Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is exactly right. That is why, when we do have the measure before us, we will offer amendments to try to develop the support in the Senate, and also in the House, for the funding of a program that will help ensure that this deficit, in terms of the highly skilled who are being addressed by the H-1B visa, will be eased. We will utilize very effective services. For example, the National Science Foundation, which has a good deal of skill and understanding and awareness in giving focus and attention to encouraging highly specialized vocations and support for these types of programs. We will welcome the opportunity to join with my friend from Illinois in bringing this to the attention of the Senate when we actually have the measure before us. We are very hopeful that we will have the opportunity to address it and not have steps taken in the Senate that will foreclose both the debate and discussion on this issue. The fact is that the great majority of these H-1B jobs have good, middle-income salaries, and they are the kinds of jobs that would benefit any family in America. For a number of reasons, which I think many of us are familiar with, we have not developed the kinds of training programs and support programs for the development of the skills in these areas that we need. But the question that will be before us is, Should we throw up our hands and say we won't do that and we will depend upon a foreign supply of these workers in the future? I think not. I think we should take the steps now to make sure this provision actually becomes an anachronism. Perhaps we will also need opportunities for those who have the very highly specialized skills to come here and to benefit and fit into some aspect of either industry or academia. We ought to recognize that. But to rely on the kind of jobs where only 57 percent of H-1Bs earned a bachelor's degree and the average income is only $45,000--this is a long way from those. I think most Members of the Senate and I certainly think most Americans would say H-1B is a superscientist that is going to go to a very specialized company or that will generate thousands of jobs. That may be true for very few that are included. But the fact is, for the most part, these are the kinds of jobs that can be filled with American labor if they have the right kind of skills, and we ought to be able to develop that effort as we go into this program. We also hear countless reports of age and race discrimination as rampant problems in the IT industry. The rate of unemployment for the average IT worker over age 40 is more than 5 times that of other workers. Just when we should be doing more to bring minorities into technology careers, we hear that organizations in Silicon Valley cannot get companies to recruit from minority colleges and universities, or hire skilled, educated minorities from neighboring Oakland. The number of women entering the IT field has also dramatically decreased since the mid-1980s. If the skill shortage is as dire as the IT industry reports, we can clearly do more to increase the number of minorities, women and older workers in the IT workforce. Any credible legislative proposal to increase the number of foreign high tech workers available to American businesses must begin with the expansion of high-skill career training opportunities for American workers. Now more than ever, employer demand for high-tech foreign workers shows that there is an even greater need to train American workers and prepare U.S. students for careers in information technology. As Chairman Alan Greenspan recently stated, The rapidity of innovation and the unpredictability of the directions it may take imply a need for considerable investment in human capital . . . The pressure to enlarge the pool of skilled workers also requires that we strengthen the significant contributions of other types of training and educational programs, especially for those with lesser skills. When we expanded the number of H-1B visas in 1998, we created a training initiative funded by a visa fee in recognition of the need to train and update the skills of members of our workforce. Today, as we seek to nearly double the number of high tech workers, we must ensure that legislation signed into law includes a significant expansion of career training and educational opportunities for American workers and students. I propose that we build on the priorities in current H-1B law. The Department of Labor, in consultation with the Department of Commerce, will provide grants to local workforce 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 workforce boards collaboratively with area employers, unions, and higher education institutions. Annually, this program will provide state-of-the-art high tech training for approximately 50,000 workers in primarily high tech, information technology, and biotechnology skills. More than ever, today's jobs require advanced degrees, especially in math, science, engineering, and computer sciences. We must encourage students, including minorities to pursue degrees in these fields. 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 partnership programs with an educational mission. Equally important, closing the digital divide must be a part of our effort to meet the growing demand for high skilled workers. The only effective way for Congress to responsibly ensure more high skill training and scholarships for students is to increase the H-1B visa user fees. High tech companies are producing record profits. They can afford to pay a higher application fee. According to public financial information, for the top twenty companies that received the most H-1B workers this year, a $2,000 fee would cost between .002% and .5% of their net worth. A $1,000 fee would cost them very little. Immigrant families with very modest incomes were able to pay a $1,000 fee to allow family members to obtain green cards. The H-1B debate should not focus solely on the number of visas available to skilled workers. It should also deal with the professional credentials of the workers being admitted. It makes sense to expand the number of H-1B visas to fill the shortage of masters and doctoral level professionals with specialized skills that cannot be easily and quickly produced domestically. We should insist that a significant percentage of the H-1B visa cap be carved out and reserved for individuals with masters or higher degrees. In the days to come, we will have the opportunity to debate these issues and pass legislation that meets the needs of the high technology industry by raising the visa cap and also by ensuring state-of-the-art