable. They total $76 billion over ten years, compared to the $21 billion tax cut that was included in the last minimum wage law that was enacted in 1996. Congress is quick to find time to vote to increase their own salaries. The increase now pending would mean a raise of over $4,000 a year. Yet, we have not found the time to pass an increase in the minimum wage to benefit hard-working, low-income Americans at the bottom of the economic ladder. Each day we fail to act, families across the country fall farther behind. The dollar increase we propose now should have gone into effect in January 1999. Since then, minimum wage workers have lost over $3,000 due to the inaction of Congress. The American people overwhelmingly support raising the minimum wage. They agree that work should pay, and that the men and women who work hard to earn the minimum wage should be able to afford clothing for their children and food on their tables. Minimum wage workers should not be forced to wait any longer for the fair increase they deserve. We have bipartisan support for this increase and we are not going to go away or back down. No one who works for a living should have to live in poverty. Mr. President, these charts depict parents working harder. This charts the hours worked by families with children in the bottom 40 percent of income. It is a comparison of the percent of increase in hours worked from 1979 to 1998. This 13.8 percent represents an average increase of 379 hours of work a year, compared to hours worked in 1979. It is just slightly less for white full-time workers. What we are finding out for Hispanics is it is 5 hours more a week than for white workers, and for African Americans it is 9 hours more. For white workers you have a 337 hour increase, and you almost double that for African American workers. Let's see what that has meant in terms of where they rate in America in terms of the distribution of income. The bottom fifth of families have declined by 15 percent, even though they are working close to 400 hours a year longer than they were working 20 years ago. They have fallen behind, about a 15 percent decline in their living. For the middle fifth it is about a 12 percent advantage, and the top fifth, a 73 percent advantage. If you took a chart--I will explain this on the next presentation-- and divide the total workforce in fifths, from 1948 to 1975, you would find them virtually all identical. All of America moved together during those years. In the immediate period after World War II, all America moved together. As a result of hard work and ingenuity, individuals who were successful experienced enhanced prosperity, which is fine. But all Americans who were prepared to work moved along together. Now we are seeing this extraordinary skewing at lower incomes of people working harder and harder and falling further and further behind. This is another chart which indicates the purchasing value of the minimum wage is gradually declining. The poverty line is increasing which results in more and more American workers working harder and longer and falling into poverty, with all the implications for themselves and their families. This next chart is extraordinary. It shows the expansion of productivity. We have heard we cannot increase the minimum wage because we have lost our edge in productivity. One can see from this chart the explosion in productivity. The blue line is a decline in real wages. Historically, wages used to keep pace with the increase in productivity because that affects the actual cost to the employer. If the employees are going to be more productive, they ought to participate in the benefits of increasing profits and increasing productivity. But that is not happening, and it is not happening among the low-income workers. This next chart shows the purchasing power again. In 1968, it was $7.66; it is now $5.15. Without an increase, it will fall to $4.90, the lowest in the history of the purchasing power of the minimum wage. At a time of the greatest economic prosperity of any country in the world, the income of those individuals who are working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year is the lowest it has been in the history of the purchasing power of the minimum wage. That is absolutely crazy. We have been denied an opportunity to vote on this issue. Why don't we vote on it and see how the Members feel about it? Why don't we just go ahead and take the vote? But, no, we are denied that opportunity. It is unacceptable that we are leaving here without doing so. That is one part of the unfinished business our leader, Senator Daschle, talked about. The Glenn Commission Report on Math and Science Teaching released yesterday is a clear call to action to do more to put qualified math and science teachers in the Nation's classrooms. As the commission emphasized, we need greater investments in math and science at every level. This commission is made up of distinguished educators, public officials, school administrators, school boards, local personnel, State national directors, and chaired by our good friend and colleague, Senator John Glenn, who spent such a great deal of time in service in the Senate focusing on and giving life to the issues of math and science training. He provided great leadership. We are very much in his debt for that effort. Now for the last 2 years, he has chaired a very outstanding commission, and they made their recommendations yesterday. As the commission emphasized, we need greater investments in math and science at every level--federal, state, and local--to significantly increase the number of math and science teachers and improve the quality of their preparation. We have made some significant progress in recent years, but we cannot afford to be complacent. In our increasingly high-tech economy, high school graduates need strong math and analytical skills in order to be competitive in the workplace. In addition, schools face record-high enrollments that will continue to rise, and they also face serious teacher shortages. Recruiting, training, and retaining high-quality teachers, particularly math and science teachers, deserve higher priority on our education agenda in Congress. We should do all we can to see that schools have the Federal support they deserve. The need is especially urgent in schools that serve disadvantaged students. The commission's timely report gives us new bipartisan momentum to address these fundamental issues more effectively. The report calls for a $3.1 billion investment a year by the federal government for recruiting, mentoring, and training teachers--with most of it for professional development activities. The question is, how fast can Congress respond? Can we act this year, or will we lose another year? I propose that in the fiscal year 2001 appropriations, we make a down payment on the Glenn Commission recommendation investing $1 billion in teacher quality programs, including Title II of the Higher Education Act, and the Eisenhower Professional Development Program, which makes math and science a priority. Math and science