Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, I have been allocated, I believe, 30 minutes. I was supposed to go after the Senator from Utah. Generally, we go from one side to the other, in terms of fairness in recognition. I have waited my turn. The Senator from Utah is not here. I am on that list. I have requested time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are trying to be accommodating here. We have had one Senator from that side. I understand if Senator Hatch was going to be here I would have to wait my turn, but I am here. I have been waiting. Under the fairness of recognition, I object. But I certainly do not object to the Senator speaking after my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I object to that.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I do not yield for a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, who has the floor?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will withhold, here is another chart showing double the numbers of groups that support this proposal as well. These are all of the groups. Here is the National Restaurant Association listed in support of this proposal. What is the argument on the other side? I thought I heard somebody say, ``We don't want to confuse these issues.'' I don't think there is much confusion about what is being considered around here. There isn't a lot of confusion about it. It is very basic and rather fundamental. The adjustment of status that was applied just over a year ago in terms of the Nicaraguans and Cubans was going to be extended to others, including the El Salvadorans, Hondurans, Haitians, and Guatemalans. They have been effectively discriminated against. We were going to adjust for those. And then for about 300,000 citizens here in this country who are being denied a green card, under the law, according to the courts, they should be entitled to go to work. The courts have said it was a bureaucratic mistake that they were denied that opportunity to be able to get a green card to go to work. Then the Congress went ahead and effectively withdrew the authority of the Justice Department to implement what the courts have found was a gross injustice and gross unfairness to Latinos. Effectively, they wiped out their remedy. What this amendment will do is just give them the opportunity to make that adjustment. This is all about working. It is about working. It is about a green card and working. That is what this is basically about. We hear lectures from the other side all the time about how we want to encourage people to work. These groups want to work. They want to work. They are unable to work because of the refusal of the majority leader to permit consideration of this amendment. I see we are joined by the Senator from Illinois. Then the majority leader calls up Democrats' amendments without even notifying the Senators they are being called up. This is rather embarrassing, I would think, for Members to have amendments called up and they are over in their office trying to do constituency work. Their constituencies are going to wonder: Where in the world is my Senator? His amendment, or her amendment, is before the Senate. Where is that individual? In 38 years I have never seen that. I hope we are not going to have lectures from the other side: Well, we are in charge around here. Evidently they don't care very much about the rules, or at least about the courtesies and the degree of civility we have had about calling up other Senators' amendments. This goes just as far as I can possibly imagine. The one thing that bothers me is, what is it that they fear? What is it possibly that they fear which causes us to have to take all of this time to pass this legislation? Maybe the Senator from Illinois will respond. I want to direct it to the Senator from Nevada. What is it that they fear? Why is it that they take these extraordinary, unique, exceptional steps to deny a fair debate about fairness to Latinos?

Mr. KENNEDY. As I understand the time allocation, there are 45 minutes. I thought I would yield 12 minutes to myself and 10 minutes to the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. With the understanding of the acting majority leader, if I could have the attention of the Senator from Ohio, I ask that the time be evenly divided.

Mr. KENNEDY. I don't want to interrupt the line of thought of the Senator. I understand the majority leader put in place two amendments that were actually Democratic amendments--at least one amendment was proposed by Members of our side. I have been in the institution now for 38 years, and I have never heard of another Senator calling up someone else's amendment before the Senate. We want to be involved in the substance of this and get the H-1B measure put on through. But I am just wondering if I understand correctly that the majority leader now has filed a cloture motion and gone ahead and called up the Senator's amendment. Maybe that Senator has been notified; maybe he is on his way here. But I am just wondering, I say to the deputy leader for the Democrats, whether I understand the situation correctly. Is that the understanding of the Senator from Nevada, that this is the situation?

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask consent I be allowed to yield myself 12 minutes, and I ask consent that the Senator from Rhode Island be allowed to follow with 10 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask consent that the Senator from Rhode Island be permitted to be recognized after me in the remaining time, and I yield myself 12 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 10 minutes at this time, if the clerk will let me know. Mr. President, I support the pending H-1B high-tech visa legislation. The high technology industry needs skilled workers to ensure its continued growth. As we all know, the Nation is stretched thin to support these firms that are so important to the Nation's continuing economic growth. Demand for employees with training in computer science, electrical engineering, software and communications is very high, and Congress has a responsibility to meet these needs. In 1998, in an effort to find a stop-gap solution to this labor shortage, we enacted legislation which increased the number of temporary visas available to skilled foreign workers. Despite the availability of additional visas, we have reached the cap before the end of the year in the last 2 fiscal years. The legislation before us today addresses this problem in two ways. The short-term solution is to raise the H-1B visa cap and admit greater numbers of foreign workers to fill these jobs. The long-term solution is to do more to provide skills training for American workers and educational opportunities for American students. Raising the cap for foreign workers without addressing our domestic job training needs would be a serious mistake. We cannot and should not count on foreign sources of labor indefinitely. It is unfair to U.S. workers, and the supply of foreign workers is limited. In their 1999 book, The Supply of Information Technology Workers in the United States, Peter Freeman and William Aspray report that other countries are experiencing their own IT labor shortages and are ``placing pressures on or providing incentives to their indigenous IT work force to stay at home or return home.'' Furthermore, the jobs currently being filled by H-1B workers are solid, middle-class jobs for which well-trained Americans should have the opportunity to compete. The American work force is the best in the world--energetic, determined, and hard working. Given the proper skills and education, American workers can fill the jobs being created by the new high tech businesses. 