skills training for American workers. Clearly, however, the immigration agenda is not just an H-1B high-tech visa agenda. Congress also has a responsibility to deal with the critical issues facing Latino and other immigrant families in our country. To meet the needs of these immigrants, my colleagues and I have introduced the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act. The immigrants who will benefit from this legislation should have received permanent status from the INS long ago. These issues are not new to Congress. The Latino community has been seeking legislation to resolve these issues for many years. The immigrant community-- particularly the Latino community--has waited far too long for the fundamental fairness that this legislation will provide. This measure is also critical for businesses. All sectors of the economy are experiencing unprecedented economic growth, but this growth cannot be sustained without additional workers. With unemployment levels at 4 percent or even lower, many businesses find themselves unable to fill job openings. The shortages of highly skilled, semi- skilled and low-skilled workers are becoming a serious impediment to continuing growth. Information technology companies are not the only firms urging Congress to provide additional workers. An equally important voice is that of the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, a consortium of businesses and trade associations, and other organizations, including 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. Conservative supporters of the Act include Americans for Tax Reform and Empower America. Labor supporters include the AFL-CIO, the Union of Neeletrades and Industrial Textile Employees, and the Service Employees International Union. All of the major Latino organizations support the bill, including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the National Council of La Raza, the League of United Latin American Citizens, and the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. Religious organizations include a broad array of American Jewish groups, the U.S. Catholic Conference, and Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services. The Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act includes parity for Central Americans and Haitians. 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. The act provided other similarly situated Central Americans and Haitians with the opportunity to apply for green cards under more difficult and narrower standards and more cumbersome procedures. It is unfair not to provide the same relief for all immigrants seeking safe haven in the United States. Fairness requires that we address this grave injustice. As Congresswoman Carrie Meek said on the floor of the House of Representatives ``Nicaraguans, Cubans, Guatemalans, and Salvadorans . . . live next door to each other in some of our communities [but] one will get a green card and the others cannot. One could seek citizenship after 4 to 5 years; the others cannot. Is that fair? My answer is no, it is not fair.'' Senator Mack, Senator Abraham, and others said, ``Last year, we adopted legislation to protect Nicaraguans and Cubans. But Haitians were unfairly excluded from that bill. The time has come for Congress to end the bigotry. We must remedy this flagrant omission and add Haitians to the list of deserving refugees.'' There it is, Mr. President, those who have reasonable access: Cubans and Nicaraguans; those who have unreasonable access, Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Haitians, Hondurans, and immigrants from Eastern European countries. We have the support from the Chamber of Commerce and from the AFL-CIO to bring this in. With H-1B legislation we are looking out for the high tech industry; why not look out for other industries, as well? We had a strong indication of support by two Republican Senators last year when this was passed. Yet we are being denied the opportunity by the Republican leadership to bring this matter before the Senate. We are being denied the opportunity by the Republican leadership to have a vote on it. We will agree to a time limit. They are denying even the chance to bring it up. That is wrong. That is unfair. It is unjust. We are going to do everything we possibly can to remedy that through other parliamentary means. The idea that we are bringing up one particular proposal to look at high tech--and I am all for those provisions, and stated my support for them--and saying we should be able to deal with this issue and expand the job opportunities for other Americans, while on the other hand, saying absolutely no, we are going to set up a parliamentary situation where we are absolutely denied the opportunity to bring that up. It is supported by the religious and business communities, and has had the support of Republican Senators, but we are being denied the opportunity to bring it to the floor for a vote. It is wrong. It is unfair. The American people ought to understand it. Not only are we failing to deal with some of the key issues which are at the heart of the American families' concerns, but we are refusing to be fair on this issue with regard to the Latino and Immigrant Fairness provisions. The Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act will create a fair and uniform set of procedures for all the immigrants from the region who have been in this country since 1995. It is important to remember the recent history of why people in Central America and Haiti fled from their homes. In Guatemala, hundreds of so-called ``extra-judicial'' killings occurred every year between 1990 and 1995. Entire villages ``disappeared.'' Most of the villages were probably massacred. In El Salvador, an end to 12 years of civil war has not meant an end to violent internal strife. Ironically, the death toll in 1994 was higher than during the war. In Honduras, the Department of State's Human Rights Report cites ``serious problems,'' including extra-judicial killings, beatings and a civilian and military elite that has long operated with impunity. Haiti has been ruled by dictators for decades. In September 1991, Haiti's first democratically- elected government was overthrown in a violent military coup that was responsible for thousands of extra-judicial killings over a three-year period. The idea that we have discriminatory provisions in our immigration laws is nothing new. I remember in 1965 when we passed the Immigration Act, which eliminated the Asian Pacific triangle, a provision that went back to the old Yellow Peril days. In 1965, we permitted only 125 Asians to come into the United States. We effectively