appropriations is about $335 million. It is in place. It has the confidence of educators. It is focused on math and science. We can take the initiative to enhance that program, following the Glenn recommendations. We can do that as our appropriators are meeting with the administration in these last 2 weeks. Title II of HEA is vastly underfunded this year at $98 million and the Eisenhower Program is vastly underfunded at $335 million. By committing $1 billion now, for the coming year, we will be making a needed down payment toward meeting the Nation's teaching needs. No classroom is any better than the teacher in it. The Glenn Commission report is our chance in Congress to tackle this head on and do what is so obviously needed to improve teacher quality across the country. It cries out for action, and this is a priority. We should respond to it, and we can do something now. We have to provide the resources for investing in this area, I believe. Finally, in the debate over prescription drugs, one of the most important reasons for Congress to act and act promptly has often been overlooked. The best source of comprehensive, affordable health insurance coverage for senior citizens is through employer retirement plans. In fact, the combination of Medicare and so-called employer wrap-around coverage is the gold standard for health insurance coverage for the elderly. But private retirement coverage is in free fall, with ominous implications for all retirees. In the three year period from 1994 to 1997, the proportion of firms offering retiree health coverage dropped by 25 percent. In 1998, and 1999, another 18 percent dropped coverage. We know one-third of the elderly have no prescription drug coverage. None. Another third have employer-based coverage. From 1994 to 1997, it dropped 25 percent. From 1997 to 1999, it dropped another 18 percent. All the indicators are going through the bottom. We are seeing dramatic reductions in coverage. We are seeing that prescription drugs are increasingly less relevant in terms of HMOs because the HMOs have been putting in a cap of $1,000 and sometimes $500 in the last 3 years, capping the amount they will actually provide for the senior citizens. And many of them are moving out of parts of the country. The Medigap program is prohibitively expensive. The only people who are guaranteed prescription drugs with any degree of certainty and predictability are the poorest of Americans under the Medicaid program. We can do better. We must do better. We can do better even as we are in the last 2 weeks of this session. A 1999 survey of large employers by the consulting firm of Hewitt Associates found that 30 percent of these firms said they would consider dropping coverage over the next 3 to 5 years. So we have a 25- percent reduction from 1994 to 1997; an 18-percent reduction from 1997 to 1999; and now the prediction of another 30 percent who are going to lose it over the period of the next 3 years. We know what is happening. The time to act is now. According to a new study for the Kaiser Family Foundation, a central reason for this decline is the escalating cost of prescription drugs and Medicare's failure to provide coverage. As the study found: Prescription drug costs are driving retiree health costs to an unprecedented extent. . . . The drug benefit has represented 40-60 percent of retiree's health costs after accounting for Medicare. Based on current cost trends, Hewitt projects drug benefits to represent as much as 80 percent of total 65+ retiree health costs in 2003. The study estimates that President Clinton's plan could save employees as much as $15 billion annually when it is fully phased in. They conclude: The financial savings could . . . slow the erosion of retiree health care by lowering the costs for prescription drug benefits, which have been increasing for employers at double-digit rates and are a major source of concern. A critical reason for this Congress to act to provide Medicare prescription drug coverage for the elderly is the worsening situation facing retirees. But the Republican majority won't act. They won't allow a vote. Just 3 days ago, they declared that Medicare prescription drug coverage is dead for this year. Their own proposals are not what senior citizens want and need. The differences between the two parties are clear on this issue. Vice President Gore and Governor Bush have proposed two very different responses to this problem. The Gore plan provides a solid benefit under the existing Medicare program. Under the leadership of Senator Graham and Senator Robb, the Senate has already voted on a bipartisan plan that would achieve the objectives of the Gore proposal. With the support of only a few more Republicans, a real prescription benefit can pass this year, so that all our senior citizens can get the prompt help they need. Shown on this chart are the Gore and Bush plans. You have the comparisons. The Gore plan would be implemented in 1 year. The Bush plan is 4 years, with revenue-sharing with the States or block grants to the States. We would have to appropriate the money. Then, if there is, according to Governor Bush, a significant reform of the Medicare system, within that significant reform of the Medicare system--I don't know whether he means just the privatization or not--a prescription drug program could be included. You have that versus starting in a year from now. Secondly, with regard to the guaranteed benefits--this is a crucial difference--what does this ``Yes'' shown on the chart mean on guaranteed benefits? It means this: When a senior goes into a health delivery system needing a prescription drug, the doctor prescribes what prescription drug that senior needs, and the rest is arranged through the Medicare system in terms of the payment. But the doctor decides. As shown over here on the chart, under the Bush proposal it is going to be the HMO. They are going to be the ones making the decision. We can't even get the HMO reform here in the Senate. Now they are suggesting that we have a whole new system of benefits that are going to go through that system, where the HMOs and bean counters, who too often put profits ahead of patients, are going to make that decision. Under the Gore plan, there will be good coverage. It is going to be comprehensive coverage. But under the Bush plan, we don't know what the coverage is going to be because it will be decided by the HMOs. This means it will be built out of the Medicare system. And this will be some other program that may be built upon HMOs or the private sector, which have been remarkably unsuccessful in many parts of this country. More than 930,000 people have lost Medicare HMO coverage this year alone. Rather than be expanded, the drug program has been in decline. Senior citizens need help now. Al Gore's plan provides prescription drugs under Medicare for every senior citizen in 2002. Under the Bush proposal, there will be 25 million seniors who will be excluded because they are not eligible under the parameters of the Bush proposal. This makes absolutely no sense. Experience shows that the