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 layoff of domestic workers. According to an article Computerworld magazine, U.S. Census Bureau data show that the unemployment rate for IT workers over age 40 is more than five times that of other unemployed workers. Similar problems face women and minorities who are under-represented in the IT work force, and the shortage will continue unless they are recruited and trained more effectively by schools, corporations, and government programs. Under the solution that may of us favor, the Department of Labor, in consultation with the Department of Commerce, will provide grants to local work force investment boards in areas with substantial shortages of high-tech workers. Grants will be awarded on a competitive basis for innovative high-tech training proposals developed by the work force boards in cooperation with area employers, unions, and higher education institutions. This approach will provide state-of-the-art high-tech training for approximately 46,000 workers in primarily high-tech, information technology, and biotechnology skills. Similarly, we must also increase scholarship opportunities for talented minority and low-income students whose families cannot afford today's tuition costs. We must also expand the National Science Foundation's merit-based, competitive grants to programs that emphasize these skills. To provide adequate training and education opportunities for American workers and students, we must increase the H-1B visa user fee. At a time when the IT industry is experiencing major growth and record profits, it is clear that even the smallest of businesses can afford to pay a higher fee in order to support needed investments in technology skills and education. A modest increase in the user fee will generate approximately $280 million each year compared to current law, which raises less than one-third of this amount. This fee is fair. Immigrant families with very modest incomes were able to pay a $1,000 fee to allow family members to obtain green cards. Certainly, high-tech companies can afford to pay at least that amount during this prosperous economy. In fact, according to public financial information, for the top 20 companies that received the most H-1B workers this year, a $2,000 fee would cost between .002 percent and .5 percent of their net worth. A $1,000 fee would cost them even less. This fee proposal will clearly benefit the country in the short- and long-term. Companies get H-1B workers now, and they will benefit from the workers and students served by programs funded with these fees. This proposal presents a win-win, bipartisan approach to meeting the needs and business and the U.S. work force. It is fair, responsible, and necessary, given the rapidly changing needs of society and our prosperous economy. If we build on existing education and training programs and force our labor and civil rights laws to prevent age, race, and gender discrimination, American workers and students can meet the long-term high-tech needs we face in the years ahead. I look forward to debate on this legislation in the days to come. I think it is a good bill, which can be improved with amendments to address several key issues. For example, we must ensure that the H-1B visa program is narrowly focused to address the skill-shortage. The unprecedented exemptions to the cap in the Hatch bill are unwarranted. 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. Similarly, we must also ensure that the INS has sufficient funds to process high-tech visa applications and that certain institutions--all educational institutions, university teaching hospitals, nonprofits, and governmental research organizations--are appropriately exempted from the fee requirement. The high-tech industry's pressing need for skilled workers isn't the only immigration issue before Congress. There are also important family immigration issues that must be addressed. On several occasions in recent weeks, Democrats have attempted to bring the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act to the floor of the Senate for debate and a vote. Before the August recess, Democrats attempted to bring this legislation before the Senate, but the Republican leadership objected. Two weeks ago, Democrats were prepared to debate and vote on this legislation as part of the high-tech visa bill, but our Republican colleagues were unwilling to bring this measure to the floor and take a vote. Last Friday, Senator Reid asked Senator Lott for consent to offer the Latino and immigrant fairness bill and the majority leader objected. It is clear that Republican support for the Latino community is all talk and no action. When it's time to pass legislation of importance to the Latino community, the Republican leadership is nowhere to be found. 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 currently before the Senate. But, if Republicans are truly supportive of the Latino legislative agenda, how can that be true? If they support the reunification of immigrant families, as well as the immigration agenda set by the high-tech community, we should be able to pass both bills and send them to the President's desk for signature, for he strongly supports this bill. But Republican support for the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act doesn't match Republican rhetoric on the campaign trail. Rather than admit this hypocrisy, the Senate Republican leadership continues to pay lip service to these goals while blocking any realistic action to achieve them. 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. 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. Assurances were given at the time that we granted that kind of special consideration for Nicaraguans and Cubans that the others would follow in the next year. Those assurances were given by Republican Senators and the administration alike. Now, if we do not do that, we are failing that commitment. 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 1-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. Looking across the landscape, I cannot think of such a group of individuals who were excluded from participation in a process that would have permitted them to work legitimately in the United States. It was the intention of Congress they be eligible to do so. It was the INS that misled them and effectively denied them that opportunity. The courts have found for those individuals. Then legislation was passed to further exclude them, to take away the jurisdiction of the Justice Department from implementing the court's decision. That is unfair, and we have a responsibility to remedy that. We can do that. We can do that here, on this legislation. We should do it. That process will permit about 300,000 Latinos to be able to get their green cards and become legitimate workers in our economy. Our bill will alleviate this problem by allowing all individuals who have resided in the United States 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 will also restore section 245(i), a vital provision of the immigration law that was repealed in 1997 and that permitted immigrants about to become permanent residents to pay a fee of $1,000 and apply for green cards while in the United States, rather than returning to their home countries to apply. Section 245(i) was pro-family, pro- business, fiscally prudent, and a matter of common sense. Under it, immigrants with close family members in the United States are able to remain here with their families while applying for legal permanent residence. The section also allows businesses to retain valuable employees. In addition, it provided INS with millions of dollars in annual revenue, at no cost to taxpayers. Restoring section 245(i) will keep thousands of immigrants from being separated from their families and jobs for as long as 10 years. 