excluded Asians from their ability to immigrate here. We gave preferences to others. Who did we give preference to? To those who qualified under the national origin quota system that was based upon the ethnic requirements. The immigration laws in our country historically have been filled with these inequities, and we have been battling to try and make them fair and just. Now we are refusing to eliminate one of the most glaring discriminatory aspects that has ever existed in our immigration laws, and we are being denied that opportunity on the floor of the Senate by the Republican leadership. That is fundamentally wrong. Providing parity for immigrants from countries in Central America and Haiti will help individuals such as Ericka and her family. In 1986, when Guatemala was in the midst of a civil war, Ericka's father was abducted and disappeared. He is presumed dead. The rest of the family fled to the United States for safety. When Ericka joined her mother in 1993, she was a minor and could be included in the family's asylum application. Her family now qualifies for permanent residence under NACARA. However, because Ericka is 21, she no longer qualifies under this law and will therefore remain in legal limbo--or worse, be deported back to Guatemala. This is happening every single day. She lives in fear of being sent back to the country where her father was killed. Her life here is in limbo. She graduated from high school and has dreams of going on to college. But without permanent residence, she cannot qualify for scholarships. Passage of the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act will enable her to remain in the United States with her family and continue her education. The Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act will also provide long overdue relief to immigrants, who because of bureaucratic mistakes, were prevented from receiving green cards long ago. That is one aspect of the bill. Listen to this and wonder why we can't address this aspect of the law. In 1986, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, called IRCA, which included legalization for persons who could demonstrate that they had been present illegally in the United States since before 1982. There is a one-year period to file. However, INS misinterpreted the provisions in IRCA, 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 law. The courts required the INS to accept filings for these individuals. One court decision stated: The evidence is clear that the INS' . . . regulations deterred many aliens who would otherwise qualify for legalization from applying. They went to court. The court found for them. We are talking about 300,000 individuals. The court found for them and said: You are qualified, you got misinformation from the agency that was supposed to administer this. We apologize. Go ahead and apply. Then what happened? The ink was not even dry and in 1996, the immigration law stripped the courts of the jurisdiction. The Attorney General ruled that the law superseded the court cases. As a result of these actions, this group of immigrants have been in legal limbo and fighting government bureaucracy over 14 years. We are denying them the opportunity to make the adjustment of their status. 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 INS' misinterpretation, or who were turned away by the INS before applying. Consider Maria. Maria, who came to the United States 18 years ago, has been living in legal limbo with temporary permission to work, while courts determine whether she should have received permanent residence under the 1986 legalization law. Maria now has a U.S. citizen son who suffers from a rare bone disease that confines him to a wheel chair. As a result of the changes in the 1996 immigration law, Maria has now lost her work permit. Her father recently passed away in El Salvador, but her tenuous legal status did not permit her to return there to pay her last respects. All Maria wants to do is legalize her status and continue to work legally to support her family and pay her son's medical bills. Without the passage of this legislation, Maria faces an uncertain future. This bill will also restore section 245(i), a vital provision of the immigration law that permitted immigrants about to become permanent residents to apply for green cards while still in the U.S. for a $1,000 fee, 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 U.S. are able to remain here with their families while applying for legal permanent residence. The section also allows businesses to retain valuable employees, while providing 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 ten years. America has historically been open and welcoming to immigrant populations seeking to build new lives, free from the fear of persecution and tyranny. The Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act builds on that tradition, by restoring fairness to the immigrant community and fairness in the American legislative process. This legislation will regularize the status of thousands of workers already in the U.S., authorize them to work --that is what this is all about, obtaining a Green Card so they can work, pay taxes--and create a policy that is good for families and good for this country. It will correct past government mistakes and misdeeds that have kept hard-working immigrant families in bureaucratic limbo for far too long. This is legislation that cannot wait. Families are being torn apart because we have failed to take the necessary steps to pass the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act. Before the August recess, Democrats attempted to bring this legislation before the Senate, but the Republican leadership objected. Just last week, 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. They prefer to talk about their support for the Latino community, rather than take tangible steps to benefit immigrant workers and their families. Few days remain in this Congress, but we are committed to doing all we can to see that this legislation becomes law this year. Passage of this bill will be a victory for all who believe in justice, fairness, and the American dream. There may be individuals who want to take issue with those observations I have made. We would be glad to debate them. We had, under the Democratic leader's proposal, indicated a willingness to limit amendments to, I believe, five amendments and to have short time agreements on all of those. We could have disposed of this whole legislation and done it in a way that would have expressed the will of the Senate. Instead, we are spending all week on it. We are spending virtually the whole