Bush proposal would take years to put in operation. Only 14 States have the kind of insurance plans for senior citizens in operation today. This would be all under the Bush proposal. All 50 States must pass new laws or modify legislation. Only 16 States currently have any drug insurance program. The CHIP program--the Children's Health Insurance Program--was passed in August of 1997, was available in October of 1997; and under Texas law, it took them until November 1999 to take advantage of it. It took 2 years to take advantage of it. And the money was already there. The Governors have already indicated they do not want the responsibility to develop, even with the funding, a whole new administration to be able to implement the program. So this is really a nonstarter for seniors. It makes no sense to depend on HMOs to provide this crucial benefit. The Bush plan does not provide the stable, reliable, guaranteed coverage that should be a part of Medicare's promise to the elderly. But there is one guarantee under the Bush plan. The benefits are guaranteed to be inadequate. The Bush program allocates almost $100 billion less to prescription drug coverage than the Gore plan. The reason for this lesser amount is obvious. The Bush approach wastes most of the surplus on new tax breaks for the wealthy, and too little is left to help senior citizens. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that under the similar Republican plan passed by the House of Representatives, benefits would be so inadequate and costs so high that less than half of the senior citizens who need the help the most--those who have no prescription drug coverage at all--will ever participate. A prescription drug benefit that leaves out half of the senior citizens who need protection the most is not a serious plan to help senior citizens. There is still time for Congress to enact a genuine prescription drug benefit under Medicare. The administration has presented a strong proposal. Let's work together to enact it this year. It is not too late. The American people are waiting for our answer. These are some of the issues I would hope we could still address. We ought to be able to pass the minimum wage. It is not complicated. It is not difficult. We know what is at play here. We ought to be able to finally get prescription drug legislation. We voted on this in the Senate. A majority of the Members of the Senate actually supported a prescription drug program that would be worked through Medicare. We ought to be able to pass that in the Senate. As I mentioned, a majority of the Members already do support it. We ought to be able to get a downpayment on that legislation. We ought to be able to deal with some of the education challenges. That is important. We ought to be able to get the Patients' Bill of Rights passed, as well as the hate crimes issues, and try to do something on the gun show loophole, and some other matters. These are public policy matters that I think the American people want us to address. They do not want us to be out here now, as we have spent the better part of this week, in quorum calls. They want action, and they want action now. We, on this side of the aisle, are prepared to provide it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, earlier this week, the Republican leadership in the House and Senate emphasized again their attempt to block needed action this year to provide prescription drug coverage under Medicare. Their letter to President Clinton declared any legislation to provide fair prescription drug benefits dead for this year. President Clinton disagreed, and he was right to do it. There is still time for this Congress to pass a long overdue Medicare prescription drug benefit. House Democrats are for it. Senate Democrats are for it. So are many Republicans. President Clinton has been fighting for it for years. All that is needed to make Medicare prescription drug coverage a reality for this year is for the Republican leadership to finally say yes to senior citizens and no to the drug companies. In addition to opposing Medicare prescription drug coverage --in a shameful example of disinformation--the Republican leaders also tried to blame the President for their failure to act. Their letter charges the President with rejecting the recommendations of the commission. But the commission proposed to raise premiums for senior citizens as much as 47 percent. It proposed charging a copayment for home health services that could add more than $3,000 a year to the out-of-pocket costs of the sickest and most vulnerable senior citizens. It proposed restricting the eligibility for Medicare, forcing hundreds of thousands of senior citizens into the ranks of the uninsured. And it proposed a new cap on Medicare spending that could push Medicare into bankruptcy as early as 2005. In fact, the commission proposed the same anti-Medicare agenda that Governor Bush has adopted. The President was right to reject it, and Senator Lott and Speaker Hastert are wrong to endorse it. Their letter criticizes the House Democrats for walking off the House floor when the House leadership refused to allow a vote on a fair Medicare drug benefit, and then rammed through a measure that was not Medicare and was not adequate. All the Speaker had to do was to allow a vote. Democrats wouldn't have walked out. He knew that a fair prescription drug benefit would have passed. The GOP leadership letter also attacks the President for failing to endorse the Republican alternative of means-tested block grants to the States to help low-income senior citizens. But it would take years for States to put that alternative in effect and would leave out at least 70 percent of senior citizens. It would provide yet another excuse for inaction. Mr. President, do you understand that? It would limit the benefit. The block grant would be limited to persons under 175 percent of the poverty level, and only those persons under 135 percent of the poverty level would receive total coverage. But that leaves out 29 million seniors who, for the next 4 years, would not participate in the prescription drug program. That makes absolutely no sense. Senior citizens want Medicare, not welfare. In 1965, the Nation rejected the idea that the only way for seniors to obtain health benefits should be to go to the welfare office. Medicare was passed, and today it has become one of the most successful social programs ever enacted. That decision was right then, and it continues to be right today. We should not turn back the clock. It is not too late for Congress to enact prescription drug coverage under Medicare for senior citizens. We know where the President stands. We know where Democrats in Congress stand. Most of all, we know where senior citizens and their families stand. The Republican leadership should listen to their voices and end its obstruction. Education