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 and it is good for American business. The Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, a consortium of businesses and trade associations and other organizations strongly supports the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act. This coalition includes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 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. This bill is strongly supported by a wide range of different groups, from the Chamber of Commerce to the AFL-CIO, to the various religious groups, as a matter of basic, fundamental equity and fairness. I daresay there are probably more groups that support the Latino fairness--just if you look at numbers--than even the H-1B. This is an issue of fairness. We ought to be about doing it. We are being denied that opportunity by the Republican leadership, make no mistake about it. Our bill will alleviate the problem also by allowing individuals who resided in the United States prior to 1986 to obtain permanent residency by eliminating unfair procedures. As I mentioned, this particular proposal has broad support from the business community, from the workers, and from religious groups. Few days remain in this Congress, but my Democratic colleagues and I are committed to doing all we can to see both the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act and the H-1B high-tech visa become law this year. That is what this whole effort is about. If we are going to look out for the H-1B--and I am all for it--we ought to also remedy the injustice out there applying to hundreds of thousands of individuals whose principal desire is to be with their families and work here in the United States, and do so legally and legitimately. We are being effectively shut out by the majority decision to have a cloture motion filed which would exclude the possibility of inclusion. Our attempts to try to get it included have been denied. That is basically wrong. I welcome the leadership of Senator Daschle and others to make sure we are going to address this issue before we leave. Both of these matters need attention. Both of them deserve action. Both of them deserve to be passed. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. A good chunk from China. India is No. 1 and China is No. 2.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I thought I asked for a 10-minute warning.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last Friday night, an armed man walked into a gay bar in Roanoke, VA and opened fire wounding six gay men and killing another. According to news reports, the gunman asked for directions to the closest gay bar and confessed that he was shooting them because they were gay. This vicious shooting was clearly a crime motivated by hate. The victims were targeted solely because of their sexual orientation. The message of hate against the gay community was clear. Hate crimes are a national disgrace. They are an attack on everything this country stands for. They send a poisonous message that some Americans are second class citizens because of their race, their ethnic background, their religion, their sexual orientation, their gender or their disability. We need to take a strong and unequivocal stand against these despicable crimes whenever and wherever they happen. This Congress has a real opportunity to make a difference in the fight against hate-motivated violence. Two months ago, as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill, a strong bipartisan majority of the Senate voted in favor of hate crimes legislation that will close the loopholes in current law. I pay tribute to the Presiding Officer for his strong support of this endeavor. The House of Representatives has also demonstrated its strong bipartisan support for passing this important legislation on the defense bill. Despite this unique opportunity, the Republican leadership in the Senate and the House continue to oppose including the hate crimes provisions in the conference report on the Defense Authorization Bill. By removing hate crimes legislation from the bill, the Republican leadership will send a disturbing message about its lack of commitment to equal protection of the law and to civil rights for all Americans. I urge Majority Leader Lott, Speaker Hastert, and the conferees on the Defense Bill to do the right thing. Both the House and the Senate strongly favor action this year against hate crimes. Now is the time for the Congress to act by sending a clear and unmistakable signal to the American people that the federal government will do all it can to see that these despicable offenses are punished with the full force of the law. Just last Friday night, one of the most horrendous and horrific kinds of crimes was committed by an armed man walking into a gay bar in Roanoke, VA. Interestingly, Virginia has hate crimes legislation, but it is not based upon sexual orientation. So that is a major opening in that law. The legislation, which has passed in the Senate, would be able to address this issue. We should have the opportunity to vote on it. It was included in the defense authorization bill. It was strongly supported on the instructions by the House of Representatives. That conference is still open. I am a member of that conference. It is one of the last remaining items. It ought to be included. If we need a reminder of why it is important to pass this legislation, we have that tragic circumstance. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. We have not had the full debate and discussion of what American parents want. The fact is, projected over the next years, we are going to see virtually a doubling of the number of children, up to 94 million. The children in this country and the parents deserve a debate and discussion in the Senate on education. They have been denied that. For the first time in the history of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Senate has failed to meet its commitment in this area. I regret that, Mr. President. I wish we were debating that instead of having long quorum calls or lengthy speeches on the floor of the Senate. I retain the remainder of my time under cloture.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. I ask the Chair to let me know when I have 2 minutes remaining. Final statement, July 25: We will keep trying to find a way to get back to this legislation this year and get it completed. We have not been able to do that. We have been unable to do it. The basic reason that we have been unable to do it is because those on this side wanted to offer a series of amendments--on smaller class size; well-trained teachers in every classroom in America; help and assistance in the construction of schools, in the modernization of schools; afterschool programs; assurance that we are going to have tough accountability; that we are also going to reduce the digital divide; and access for continuing education programs; but we also wanted to make sure that we were going to take the necessary steps to help make the schools safe and secure--and once that became evident, then there was a different mood around here. Then that bill was effectively pulled by the majority. We do not yield on the issue of making sure we do everything we possibly can to make sure that schools are going to be safe and secure. I draw attention to the tragic situation today in the Carter Woodson Middle School in New Orleans, LA. Two teenage boys have been involved in another school shooting. Someone passed a gun in through a fence, and a young child used it. That child shot another child, and then he dropped the gun. Another child picked up the gun and shot the initial shooter. Both children are critically injured and in surgery. School