week. With 3 weeks left, we are spending a whole week on this legislation and are still failing to deal with the fundamental issues of fairness which are within the legislation, although we will have an opportunity to deal with it, and that is the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act. I hope we will have that chance. I am confident Senator Daschle will give us that opportunity. We look forward to debating these issues. But we ought to be able to do that in the sunshine on the open floor of the Senate. Maybe there are those who differ, who believe this is not an issue of fairness. Maybe there are those who say we ought to have a dual standard, one standard for the high-tech industry and a different standard for those who basically track their heritage to Spanish tradition. I cannot speak about what the reservation is, but I fail to be persuaded by any of the arguments I have seen so far about why we should not have fairness, the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act, as we are having fairness in the H-1B. Maybe there are those who will want to engage in that discussion and debate. I will look forward to participating in that as well. Mr. President, I wanted to take a few moments now of the remaining time--I will only take 15 more minutes. In addition, I want to mention briefly my sense of what, we ought to be addressing in the Senate. We are constantly reminded that we do not set the agenda, that it is the other side that sets the agenda. We have certainly learned that over the period of this year. But we want to let the millions of Americans who are out there, who care about these issues, know that there are Members in the Senate who are deeply committed to these areas of public policy and who want to take action and think action can be taken in the areas of education, education reform; in the area of prescription drug and prescription drug reform; in the area of patients' rights and patients' rights reform. I spoke yesterday about the importance of the minimum wage. On the issues of education, what is of enormous concern to me is--I read earlier, into the Record, what was going to be the calendar established by the Republican leader. But I also want to read this, so we have a good idea of what the Republican leader has said on other occasions about education. This is the majority leader's promises on education. On January 6, 1999: Education is going to be a central issue this year. . . . For starters, we must reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That is important. It is important for this reason: This will be the first time in 35 years--the first time in 35 years, if we do not reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, that we have failed to do so. Maybe there is a good reason for that. Maybe there are other higher priorities. But when the Senate spends 16 days debating the issue of bankruptcy, with 55 amendments, and then has a 6-day debate on education, and of the seven rollcall votes, three of them were virtually unanimous--we have not had the real debate and discussion the American people want. Nonetheless, we have these promises, promises on education. This is what was said: Remarks to U.S. Conference of Mayors Luncheon, January 29, 1999--But education is going to have a lot of attention, and it's not going to just be words. . . . Press conference, June 22, 1999--Education is number one on the agenda for Republicans in the Congress this year. Remarks to U.S. Chamber of Commerce, February 1, 2000-- We're going to work very hard on education. I have emphasized that every year I've been majority leader. . . . And Republicans are committed to doing that. Speech to the National Conference of State Legislatures, February 3, 2000--We must reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. . . . Education will be a high priority in this Congress. Congress Daily, April 20, 2000--. . . Lott said last week his top priorities in May include an agriculture sanctions bill, Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization, and passage of four appropriations bills. Senate, 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. Press Stakeout, May 2, 2000-- Question: Senator, on ESEA, have you scheduled a cloture vote on that? Senator Lott. No, I haven't scheduled a cloture vote. . . . But education is number one in the minds of the American people all across this country and every state, including my own state. For us to have a good healthy, and even a protracted debate and amendments on education I think is the way to go. Senate, May 9, 2000-- Senator Kennedy: As I understand, . . . we will have an opportunity to come back to [ESEA] next week. Is that the leader's plan? Senator Lott: That is my hope and intent. Then on July 10: I, too, would very much like to see us complete the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I feel very strongly about getting it done. We can work day and night for the next 3 weeks. Then finally, July 25: We will keep trying to find a way to get back to the legislation and get it completed. The reason we are not having a debate is because the majority thought there might be an amendment dealing with limiting the opportunity for children to obtain guns in school areas. That kind of outrageous question, about whether we were going to try to make our schools safer and more secure, once that was even mentioned, the word went out and we effectively found there was not going to be any more debate and discussion. However, in 1994, under Republican leadership, the Republican leader actually cosponsored a weapons amendment. At that time, no one on that side of the aisle said: Oh, no, we are not going to consider it. That is not relevant to education. We want to make sure we are not only going to have smaller class sizes, better trained teachers, afterschool programs, modernization of schools, more technology available, greater accountability, preschool help and assistance for our children, but we want our children to be safe and we want them to be secure. I think parents understand that and support it. We are denied the opportunity to even vote on that. It used to be around here, years ago in the Senate--and also not that long ago--when people had differences, you settled them through debates and by votes. Now you settle them by not even bringing them up. That is where we are: Nowhere, on the issues of education. This is in spite of the fact we know that student enrollment will continue to rise in the foreseeable future. According to the U.S. Department of Education's 2000 Baby Boom Echo Report, between 1990 and the year 2000, growth in the K-12 student population