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague, Senator Reed, for his presentation and strong support. I've had the good opportunity, since I first came to the Judiciary Committee, to be on the Subcommittee on Immigration. We have provided temporary protected status for probably 14 different nations over the past years. And we've also provided the green cards for six of those countries, more than half of those countries. What the good Senator has been pressing the Senate on is to take action--that would be consistent with past action--particularly with the guns of war that continue to wreak such havoc in Liberia. I think it is a very compelling case. I am in strong support. Mr. President, for months, Democrats and Republicans have given their strong support for the H-1B high-tech visa legislation. In addition, Democrats have tried--but without Republican support--to offer the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act. We have worked hard to reach an agreement to vote on both of these important bills. We could easily have voted on the Latino legislation as part of the high-tech visa bill, but our Republican colleagues have repeatedly blocked every effort we have made to do so. The Republican leadership is determined to prevent this basic issue from coming to a vote in the Senate. Our Republican friends tell us that the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act is a poison pill, that it will undermine the H-1B high-tech visa legislation before the Senate. But if Republicans are truly supportive of the Latino legislative agenda, that cannot possibly be true. Yesterday, Senator Gramm accused Democrats of ``putting politics in front of people.'' Is Senator Gramm prepared to say that to those who would benefit from the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act, people such as Francisco? Francisco and his wife completed applications for legalization and attempted to submit them to the INS. The INS refused to accept the applications, because Francisco and his wife briefly left the United States during the application period without INS permission. The courts have ruled against this INS practice, but Francisco and his wife were never granted legalization. They have worked legally with temporary permission while awaiting the court decision on their case. If they are not permitted to work legally in the United States, they will not be able to support their three U.S. citizen children. With permission to work, they have been able to find jobs that accommodate a hearing disability that affects one of their children. If they lose their work permit, they may not be able to find work. They constantly fear detention and deportation. It is shameful that the Senate refuses even to allow a vote on these issues of fundamental fairness for immigrant families. It is Republicans--not Democrats--who are playing politics with the lives of those who have come to our country as refugees from persecution in other countries. The hypocrisy is flagrant. Our Republican colleagues pretend to court the Latino vote across the country in this election year. But when the chips are down, they refuse to act. The Senate Republican leadership can't have it both ways. Either they are part of the solution, or they are part of the problem. They can't call themselves friends of the Latino community, while working to prevent the Latino Fairness Act from becoming law. Republican opposition to this legislation is so intense that they continue to delay passage of the H-1B legislation with their procedural tactics. For reasons that no one understands, the Republican leadership filed a meaningless cloture petition last week, and now they have filed three additional cloture petitions. I ask my Republican colleagues, wouldn't it be easier to allow a vote on the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act? If you support the Latino community, if the priorities of the Latino community are your priorities too, we can pass both bills and move forward. The choice is clear. Instead of adopting long overdue family immigration reforms that have broad support from the business, religious, and labor communities, Republicans would prefer to stall action on the high tech visa bill and block a vote on the Latino Fairness Act. I urge my Republican colleagues to end this shameful hypocrisy and allow the vote that simple justice and fundamental fairness demand. But these procedural road blocks won't stop those who support this legislation. After all, the immigrant community--particularly the Latino community--has waited far too long for the fundamental justice that the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act will provide. These issues are not new to Congress. The immigrants who will benefit from this legislation should have received permanent status from the INS long ago. Contrary to remarks made on the Senate floor earlier today, these issues have been around for a long, long time. If my friend, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wanted to have a hearing, he could have scheduled a hearing at any time over the past 3 years. And if we had had such a hearing, it would have demonstrated that this legislation is not what he described as a ``broad amnesty for illegal immigrants.'' It is a measured bill necessary to reunite families and ensure that American businesses have the workers they need. He would have learned that contrary to Republican concerns that this bill would ``let everybody in,'' the legislation only seeks to create fairness where there is injustice and restore longstanding immigration policy objectives, and is similar to actions Congress has taken often in the past. The Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act includes parity for Central Americans, Haitians, nationals of the former Soviet bloc, and Liberians. In 1997, Congress enacted the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act, which granted permanent residence to Nicaraguans and Cubans who had fled their repressive governments. Other similarly situated Central Americans, Soviet bloc nationals, and Haitians were only provided an opportunity to apply for green cards under a much more difficult and narrower standard and much more cumbersome procedures. Hondurans and Liberians received nothing. The Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act will eliminate the disparities for all of these asylum seekers, and give them all the same opportunity that Nicaraguans and Cubans now have to become permanent residents. It will create a fair, uniform set of procedures for all immigrants from this region who have been in this country since 1995. The Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act will also provide long overdue relief to all immigrants who, because of bureaucratic mistakes, were prevented from receiving green cards many years ago. In 1986, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which included legalization for persons who could demonstrate that they had been present in the United States since before 1982. There was a one-year period to file. However, the INS misinterpreted the provisions in the 1986 Act, and thousands of otherwise qualified immigrants were denied the opportunity to make timely applications. Several successful