has been canceled for 3 days. We have pressing education issues to address. We have pressing needs to try to make our communities safer and more secure and to remove the opportunities for children to acquire the weapons of destruction that end up taking other children's lives. But we are denied that. As a result, we will not have the chance to reauthorize. I say that because we heard from the majority leader that we are not going to take up education because we are not going to consider gun legislation, in spite of the fact that in 1994, our majority leader co- sponsored gun legislation that was proposed by a Republican Senator. They didn't complain then and say it was inappropriate or irrelevant at that time. It is relevant to make sure that schools are safe and secure. I heard a great deal in the last few days about what is happening in the schools of this country. All of us understand that we have challenges that exist in our inner-city schools and many of our rural schools. We understand that. But I am kind of tired of people just tearing down the public school system. That has become rather fashionable. We have heard that in part of the national debate. I am just going to bring some matters to the attention of the Senate. First are the number of students who are taking advanced math and science classes--this is from 1990 to 2000. On precalculus, the number of students went from 31 to 44 percent; on calculus, from 19 percent to 24 percent; on physics from 44 percent to 49 percent--a very significant increase in the number of children who are taking more challenging courses in our high schools, according to the College Board. On this chart we see the growth in the percent of students who are taking the scholastic aptitude tests. This went from 33 percent in 1980, to 40 percent in 1990, and up to 44 percent. The trend lines are moving up. It is not an enormous amount of progress from 40 percent to 44 percent, but nonetheless it is showing an enhancement of the total number of children who are taking those tests. Here are the SAT math scores. They are the highest in 30 years. This is important because we have many more children taking them. It is one thing that we have a small number of children taking the test, now we have expanded the number of children who are taking the test nationwide. And what do we see? The SAT math scores are the highest in 30 years. They have been moving up now consistently over the last few years. Actually, in the early years, in terms of minorities, the difference has actually diminished. What we are saying is that there are some very important indicators that are going in the right way. I was quite interested in hearing the Governor of Texas talk about how our schools are in all kinds of trouble and how it happens to be the Vice President's fault. But meanwhile the States themselves have 93 cents out of every dollar to spend. They are the ones who have the prime responsibility to spend on education. So the question comes down to, if they are the ones who have the prime responsibility, is it fair enough to ask what these Governors have been doing over this period of time? Federal participation has been targeted on the neediest children. They are the toughest ones to try and bring educational enhancement and academic achievement to; they are the ones who are targeted. Nonetheless, we see what has been enhanced. There have been some very notable kinds of improvements. I think the State of North Carolina, under Governor Hunt, has been one of the outstanding examples of total improvement in how they have been dealing with troubled schools--those schools that have been facing challenges. Instead of the proposal that is offered by Governor Bush in this particular instance, which would draw money from it and effectively close down that school, we find out how they are handling that with Governor Hunt in North Carolina. In North Carolina they send in teams to help restructure both the personnel and the curriculum. What is happening is major achievements and accomplishments. Those are the kinds of ideas we ought to be embracing, the ones that have been tried and tested and have been effective. I want to show, finally, where we are going over a long period of time in terms of enrollment. It will continue to rise over the next century. We are failing in this Congress to have a debate and a conclusion on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We had 6 days of discussion on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; 2 days for debate only. Then we had eight votes--one vote was a voice vote; three were virtually unanimous. So we had four votes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I raise one other item of priority, and that is the failure to take action on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. If we don't take action, this will be the first time in 35 years where the Senate has failed to take action on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I, again, bring to the attention of our colleagues the commitment that was made by the majority leader going back to 1999. On January 6, 1999, he said: Education is going to be a central issue this year. . . . For starters, we must reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That is important. On January 29, 1999: But education is going to have a lot of attention, and it's not going to just be words. . . . On June 22, 1999: Education is number one on the agenda for Republicans in the Congress this year. . . . On February 1, 2000: We're going to work very hard on education. I have emphasized that every year I've been Majority Leader. . . . And Republicans are committed to doing that. On February 3, 2000: We must reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. . . . Education will be a high priority in this Congress. Here we are in May of 2000: . . . 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.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for months, Democrats and Republicans have offered their unequivocal support for the H-1B high tech visa legislation. In addition, Democrats have tried--without Republican support--to offer the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act. Democrats have worked tirelessly to reach an agreement with the Republicans to bring both of these bills to the floor for a vote. In fact, 2 weeks ago, Democrats were prepared to debate and vote on this legislation as part of their high-tech visa bill, but our Republican colleagues were unwilling to bring this measure to the floor and take a vote. And last Friday, Senator Reid asked Senator Lott for consent to offer the Latino and Immigrant Fairness bill and the Majority Leader objected. No matter what Democrats have done, the Republican leadership has been determined to avoid this issue and prevent a vote. Our Republican friends tell us the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act is a poison pill--that it will undermine the H-1B high tech visa legislation currently before the Senate. But, if Republicans are truly supportive of the Latino legislative agenda, that cannot possibly be true. If they support the reunification of immigrant families as well as the immigration agenda set by the high tech community, we should be able to pass both bills and send them to the President's desk for signature. I have three letters from children who wrote to the President about the significance of the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act to families. I will read them quickly for the Senate. Dear Bill Clinton. My mom is a member of late amnesty. That is the provision under which they would have received the amnesty. Then the INS put out rules and regulations so they were unable to make the application. Then they went to