has gone up by 6.6 million students, from 46.4 million to 53 million. And, even beyond the next ten years, the number of school-age children will continue to increase steadily. Between the year 2000 and the year 2100, the total will rise from 53 million to 94 million children, 41 million more children are going to be going to schools in this country. Does anyone believe the education issue is going to go away? Does anyone think by not calling it up or giving it attention it is going to disappear? We used to debate these issues and then have resolution. This is against the background that in more recent times, since 1980 to 1999, the Federal share of education funding has declined from 11 percent to 7.7 percent for elementary and secondary education, and 15 percent to 10 percent for higher education. I know there are Members who do not want any funding in elementary and secondary education. I was here in 1994 when the new Republican leadership took over. The first thing they did was decrease funding for programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That was the first major debate. I know they have been in favor of abolishing the Department of Education. I am aware of that. Most parents think we ought to have a partnership and that we ought to move ahead. I would like to mention just one other fact. More students today are taking advanced math and science courses. This is very encouraging since these rigorous classes provide the foundation that students need to acquire solid math knowledge. In precalculus, the percent who are taking advanced placement courses has increased from 31 percent to 44 percent; calculus, 19 percent to 24 percent; physics, 44 percent to 49 percent. SAT math scores are the highest in 30 years. Modest, gains have been made, but the upward trend lines are very important, and they have consistently flowed upwards. This is important. We ought to be debating this. We ought to know what schools are doing to achieve that success. We ought to benefit from those schools' successes. We ought to give our support to those successful efforts. We ought to give flexibility to the local community to make sure their schools are successful. Why can't we debate this? We have more children taking the SATs than have ever taken them before. All of these SAT math scores--for males and females--are following an upward trend. 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 still have enormous problems. We have them in my State and in many of our largest cities. In so many of these areas, we have teachers, parents, communities, business leaders, and workers who are prepared to do something. In my city of Boston, we had a net day. We were 48th out of 50 States in terms of access to the Internet. We had net days around our State. Now we are tenth, and it was all done voluntarily. The IDEW in Boston laid 450 miles of cable and did it voluntarily. We had contributions from the software industries of tens of millions of dollars. Many helped the teachers in training programs. They were delighted to do it. They wanted to work on it. Things are happening. We are not saying we are the only solution, but what we are saying is let's find ways we can be supportive. We are not given that opportunity. Finally, I want to mention two other areas. One is on the issue of the Patients' Bill of Rights. It has been just over a year since the House passed good Patients' Bill of Rights legislation--the bipartisan Norwood-Dingell bill. The Senate passed another bill that failed to meet these requirements. I remind the American people, there is not a single medical organization that supports the Republican proposal. Not one. I have said that a dozen times. I have challenged the other side to come up with a single medical organization in this country that supports their proposal. There isn't any. Three hundred support ours. Every children's group, every women's group, every group representing the disabled, every medical group of every stripe has supported ours--North, South, East, and West. We still cannot get it. If the Republicans would let us vote on this again, we would have a majority of the Members of this body support the bipartisan proposal that passed the House of Representatives. The American people ought to know that the Senate leadership is keeping this bottled up. This chart shows the particular protections and where they came from. I am not going to take the Senate's time now to read all of them. If one is looking at where these protections came from, access to emergency care was recommended by the Committee on the Patient's Quality Commission, based of Democrats and Republicans. It was a unanimous recommendation. It is also from the insurance commissioners, the Association of Health Providers, plus it is already in Medicare. Every one of these protections has been out there one way or the other. We should be about the business of ensuring that the American people are going to get all the protections. I see my good friend from the State of Florida who is doing such an important service to the Senate in bringing a historic perspective to the importance of a prescription drug bill, and the emotional and day- to-day reality that exists without these protections. We still have a chance to vote on these issues. We have two different proposals that are basically before us. The one that Senator Graham will introduce and support and that has broad support will ensure that individuals benefit from a prescription drug benefit program that lets doctors decide what is in their best interest. It can go into effect a year from now. That is enormously important. The proposal that has been recommended on the other side consists of block grants that go to the States, in which 28 million American seniors will not participate because they will not be eligible. We will also have to wait until the money is actually appropriated by the Congress to those States. States will need enabling legislation to provide those prescription drugs, and then sometime after 4 years, if there is a modernization program under Medicare, there can be a prescription drug benefit. If my colleagues want to take their chances and roll the dice, that is the way to go. If they want to have a dependable, reliable, stable, predictable benefit program, it should be under Medicare. The seniors understand that. They have confidence in it. They want it strengthened. We have a responsibility to do that. We can build on that program for a sound and effective future. I will be glad to yield the remaining time to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. KENNEDY. I understand that under the agreement I