class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of individuals who were harmed by these INS misinterpretations of the law, and the courts required the INS to accept filings for these individuals. As one court decision stated: ``The evidence is clear that the INS' . . . regulations deterred many aliens who would otherwise qualify for legalization from applying.'' To add insult to injury, however, the 1996 immigration law stripped the courts of jurisdiction to review INS decisions, and the Attorney General ruled that the law superceded the court cases. As a result of these actions, this group of immigrants has been in legal limbo, fighting government bureaucracy for over 14 years. Our bill will alleviate this problem by allowing all individuals who have resided in the U.S. prior to 1986 to obtain permanent residency, including those who were denied legalization because of the INS misinterpretation, or who were turned away by the INS before applying. Our bill would also amend some of the procedural blocks in terms of normalizing one's green card situation. The nation's history has long been tainted with periods of anti- immigrant sentiment. The Naturalization Act of 1790 prevented Asian immigrants from attaining citizenship. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was passed to reduce the number of Chinese laborers. The Asian Exclusion Act and the National Origins Act which made up the Immigration Act of 1924, were passed to block immigration from the ``Asian Pacific Triangle''--Japan, China, the Philippines, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, Singapore, Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, Burma, India, Sri Lanka, and Malaysia--and prevent them from entering the United States for permanent residence. Those discriminatory provisions weren't repealed until 1965. The Mexican Farm Labor Supply Program--the Bracero Program--provided Mexican labor to the United States under harsh and unacceptable conditions and wasn't repealed until 1964. The Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act provides us with an opportunity to end a series of unjust provisions in our current immigration laws, and build on the most noble aspects of our American immigrant tradition. It restores fairness to the immigrant community and fairness in the nation's immigration laws. It is good for families, it is good for American business, and it is good for our economy. Last summer, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan said, Under the conditions that we now confront, we should be very carefully focused on the contribution which skilled people from abroad, [as well as] unskilled people from abroad, can contribute to the country, as they have for generation after generation. The pool of people seeking jobs continues to decline. At some point, it must have an impact. If we can open up our immigration rolls significantly, that clearly will make [the unemployment rate's effect on inflation] less and less of a problem. The Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, a consortium of businesses and trade associations and other organizations shares this view and strongly supports the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act. This coalition includes the health care and home care associations, hotel, motel, restaurant and tourism associations, manufacturing and retail concerns, and the construction and transportation industries. These key industries have added their voices to the broad coalition of business, labor, religious, Latino and other immigrant organizations in support of the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act. The coalition of supporters includes Americans for Tax Reform, Empower America, the AFL-CIO, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the National Council of La Raza, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, the Anti-Defamation League, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Union of Needletrades and Industrial Textile Employees, and the Service Employees International Union. Few days remain in this Congress, but my Democratic colleagues and I are committed to doing all we can to see that both the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act and the H-1B high tech visa legislation become law this year. As others have pointed out, we have been discussing this issue now for several days. There is, as the indication of the votes suggest, overwhelming support for H-1B. There is virtual unanimity in the Senate to pass the H-1B program. I was very hopeful that we would be able to offer an amendment with a training component that would be available to Americans, so that the American worker would be able to obtain the level of skills which these new immigrants are bringing here to the jobs in the United States. The average income for the H-1B worker is $47,000; it is not $150,000. Really, all that is necessary for Americans to fill the overwhelming majority of these jobs is training and skills. There is a small percentage of very highly skilled and talented individuals in the H-1B program who add an additional dimension in terms of our economy. But the great majority--the average, as I mentioned--is $47,000. We only require a $500 application fee now. An immigrant family has to pay $1,000 to get a green card to cover the processing. If we were to require a $2,000 fee for the Microsofts, the multibillion-dollar companies, for every H-1B application they have, we would have a fund of about $280 million a year. That fund would be allocated between the National Science Foundation and the existing workforce boards, under the bipartisan workforce legislation that we passed 2 years ago. It would be allocated on the basis of competition to these communities that develop training programs for high skills. That would include the employers, the workers, and the educational institutions. It would give them some continued resources to be able to provide the skills to Americans to meet this particular challenge. We don't have a crisis in terms of workers; we only have a crisis in terms of skills. So we ought to be able to develop the kind of support so that out into the future these jobs will be fulfilled by Americans. But we are not able to offer that amendment under the cloture motion, even though it is directly relevant and even though we offered and debated those in the conference and even though it seems to me to be directly on target with regard to the underlying amendment. We ought to be able to do that. I don't know what the problem is among those on the other side in refusing to permit us to develop a program so these jobs can be fulfilled by Americans. That seems to me to make sense. Good jobs, good benefits--why shouldn't they be for Americans? The only thing that is lacking is the skilled training. Is it asking too much to ask the Microsofts and the great successful IT businesses for a $2,000 application fee for the H-1Bs? I don't think so. We can develop that fund and develop the training program--not create a new bureaucracy--and use the existing training programs with additional funding