court and found out later they had legitimate rights and interests; they should have received amnesty. Nonetheless, their rights were effectively eliminated by the 1996 act. So now they are in serious risk of deportation. Dear Bill Clinton. My mom is a member of late amnesty. The Immigration wants to report my mom. They don't want her here. She should have permission to stay here because I was born here. Please don't take her away from me and my brothers. I'll trade you my best toy for my mom. Like my bike and my little collections of cars. Don't take her away from me! Please. Signed Ernesto Here is another: Dear President Clinton, Please don't take my parents away from me. I love them very much and my sisters too. We have been together for a lot of years and I don't want to be separated now so please don't separate us. Signed Larry. Hi. My name is Blanca. I'm 8 years old. I feel bad for my parents. I want my parents to have their work permit back so that they could work hard as they used to work to overcome our lives in Los Angeles. I am willing to give you, Mr. President, Bill Clinton, my favorite doll for my parents' work permit. Thank you! Blanca These are real situations. We are talking about families who ought to be here as a matter of right under the 1986 immigration bill. Their cause has been upheld by the courts. The 1996 act, intentionally or not, effectively wiped out those rights, and those individuals are subject to deportation. The children of these individuals are American citizens, born in this country, but the parents are subject to deportation and live in fear of this. The 1986 act was a result of a series of studies done by the Hesburgh Commission, of which I was a member and so was the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Simpson. There were a number of provisions in that act. Included in that act was an amnesty provision for people who had been here for some period of time, who had worked hard and were part of a community, trying to provide for their families. These letters are examples of individuals who are now at risk, and we are attempting to resolve their family situation. The Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act is a family value issue. I suggest, that if we are talking about families and about keeping families together, that this particular provision is a powerful one. The Chamber of Commerce and a long list of organizations including, the AFL-CIO, the Anti-Defamation League, Americans for Tax Reform, and various religious organizations, support this legislation and have pointed out the importance of it to the economy and the importance of it to keeping families together. They have been strong supporters for these different provisions. There were other amendments we hoped to offer as well. They dealt with the training of Americans for jobs that would otherwise be filled by H-1B visa applicants. The average income for these jobs is $49,000. These jobs require important skills. There are Americans who are ready and willing to work but do not have the skills to work in these particular areas. We wanted an opportunity to offer amendments to deal with this. This would not have required additional expenditures. We were going to have a modest fee of some $2,000 per application that would have created a sum of about $280 million that would have been used for skill training and work training programs, and it also would have provided assistance to the National Science Foundation in developing programs, particularly in outreach to women and minorities, who are under-represented in the IT workforce. There was some allocation of resources to reduce the digital divide, and others to expedite the consideration of these visas and make them more timely, which are both important. That was a rather balanced program. Members can argue about the size and the allocation of resources in those areas, but nonetheless, it appears those provisions are relevant to the H-1B legislation. But we were prohibited under the action taken to even bring up these matters. These issues can be resolved quickly. Under the proposal that was made by Senator Daschle, we would have 1 hour of debate on the issue of skill training, which is enormously important. I personally believe we have to understand that education is going to be a continuing life experience. And for those who are in the job market, training and education is going to be a life experience if they are to continue to get good jobs and enhance their skills. These are all related to the subject at hand, but we have been denied the opportunity to offer them. Instead, we have been virtually free of any serious work on the floor of the Senate since 10:15 this morning. Another day has passed. Under the deadline that was established by the two leaders, the Senate will recess at the end of next week. Meanwhile, another day has passed and we continue to be denied the opportunity to remedy a fundamental injustice. We continue to be denied the opportunity to bring up the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act, and the opportunity to debate and reach a conclusion on these matters. We are ending another day, but I wonder what the intention is and why we continue to have this circus, so to speak. Americans are wondering. We are in the last 2 weeks of this Congress, and we have passed two appropriations bills. What is happening on the floor of the U.S. Congress? What Americans have seen today is a long period of quorum calls and the denial of Members to offer amendments in a timely way to reach a resolution of matters of importance, such as the H-1B legislation and the Latino and Immigration Fairness Act. I thought when we were elected to the Senate, it was a question of priorities and choices. When I first came to the Senate, I heard this would be a great job if you didn't have to vote. I laughed when I first heard that. Now it is back. It is a great job if you don't have to vote. Now we are prohibited from voting and indicating our priorities on H-1B and the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act. It is unfortunate that this is the case. I am going to print in the Record a number of the letters that have been sent to me in support of these provisions. Some of the most moving ones have been from some of the religious organizations. I want to be notified by the Chair when I have 10 minutes remaining. I have a letter from the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, one of the very best refugee services. I have followed their work over a long period of time. They are first rate. Here is what they wrote: We understand and appreciate the needs of our country's high-tech industries and universities for highly skilled employees. We also feel, however, that legislation to benefit the most advanced sectors of our society should be balanced with relief for equally deserving immigrants who fled persecution and political strife, seek to remain with close family members or long worked equally hard in perhaps less glamourous jobs. A comprehensive bill would be a stronger bill vindicating both economic and humanitarian concerns. They have it just about right. I have another letter from the Jesuit Conference that says: As you aim to make our immigration policy more consonant with U.S. reality, we ask you to recognize the present situation of thousands of immigrants from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Haiti who fled political and economic turmoil in their countries years ago and are now living and working in the United States without permanent immigration status. Many of those immigrants have built families here and have strengthened the U.S. economy by providing services to the manufacturing industry with the essential low-wage workers they need. Congress