have up to an hour, is that correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I am happy to yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this afternoon we are considering legislation on the preservation of our water resources. That is an important issue and it should be debated, but in the short time remaining in this session, we also must answer the call of the American people for real action on key issues of main concern to working families. We still must raise the minimum wage. We must pass a Patients' Bill of Rights--a real Patients' Bill of Rights. We must enact a prescription drug benefit as a part of Medicare. We must invest in education in ways to make a real difference to our children. We must strengthen our laws against hate crimes. We must adopt sensible gun control to keep our communities and our schools safe. But the Congress has done little more than pay lip service to these concerns of working families. In fact, this year, we have done little work at all. By the time this Congress is scheduled to adjourn only 2 weeks from now, the Senate will have met for only 115 days. That is the lowest number since 1956. It is only 2 days shy of the record set by the famous do-nothing Congress in 1948. We know what the Senate leader has said about how he wanted to spend the last few weeks of this Congress, and that we would work day and night to get the business done. We were supposed to work on legislation by day and on appropriations bills by night. Specifically, Senator Lott said, on September 6: We will focus the greatest time commitment on four other priorities. The four worthy are the permanent trade relations with China, completion of the 11 remaining appropriations bills for the fiscal year that begins October 1, raising the annual limits for protected savings in 401(k), individual retirement accounts, and the elimination of some unfair taxes like the telephone tax. In a letter to GOP Senators, Senator Lott wrote: The Senate will focus on the completion of the remaining appropriations, the China trade bill, and on the votes to override the President's vetoes of our bipartisan bills to end the marriage penalty and the death tax. There was no mention of key priorities such as prescription drugs, Patients' Bill of Rights, or the minimum wage. Senator Lott said: When we return to session after Labor Day, there will be long days, but we will do our best to keep Senators advised, after communicating with leadership on both sides of the aisle, on what the schedule will be. The Senate is still waiting for an answer to our unmet priorities, and so are the American people. H-1B High-Tech Legislation Mr. President, I'm pleased that the Senate is finally taking steps to debate and vote on the H-1B high tech visa legislation. Our nation's economy is experiencing a time of unprecedented growth and prosperity. The strong economic growth can, in large measure, be traced to the vitality of the highly competitive and rapidly growing high technology industry. I'm proud to say that Massachusetts is leading the nation in the new high tech economy, according to a recent study by the Progressive Policy Institute. Thanks to our world-class universities and research facilities, Massachusetts is a pioneer in the global economy of the information age. We are home to nearly 3,000 information technology companies, employing 170,000 people, and generating $8 billion in annual revenues. With such rapid change, the nation is stretched thin to support these new businesses and their opportunities for growth. Nationally, the demand for employees with training in computer science, electrical engineering, software, and communications is very high. In 1998, in an effort to find a stop-gap solution to this labor shortage, we enacted the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act, which increased the number of temporary visas available to skilled foreign workers. Despite the availability of additional H-1B visas, we have reached the cap before the end of the year in the last two fiscal years. We need 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. I believe that the H-1B visa cap should be increased, but in a way that better addresses the fundamental needs of the American economy. Raising the cap without addressing our long-term labor needs would be a serious mistake. We cannot count on foreign sources of labor as a long-term solution. These are solid, middle class jobs that Americans deserve under the H-1B program. The median salary for H-1B high tech workers is $45,000. Approximately 57 percent of H-1B workers have earned only a bachelor's degree. More than half of these workers will be employed as computer programmers and systems analysts. These are not highly specialized jobs. They do not require advanced degrees or years of training. American workers are the most productive workers in the world. It makes sense to demand that more of our workers be recruited and trained for these jobs.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Daschle, Senator Moynihan, and other colleagues in introducing the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 2000. This bill takes the next step in our continued effort to restore the excessive Medicare cuts in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. This legislation also includes several proposals to ease the financial burden and improve care for all beneficiaries. It also includes important proposals to increase the effectiveness of Medicaid and the children's Health Insurance Program, and to improve access to care for vulnerable populations, including legal immigrant children and pregnant women. Our goal is to pass this legislation before the end of the year. The cost-saving measures enacted by Congress as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 have turned out to be far deeper than the estimates at that time, and these excessive cuts have put countless outstanding health care institutions across the country at risk. In Massachusetts, 25 percent of home health agencies no longer serve Medicare patients. Forty-three nursing homes have closed in the state since 1998, and another 20 percent are in bankruptcy. Two out of every three hospitals in Massachusetts are losing money on patient care. The record surpluses we currently enjoy and anticipate in the years ahead are partly due to the savings achieved by cutting Medicare in the BBA. Most of these savings came from policy and payment reforms, including actual cuts in payments for various services. While some changes were clearly justified, the overall cuts were much deeper than intended and are too severe to sustain. Last year, in passing