that would be targeted for that purpose, and also support additional funding for the National Science Foundation, for outreach programs, for women and minorities in these high-tech areas to support those kinds of efforts because there is an enormous absence of women and minorities in the area of these H-1B jobs. There is no reason in the world that we should not have an outreach program. There are excellent programs in terms of developing interest, and programming in terms of women and minorities in the high-tech area. They need additional support. We can use some resources to expedite the processing of the H-1B visas. Massachusetts yields to no one in terms of the high-tech aspects of our industry. We are second to California in the small business innovative research programs. Half of all health patents created in this country are in my own State of Massachusetts. We get high awards in terms of peer review for research. But when I talk to either the private sector or talk to others, they say: Right on. They don't question the importance of getting additional skilled workers. It is difficult to understand the reluctance and the resistance for this. It is true that 30 years ago if someone worked, for example, in my State in the Four Rivers Shipyard, their grandfather worked there, their father worked there, they generally had a high school education. Every employee who enters the job force now is going to have eight different jobs. What it means in terms of the continued growth of that employee is that there is going to be continuing education and training programs that are going to be available to them. That is just obvious. If we don't understand that, we don't understand what is happening in terms of the needs of American highly competitive, high-tech industries in this Nation, and for the most part other industries as well. We are denied the opportunity to offer that amendment. We would be glad to enter into a time limitation. We are denied that opportunity. We are denied the opportunity in terms of the Latino fairness, even though, as I have mentioned, we have a court decision that found for these particular individuals. But for the actions of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, they would have had their position adjusted and would have had a green card. It was certainly the intention of Congress at that time that they should. We are trying to remedy that situation. We are denied that opportunity. We are denied the opportunity to give fairness to the other Central Americans and others who were given the assurance that it was just a matter that we were being rushed at the end of the last Congress and we were unable to get the clearance for these other Central Americans. We were denied that opportunity. We had the judgment for the Cubans and Nicaraguans but not for the Guatemalans, Haitians, Hondurans, and Eastern Europeans. They were given assurance that they would. Republicans and Democrats alike indicated that we are prepared to vote on that with a short time limit. But we are denied that opportunity as well. We find ourselves in this extraordinary situation with all of the machinations on the other side to prohibit us from having a vote. Maybe they have the votes. They probably do, although I somehow feel that if we were to get to this fairness in the light of day, it would be difficult to argue against it. It would be difficult to argue against why on the one hand we are increasing the immigration for high skills and for the high-skilled industries, and on the other hand we are refusing to provide additional manpower and womanpower for many of the other industries with the kind of support that they have in terms of the Chamber of Commerce, labor, and church groups that say they should be able to get it. If we are going to have sauce for the goose, let's have sauce for the gander. Beyond that, they ought to treat these individuals fairly. They have been treated unfairly because of the actions that have been taken in denying them the kinds of protections and rights that they otherwise would have received. They have the compelling argument that they ought to be treated similarly as the H-1Bs; and, second, because they been denied fairness because of other actions that have been taken by the Government. It is difficult as we go through this to understand why we are being denied the opportunity to bring this up. It is very difficult to explain to our colleagues in the Hispanic caucus, let alone to church leaders and other groups, why fair is not fair. That is where we are. The extent to which the Republican leadership is going to deny us this opportunity is absolutely mind-boggling. Why not just let the chips fall where they may? No. We are being denied that opportunity. We are not even permitted a vote on it. That is becoming sort of the custom. It never used to be that way in the Senate. The Senate used to be a place where you could have the clash of ideas, and also the opportunity to express them and get some degree of accountability. But we are being denied, on Latino fairness, to ever get a vote. We are denied the opportunity to have another vote on minimum wage. We are denied the opportunity to get a vote on the prescription drug program. We are denied the opportunity on Patients' Bill of Rights. We are denied the opportunity on the education programs. We can't get those. We can understand people voting different ways, and maybe voting for positions I favor and against positions that I support. That was the way it was generally done in the Senate. But we cannot have that opportunity. Prescription Drugs

Mr. KENNEDY. I bring to the attention of the Senate the excellent recommendations announced today of the Glenn Commission, a very prestigious group of academic educators from around the country, Governors, and Members of Congress, who had been interested in education. The presentations and discussions over the past year have reinforced our sense of urgency about the need for better-qualified math and science teachers in the nation's classrooms. The report emphasizes the need for greater investments in math and science at every level--federal, state, and local. We've made significant progress in recent years, but we can't afford to be complacent. In out increasingly high-tech economy, high school graduate need strong math and analytical skills in order to be competitive in the workplace. Schools also face record-high enrollments that will continue to rise, and looming teacher shortages. Recruiting, training, and retaining high-quality math and science teachers deserve a higher priority on our education agenda in Congress. I intend to do all I can to see that schools have the federal support they deserve. The need is especially urgent in schools that serve disadvantaged students. Mr. President, this brings me back to where we are on the issues of education. I can't turn my television on without finding Governor Bush in another school talking about education. I wish he would pick up the telephone and call our majority leader and say, why don't you bring up