has already acknowledged the need to ameliorate the harsh effects of the 1996 immigration law. In 1997, it passed the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act that allowed Cubans and Nicaraguans to become permanent residents, but gave Salvadorans and Guatemalans limited opportunities to do so. Haitians and Hondurans were completely excluded from the 1997 law. In 1997, Haitians were given hope for equal treatment and fairness by passage of the Haitian Relief Act, but the spirit of the legislation was ultimately thwarted by messy and slow lawmaking. It is time to remedy the unequal treatment received by Central Americans and Caribbeans once and for all. The list goes on with group after group representing the great face of this nation pointing out the moral issues involved. Evidently they are not of sufficient and compelling nature that we are permitted to get a vote in the Senate. We are denied that opportunity, even though there is support from a long list of groups that understand the economic importance of this to certain industries. But the moral reasons, the family reasons, the sense of justice which are underlined by members of the religious faith I find compelling. I believe deeply that by failing to act, we are denying ourselves a great opportunity to remedy a great injustice.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last week nearly 200 high school and college student members of Skills USA-Vocational Industrial Clubs of America, their instructors, and corporate sponsors came to Capitol Hill to report the results of their year-long ``Building Skills for America'' signature campaign. Building Skills for America is a public awareness initiative by Skills USA-VICA to demonstrate the urgent needs of business and industry for a highly-skilled work force and the private sector's effective support for occupational instruction. The campaign has given these students the opportunity to speak to their communities about their pride in their chosen professions and the many opportunities available through good technical education. The students were able to collect 200,000 signatures for the campaign. I congratulate all of these students for their skillful work and dedication in promoting state-of-the-art vocational education and job training programs. I ask that a congratulatory letter to these outstanding young leaders, signed by Senators Collins, Reed, Grassley, Kerry, Inhofe, Miller, Lugar, Bryan, Murkowski, Dodd, Roth, Kerrey, DeWine, Murray, Hagel, Mikulski, Hatch, Harkin, Reid, Lincoln, Bingaman, Hollings, Levin, Conrad, Cleland, Wyden and myself may be printed in the Record. The letter follows: U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, September 20, 2000. Student Members and Staff, SkillsUSA-VICA. Warmest congratulations on your impressive efforts to raise the awareness of all Americans about the importance of a well-trained workforce. We commend you for your recognition that the nation's prosperity depends on the skills of our workers, and that a shortage of highly-skilled workers threatens American competitiveness and hampers the ability of companies to compete successfully in the modern economy. It is estimated that the nation will have 50 million job openings between now and 2006--and most of these openings will require highly developed skills. Clearly, we must do more to promote the training necessary to respond to this challenge. Education and technical training offered through the nation's colleges and schools in conjunction with the SkillsUSA-VICA program is a national resource for teaching the academic, occupational, and professional skills that will help students to become well-trained workers and responsible citizens. The 200,000 signatures that you collected over the past year in your Building Skills for America campaign have increased public support for the on-going education and training of the workforce across the country. You deserve great credit for the success of your Building America Campaign. We are proud to support continuing state- of-the-art vocational education programs and job training programs that reflect the changing needs of American business and industry. The contributions of hard-working Americans have been and will continue to be essential to the prosperity of the nation. We look forward to working closely with you to achieve these important goals. Edward M. Kennedy, Susan M. Collins, Jack Reed, Charles E. Grassley, John F. Kerry, James M. Inhofe, Zell Miller, Richard G. Lugar, Richard H. Bryan, Frank H. Murkowski, Christopher J. Dodd, William V. Roth, Jr., J. Robert Kerrey, Mike DeWine, Patty Murray, Chuck Hagel, Barbara A. Mikulski, Orrin G. Hatch, Tom Harkin, Harry Reid, Blanche L. Lincoln, Jeff Bingaman, Ernest F. Hollings, Carl Levin, Kent Conrad, Ron Wyden, Max Cleland.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in an article published in the July/ August issue of Foreign Affairs, Richard Gardner argues persuasively that at this time of record prosperity, America must commit itself to an increased budget for foreign policy in order to protect our vital interests and carry out our commitments around the world. He argues that America's security interests must be protected not only by maintaining a superior military force, but also by focusing on other international issues that are essential to our national security, such as global warming, AIDS, drug-trafficking, and terrorism. He asserts that to achieve these goals, foreign aid must be given higher spending priority, and the current trend of decreased funding for our international commitments must be reversed. Mr. Gardner is well known to many of us in Congress. For many years, and under many Administrations, he has served our nation well as a distinguished diplomat. He skillfully represented U.S. interests abroad, and has made valuable contributions to advancing America's foreign policy objectives. He continues this important work today, serving as a Professor of Law and International Organization at Columbia University and a member of the President's Advisory Committee on Trade Policy and Negotiations. I believe that Ambassador Gardner's article will be of interest to all of us in Congress, and I ask unanimous consent that it may be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this legislation will help millions of children in the years ahead. It takes needed action to improve children's health by expanding pediatric research and taking specific steps to deal with a wide range of childhood illnesses, disorders, and injuries. It also reauthorizes the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Adminstration, which has an important role in reducing substance abuse and maintaining and improving the mental health of the nation's children and adolescents. Coordinated efforts in these areas can lead to significant benefits for all children. Senator Frist and I have worked closely with many of our Democratic and Republican colleagues on this important legislation. We have talked with experts and advocates in the children's health community and in the mental health and substance abuse treatment communities. This legislation will lead to significant progress in addressing many of today's most pressing pediatric public health problems. The legislation includes a variety of new and reauthorized children's health provisions. It represents a compromise with our colleagues in the House and addresses a wide range of pediatric public health issues raised by experts in the field and championed by numerous members from both sides of the aisle in both chambers. Division A of the bill focuses on general children's health. It includes programs to improve the health of pregnant women and prenatal outcomes, including prevention of birth defects and low birth weight. It establishes a new Center for Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in order to focus the nation's activities more effectively in these important areas. It also directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to expand public education efforts on folic acid consumption in order to decrease neural tube birth defects. The bill also deals with traumatic brain injury which is the leading cause of death and disability in young Americans. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated that 5.3 million Americans are living with long-term, severe disability as a result of brain injuries, and each year 50,000 people die as a result of such injuries. The Children's Public Health Act revises and extends the authorization for a series of important programs that were enacted in 1996 to deal with these injuries. This reauthorization will assure continued progress toward understanding, treating and preventing them. In addition, the bill includes the long overdue reauthorization of the CDC's Injury Prevention and Control Programs. There are steps we should take to modernize this authority and increase the authorization levels, but it is welcome progress at last to renew its authorization. Improving and protecting the safety of child care facilities is also a high priority for Congress. This legislation creates a new program to improve the safety of children in child care settings, and to encourage child care providers to take steps to prevent illness and injuries and protect the health of the children they serve. It is said that the 21st century will be the century of life sciences. Our national health policy will have the benefit of brilliant new scientific discoveries that have already begun to change how we diagnose, treat and prevent countless conditions. The legislation creates a new grant program that focuses on inherited disorders. Based on legislation introduced last year that has the strong support of a broad-based coalition of both the genetics and public health communities, our bill provides funds for state or local public health departments to expand existing programs or initiate new programs that provide screening, counseling or health services to infants and children who have genetic conditions or are at risk for such conditions. It also establishes an Advisory Committee to assist the Secretary on these issues. The bill also takes a number of steps to address other prevalent childhood conditions. Asthma is the most common chronic childhood illness, affecting more than seven percent of all American children. The death rate for children with asthma increased by 78 percent between 1980 and 1993, and asthma-related costs total nearly $2 billion annually in direct health care for children. The nation is handicapped by a lack of basic information on where and how asthma strikes, what triggers it, and how effectively the health care system is responding to those who suffer from this chronic disease. Our bill will provide greater asthma services to children, including mobile clinics and patient and family education, and it will help to reduce allergens in housing and public facilities. Poor nutrition and lack of physical activity are also hurting many American children and contributing to lifelong health problems. The nation spends $39 billion a year--equal to six percent of overall U.S. health care expenditures--on direct health care related to obesity. Twenty percent of American children--one in five--are overweight. Unhealthy eating habits and physical inactivity in childhood can lead to heart disease, cancer and other serious illnesses decades later. Children and adolescents who suffer from eating disorders, such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia, can have wide-ranging physical and mental health impairments. Our legislation establishes new grant programs to reduce childhood obesity and eating disorders, promote better nutritional habits among children, and encourage an appropriate level of physical activity for children and adolescents. The bill also requires the Secretary to study issues related to effective treatment for metabolic disorders, including PKU, and access to such treatments, in order to prevent worsening of these conditions. It is my hope that this study will be useful for employers, insurers, insurance commissioners and others who provide insurance or set coverage standards. Another major area where additional efforts are needed is dental care. Last May, the Surgeon General published a landmark report on oral health in America, emphasizing the need to consider oral health as an essential part of total health. There is no question that oral and dental health care should be included in primary care. Tooth decay is the most common childhood infectious disease, and it can lead to devastating consequences, including problems with eating, learning and speech. Twenty-five percent of children in the United States suffer 80 percent of the tooth decay, with significant racial and age disparities. The number of dentists in the country has been declining since 1990, and is projected to continue to decline through the year 2020. According to a 1995 report by the Inspector General, only one in five Medicaid-eligible children receive dental services annually, and the shortage of dentists exacerbates the problem of unmet needs. Yet tooth decay is largely preventable. More effective efforts to educate parents and children about the causes of tooth decay--and initiatives to prevent and treat it--can lead to lasting public health improvements. Our legislation includes a variety of approaches to deal with this silent epidemic, including a new grant program to improve the understanding of prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of pediatric oral diseases and conditions, and grants to increase community-wide fluoridation and school-based dental sealant programs. It also directs the Secretary to undertake a coordinated oral health initiative to fund innovative activities to improve the oral health of low-income children. Research has long shown that childhood lead poisoning can have devastating effects on children, causing reduced IQ and attention span, stunted growth, behavior problems, and reading and learning disabilities. Yet too many children remain unscreened and untreated, and adequate services often are not available for children with elevated levels of lead in their blood. There is no excuse for not taking greater steps to eliminate childhood lead poisoning. Our bill includes screening for early detection and treatment, professional education and training programs, and outreach and education activities for at-risk children. Pediatric research discoveries promote and maintain health throughout a child's life span, and also contribute significantly to new insights that aid in the prevention and treatment of illnesses among adults. A growing body of evidence shows that risk factors for conditions such as coronary artery disease and stroke begin in childhood and persist through adulthood. Congress has a strong record of promoting basic and clinical research, and the steps taken in this legislation continue that priority with a special focus on children. The legislation establishes a pediatric research initiative, authorized at $50 million annually, that will increase support for pediatric biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health, including an increase in collaborative efforts among multidisciplinary fields in areas that are promising for children. The legislation also requires coordination with the Food and Drug Administration to increase the number of pediatric clinical trials, and to provide greater information on safer and more effective use of prescription drugs