the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999, we made a good start. It gave needed relief to Medicare providers. But when we enacted that bill last year, we also knew that it was only a down-payment, and that additional relief would be needed. The bill we are introducing today follows through on that commitment. It would invest $80 billion over 10 years to restore payments to Medicare and Medicaid providers, improve benefits, and increase access to health care under Medicaid and CHIP. It provides the funding needed to allow these essential health professionals and institutions to do what they do best--provide the best health care possible for elderly and disabled Americans on Medicare. It will ensure that the nation's health care system is able to care responsibly for today's senior citizens, and is adequately prepared to take care of those who will be retiring in the future. No senior citizen should be forced to enter a hospital or a nursing home because Medicare can't afford to pay for the services that will keep her in her own home and in her own community. No person with a disability should be told that occupational therapy services are no longer available. Because legislation to balance the budget reduced the rehabilitation services they need. No community should be told that their number one employer and provider of health care will be closing its doors or engaging in massive layoffs, because Medicare can no longer pay its fair share of health costs. No freestanding children's hospital should wonder whether it can continue to train providers to care for children, because of uncertain federal support for its teaching activities. Yet these scenes and many others are playing out in towns and cities across the country today, in large part due to the excessive cuts required by the Balanced Budget Act three years ago. With the retirement of the baby boom generation, the last thing we should do is jeopardize the viability and commitment of the essential institutions that care for Medicare beneficiaries. Yet that is now happening in cities and towns across the nation. In the vast majority of cases, the providers who care for Medicare patients are the same providers who care for working families and everyone else in their community. When hospitals who serve Medicare beneficiaries are threatened, health care for the entire community is threatened too. This legislation is an important step to maintain excellence throughout our health care system. I commend Senator Daschle and Senator Moynihan for their leadership on this vital issue. It deserves prompt consideration by the Finance Committee and the entire Senate, and it should be enacted into law before we adjourn.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Jeffords for his leadership on this important legislation and it is a privilege to join him as a cosponsor on this legislation. I also commend the thirty-four youth organizations that comprise the National Collaboration for Youth and the more than 200 young people who have worked on this bill. They have been skillful and tireless in their efforts to focus on the need for a positive national strategy for youth. Our goal in introducing the Younger Americans Act is to establish a national policy for youth which focuses on young people, not as problems, but as problem solvers. The Younger Americans Act is intended to create a local and nation-wide collaborative movement to provide programs that offer greater support for youth in the years of adolescence. This bill, modeled on the very successful Older Americans Act of 1965, will help youths between the ages of 10 and 19. It will provide assistance to communities for youths development programs that assure that all youth have access to the skills and character development needed to become good citizens. In other successful bipartisan measures over the years, such as Head Start, child care, and the 21st century learning communities, we have created a support system for parents of preschool and younger school- age children. These programs reduce the risk that children will grow up to become juvenile delinquents by giving them a healthy and safe start. It's time to do the same thing for adolescents. Americans overwhelmingly believe that government should invest in initiatives like this. Many studies detail the effectiveness of youth development programs. Beginning with the Carnegie Corporation Report in 1992, ``A Matter of Time--Risk and Opportunity in the Nonschool Hours,'' a series of studies have shown repeatedly that youth development programs at the community level produce powerful and positive results. In this report this last March, ``Community Counts: How Youth Organizations Matter for Youth Development,'' Milbrey McLaughlin, professor of education at Stanford University, calls for communities to rethink how they design and deliver services for youths, particularly during non-school hours. The report confirms that community involvement is essential in creating and supporting effective programs that meet the needs of today's youth. Effective community-based youth development programs build on five core resources that all youths need to be successful. These same core resources are the basis for the Younger Americans Act. Youths need ongoing relationships with caring adults, safe places with structured activities, access to services that promote healthy lifestyles, opportunities to acquire marketable skills, and opportunities for community service and community participation. The Younger Americans Act will establish a way for communities to give thought and planning on the issues at the local level, and to involve both youths and parents in the process. The Act will provide $5.76 billion over the next five years for communities to conduct youth development programs that recognize the primary role of the family, promote the involvement of youth, coordinate services in the community, and eliminate barriers which prevent youth from obtaining the guidance and support they need to become successful adults. The Act also creates a national youth policy office and a national youth council to advise the President and Congress and help focus the country more effectively on the needs of young people. Too often, the focus on youth has emphasized their problems, not their successes and their potential. This emphasis has sent a negative message to youth that needs to be reversed. We need to deal with negative behaviors, but we also need a broader strategy that provides a positive approach to youth. The Younger Americans Act will accomplish this goal in three ways, by focusing national attention on the