the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and have a debate on that legislation. If we don't get action on it, it will be the first time in 35 years that we have not had debate or discussion on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and have not been willing to take a position on this extremely important area of public policy. We had 22 days of hearings in our committee on this measure. We had hours during markup, and we came to the floor of the Senate, and it was like running into a brick wall. We had 6 days of what could be called debate, although 2 days was debate only. And in this time we had 8 votes. But 1 vote was a voice vote, so we only had 7 votes. And 3 of those votes were virtually unanimous. So we only had 4 votes in a couple of days. Compare that to 55 amendments in 16 days on the bankruptcy bill. For those on this side, we think we should have had a much longer opportunity to debate this issue. I think this was the position of the majority leader because he indicated in January of 1999: Education is going to be the central issue this year . . . we must reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In June of 1999: Education is number one on the agenda for Republicans in Congress this year. . . . In May of 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: 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. For us to have a good, healthy, and even a protracted debate and amendments on education I think is the way to go. July 25: We will keep trying to find a way to go back to this legislation this year and get it completed. We heard we would have two-track action during the course of the days on appropriations and we would deal with other issues at night. We completed the trade bill, and now we have protracted sessions without any kind of action. We invited the majority leader to call up the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and deal with it in the evenings because it is something the American people want. We are told, no, we will not do that, because there was going to be a possible effort to include an amendment to try to reduce the number of guns that might be going into the schools of this country and we were told that safe schools were not relevant to education. That might be an interesting philosophical position, but yesterday in New Orleans there was another school shooting. We have been following the terrible tragedy and the circumstances of the two children, ages 13 and 15, who are in critical condition. I think parents across the country want to make sure we are doing everything we possibly can to make our schools safe and secure. There are other elements in the debate, but safety is enormously important. It is enormously important because we are reaching record high enrollments in the public school system. Fifty-three million students enrolled in school this Fall. Over the next 100 years, we will double that number of students, and in order to deal with these increases, the Federal, State, and local governments should work together and share the responsibility. This is not an issue we can escape. We have made significant progress in education over the last 30 years. Public schools are experiencing greater success than ever before--with higher graduation rates, increased test scores, higher academic standards, and greater accountability. Students have made gains in achievement, and are more effectively meeting the challenge of high standards. More students are taking the advanced math and science classes. This chart indicates between 1990 and 2000, those who took precalculus rose from 31 percent up to 44 percent; 19 percent in calculus, up to 24 percent; 44 percent in physics, up to 49 percent. The number of students taking the Scholastic Aptitude Tests has also increased. 33 percent of all students were taking this test in 1980, and now it is 44 percent in 2000. Contrary to what many have talked about, we are finding in many of the urban areas that a number of the urban school systems are doing increasingly better. One of those that was extremely challenged in the early 1990s was Detroit, for example. These are the increase-in- performance percentages from 1992 to 1998: Michigan Education Assessment Program: In the district of Detroit, in 1992, 33 percent passed; in the State, 60 percent passed. In 1998, 65 percent in the district of Detroit passed, which is a 97-percent improvement; in the State 74 percent passed. So you are seeing not only is there a dramatic increase in the performance of children in this fourth grade on the subject of mathematics, but also the disparity between the children in a large urban area and those statewide have dramatically been reduced. All of these indicators are rising. The fact is, also, that they are modest, but they are all the positive indicators. But, our work is far from over. In spite of this promising news--the results so far are not enough. Now is not the time to be complacent. We cannot leave any child or any group behind. We have a responsibility in Congress to help all students. The nation's children, the nation's parent, and the nation's schools are counting on us. As we are getting closer to the election, it is getting fashionable to use the education issue as a political issue. But I think it is important to remind our colleagues and friends about who has the special responsibility for education. The fact is, the States and the Governors still have the prime responsibilities. They control effectively 97 cents out of every 100 cents that are spent on education. When some public officials go around and try to blame people for the fact that a particular area, region or community is failing in education, we ought to recognize who has the responsibilities--the local communities and the States. We do have some important responsibilities as well. The American people expect us to fulfill those responsibilities. We are going to continue to speak about this issue and work until the end of this session, to see if we cannot put education back as a priority item for this Congress. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum and ask the time be charged equally.