in children. Children have unique health care needs. They are not simply small adults. Nothing is more important to the future health of America's children than maintaining a steady supply of pediatricians, pediatric specialists and pediatric-focused scientists. Our legislation takes several important steps to improve the growth and development of a pediatric-focused medical community. It enhances support through the NIH expressly for training and career development activities of pediatric researchers, including establishing a loan repayment program for health care professionals who focus on pediatric research. It revises and extends the authorization of a program enacted last year to support graduate medical education at independent children's hospitals. These hospitals train half of all pediatric specialists, and 30 percent of all pediatricians. However, because GME activities have historically been supported by Medicare and because these hospitals serve very few Medicare patients, they have traditionally received very little federal financial support for this important and costly activity. As a result, children's hospitals are struggling to maintain the important training, pediatric research, and primary and specialty care services that they provide. Children's hospitals should be treated like all other teaching hospitals when it comes to support for their GME activities. I have sponsored other legislation to guarantee full funding each year, without being subject to the appropriations process. That proposal has been included in the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 2000. It is awaiting consideration in the Finance Committee, and I hope it will be enacted this year. The bill also authorizes a new long-term study to monitor and evaluate health and development of children through adulthood. The kind of information that will be obtained by this study is long-overdue, and I look forward to its results. The bill also takes two steps to protect children who participate in clinical trials and other research. It requires all HHS-regulated and funded research to comply with current pediatric-specific human subject protection regulations. This provision is supported by the FDA and industry alike, and it is an important step toward assuring full public confidence in life-saving research activities. In addition, it requires the Secretary to review those regulations and report on their adequacy and recommendations, if any, for changes within six months. Our committee intends to look more broadly at the issue of human subject protections next year, and this report will help inform those discussions. Finally, this legislation also includes a variety of directives to increase activities at public health agencies on specific disorders and diseases affecting children. Children living with autism, Fragile X, diabetes, arthritis, muscular dystrophy, epilepsy, cystic fibrosis, and a number of other conditions have much to be grateful for today. We all have the highest hopes that the provisions in this bill will lead to successful efforts to combat these debilitating and often deadly conditions. Division B of the bill will enable the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to meet the mental health and substance abuse needs of communities through its successful existing programs and through new and innovative initiatives. The recent National Household Survey on Drug Abuse indicates that we have made important progress in combating substance abuse, especially among the nation's youth. The goal of this legislation is to build on that progress with expanded prevention and treatment services. Several of the bill's provisions come from the Mental Health Early Intervention, Treatment, and Prevention Act, which Senator Domenici and I introduced in response to the Surgeon General's groundbreaking Report on Mental Health. These provisions take needed steps to give the mentally ill the services they need. This legislation is the product of bi-partisan cooperation, and I especially commend Senator Frist for his leadership in bringing everyone together. His efforts have helped ensure that the measure we pass today is an effective response to the mental illness and substance abuse problems we face. Over the past two decades, we have made great progress in determining the causes of mental illnesses and developing strategies to treat them. We have also begun to understand the biological basis of substance abuse. Despite these scientific advances, mental illness and substance abuse continue to be a national crisis. One in five Americans will experience some form of mental illness this year--and two-thirds of them will not seek treatment. Substance abuse costs the country an estimated $270 billion in annual economic costs, and it leads to unacceptable violence, injury, and HIV infection in our communities. Too often, patients with mental illness are denied the state-of-the- art treatment that would be available if their illnesses were physical instead of mental. We have failed to provide them with the services they need to meet the overwhelming obstacles they face. We have not made an adequate effort to help them overcome their addictions. The bill we pass today is intended to correct these injustices. It will provide treatment to those who desperately need it and prevention services to those at risk. Much of the bill focuses on the unique needs of youths, adolescents, and young adults. It provides services for children of substance abusers, training for teachers to recognize the symptoms of mental illness, and a suicide prevention program for children and youth. In addition, it provides a range of community services for children with serious emotional disturbances and for youth offenders. Agencies will receive funding to study and treat post-traumatic stress disorder in children. The bill also provides funds to coordinate welfare and mental health services for children who would benefit from this approach. For homeless individuals, the bill provides expanded mental health and substance abuse services, along with transition assistance. For residents of treatment facilities, it offers protections from the inappropriate and often harmful use of seclusion and restraints. The bill will help to divert persons with mental illness from the criminal justice system, which for too long has served as a dumping-ground, and give them the services they need. It will provide special treatment for those who suffer simultaneously from mental illness and addiction. It will also provide funds to designate facilities as emergency mental health centers, especially in underserved areas. In all the services included, there will be a special emphasis on meeting the unique needs of specific cultures and ethnic groups, and on giving states the flexibility they need to address the concerns of their individual communities. For too long, we have blamed the mentally ill and those addicted to alcohol and other drugs for their behavior, rather than extending a helping hand. Recent scientific advances have opened new windows onto the biochemical basis of mental illness and addictive behavior. This legislation will ensure that these advances are translated into practical services for those who need them. By creating this more effective framework to deliver appropriate services, we will help many more individuals to re-enter society as productive members, and do much more to dispel the stigma of diseases that affect the mind. This legislation deserves to be a major public health priority for the nation. Congress should send the President this legislation before the end of this session. I ask unanimous consent that the summary of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield the floor, Mr. President.