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleagues, Senators Graham, Leahy, Kerry, Wellstone, Durbin, and Feingold in introducing the Immigrant Fairness Restoration Act. This legislation will restore the balance to our immigration laws that was lost when Congress enacted changes in 1996 that went too far. The 1996 law has had harsh consequences that violate fundamental principles of family integrity, individual liberty, fairness, and due process. Families are being torn apart. Persons who are no danger to the community have languished in INS detention. Individuals who made small mistakes and atoned for their crimes long ago are being summarily deported from the United States to countries they no longer remember, separated from all that they know and love in this country. The Immigrant Fairness Restoration Act will repeal the harshest provisions of the 1996 changes. It will eliminate retroactive application of these laws. The rules should not change in the middle of the game. Permanent residents who committed offenses long before the enactment of the 1996 laws should be able to apply for the relief from removal as it existed when the offense was committed. Unfair new consequences should not attach to old conduct. Our legislation will also restore proportionality to our immigration laws. Current immigration laws punish permanent residents out of proportion to their crimes. Relatively minor offenses are now considered aggravated felonies. Permanent residents who did not receive criminal convictions or serve prison sentences should not be precluded from all relief from deportation. Our proposal also restores the discretion of immigration judges to evaluate cases on an individual basis and grant relief from deportation to deserving families. Currently, these judges are unable to grant such relief to many permanent residents, regardless of their circumstances or equities in the cases. Their hands are tied, even in the most compelling cases, and deserving legal residents are being unfairly treated by these laws. In addition, our proposal will end mandatory detention. The Attorney General will have authority to release person from detention who do not pose a danger to the community and are not a flight risk. The traditional standards governing such determinations should be restored to immigrants. Dangerous criminals should be detained and deported. But indefinite detention must end. Those who have lived in the United States with their families for years, established strong ties in our communities, paid taxes, and contributed to the Nation deserve to be treated fairly. The 1996 changes also stripped the Federal courts of any authority to review the decisions of the INS and the immigration courts. As a result, life-shattering determinations are often now made at the unreviewable discretion of an INS functionary. Immigrants deserve this day in court, and our proposal will provide it. It is long past time for Congress to end these abuses. Real individuals and real families continue to be hurt by the unacceptable changes made four years ago. Armando Baptiste of Boston was recently featured in a column in the New York Times by Anthony Lewis. Armando came to the United States at the age of 9 from Cape Verde. As a teenager, he became involved in a gang and was convicted of assault. Later, he joined a church-sponsored group and turned his life around. He became a key figure in the city, helping other young people in the Cape Verdean community avoid the mistakes that he had made. But the 1996 law made Armando deportable as a result of his earlier conviction. In February, he was jailed by the INS, and he now awaits deportation. The immigration judge will not be able to consider his positive contributions to his community, his family ties, or the hardship that severing those ties will cause. Mary Anne Gehris was born in Germany and adopted by a family in Georgia when she was 2 years old. She is married and has two children, including a 14-year-old with cerebral palsy. Eleven years ago, she pulled another woman's hair during an argument and pled guilty to a misdemeanor. Although she never spent a day in jail, the crime is a deportable offense under the 1996 laws. Mary Anne was pardoned by the Georgia Board of Pardons this year. The Board does not usually grant pardons for misdemeanor convictions, but it decided to do so because, it said, the 1996 laws have ``adversely affected the lives of numerous Georgia residents.'' Ana Flores also deserves a chance. For several years, she complained to police about physical abuse by her husband. In 1998, she bit her husband during a domestic dispute. Without consulting a lawyer, she pleaded guilty at the urging of a judge and was placed on probation for six months. Because the 1996 immigration law calls domestic violence a deportable offense, she is now being deported to Guatemala, even though she has two children who are U.S. citizens. We still have time to act this year to end these abuses. The House of Representatives has already passed legislation that is an important first step in this process, but it fails to deal with many of the most harmful aspects of the 1996 laws. The legislation we are introducing today is needed to end these festering abuses once and for all, and we urge Congress to enact it.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. So that people watching this have some understanding, we have an H-1B proposal that is before the Senate, and there is virtual unanimity in the Senate in favor of it. There are some differences in terms of the training programs, to make sure we get additional funding so these jobs will be available for Americans down the road. Maybe people are trying to block that particular amendment. These are good jobs. Why should we not have training for Americans to be able to have these jobs in the future? I would like to be able to make that case and move ahead. There are other amendments, as the Senator pointed out. On the one hand--I ask my colleague if he doesn't agree--we are looking out after the high-tech community with the H-1Bs. There is a need also in Massachusetts, and I support that. On the other hand, there is a need in terms of equity, fairness, justice, and also economically to make an adjustment of status so that men and women who are qualified ought to be able to get a green card to be able to work. It just so happens they are Latinos. Evidently, that is the difference here, as far as I can figure out. Otherwise, I can't understand why, on the one hand, we are permitting and encouraging people to go to high-tech, but not to go to work in some of the other industries, even though the Chamber of Commerce, the AFL, and the various church groups are in strong support of it. The economics of it are that there is a very critical need for it. Can the Senator possibly explain why we are being denied an opportunity to complete our business in terms of the high-tech and also in the other areas that have been strongly supported by groups across this country? As far as I can figure out, it is that they are basically of Hispanic heritage. I am asking a question to the Senator from Nevada. Has the Senator heard one reason from the other side--because it is the other side that is stopping this--why they won't do it? What is the reason? Why won't they engage in a debate on this particular issue? All we have, Mr. President, is silence on the other side. Here we are trying to give fairness to the Latinos and against the background where we had two Members on the other side, Senator Abraham and Senator Mack, who last year said they favored these kinds of adjustments for the Latinos. They said it in the last Congress. I don't doubt that that is their position now. We can dispose of this in an hour or so this afternoon. But what possibly is the reason the majority leader says, no, we are not going to deal with that? We are going to call up amendments of other Senators who haven't even been notified to come over here and deal with this. What is going on here?