strengths and contributions of youths, by providing funds to develop positive and cooperative youth development programs at the state and community levels, and by promoting the involvement of parents and youths in developing positive programs that strengthen families. The time of adolescence is a complex transitional period of growth and change. We know what works. The challenge we face is to provide the resources to implement positive and practical programs effectively. Investing in youth in ways like that will pay enormous dividends for communities and our country. I urge all members of Congress to join in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Jeffords for his leadership on this important legislation and it is a privilege to join him as a cosponsor on this legislation. I also commend the thirty-four youth organizations that comprise the National Collaboration for Youth and the more than 200 young people who have worked on this bill. They have been skillful and tireless in their efforts to focus on the need for a positive national strategy for youth. Our goal in introducing the Younger Americans Act is to establish a national policy for youth which focuses on young people, not as problems, but as problem solvers. The Younger Americans Act is intended to create a local and nation-wide collaborative movement to provide programs that offer greater support for youth in the years of adolescence. This bill, modeled on the very successful Older Americans Act of 1965, will help youths between the ages of 10 and 19. It will provide assistance to communities for youths development programs that assure that all youth have access to the skills and character development needed to become good citizens. In other successful bipartisan measures over the years, such as Head Start, child care, and the 21st century learning communities, we have created a support system for parents of preschool and younger school- age children. These programs reduce the risk that children will grow up to become juvenile delinquents by giving them a healthy and safe start. It's time to do the same thing for adolescents. Americans overwhelmingly believe that government should invest in initiatives like this. Many studies detail the effectiveness of youth development programs. Beginning with the Carnegie Corporation Report in 1992, ``A Matter of Time--Risk and Opportunity in the Nonschool Hours,'' a series of studies have shown repeatedly that youth development programs at the community level produce powerful and positive results. In this report this last March, ``Community Counts: How Youth Organizations Matter for Youth Development,'' Milbrey McLaughlin, professor of education at Stanford University, calls for communities to rethink how they design and deliver services for youths, particularly during non-school hours. The report confirms that community involvement is essential in creating and supporting effective programs that meet the needs of today's youth. Effective community-based youth development programs build on five core resources that all youths need to be successful. These same core resources are the basis for the Younger Americans Act. Youths need ongoing relationships with caring adults, safe places with structured activities, access to services that promote healthy lifestyles, opportunities to acquire marketable skills, and opportunities for community service and community participation. The Younger Americans Act will establish a way for communities to give thought and planning on the issues at the local level, and to involve both youths and parents in the process. The Act will provide $5.76 billion over the next five years for communities to conduct youth development programs that recognize the primary role of the family, promote the involvement of youth, coordinate services in the community, and eliminate barriers which prevent youth from obtaining the guidance and support they need to become successful adults. The Act also creates a national youth policy office and a national youth council to advise the President and Congress and help focus the country more effectively on the needs of young people. Too often, the focus on youth has emphasized their problems, not their successes and their potential. This emphasis has sent a negative message to youth that needs to be reversed. We need to deal with negative behaviors, but we also need a broader strategy that provides a positive approach to youth. The Younger Americans Act will accomplish this goal in three ways, by focusing national attention on the strengths and contributions of youths, by providing funds to develop positive and cooperative youth development programs at the state and community levels, and by promoting the involvement of parents and youths in developing positive programs that strengthen families. The time of adolescence is a complex transitional period of growth and change. We know what works. The challenge we face is to provide the resources to implement positive and practical programs effectively. Investing in youth in ways like that will pay enormous dividends for communities and our country. I urge all members of Congress to join in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Daschle, Senator Moynihan, and other colleagues in introducing the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 2000. This bill takes the next step in our continued effort to restore the excessive Medicare cuts in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. This legislation also includes several proposals to ease the financial burden and improve care for all beneficiaries. It also includes important proposals to increase the effectiveness of Medicaid and the children's Health Insurance Program, and to improve access to care for vulnerable populations, including legal immigrant children and pregnant women. Our goal is to pass this legislation before the end of the year. The cost-saving measures enacted by Congress as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 have turned out to be far deeper than the estimates at that time, and these excessive cuts have put countless outstanding health care institutions across the country at risk. In Massachusetts, 25 percent of home health agencies no longer serve Medicare patients. Forty-three nursing homes have closed in the state since 1998, and another 20 percent are in bankruptcy. Two out of every three hospitals in Massachusetts are losing money on patient care. The record surpluses we currently enjoy and anticipate in the years ahead are partly due to the savings achieved by cutting Medicare in the BBA. Most of these savings came from policy and payment reforms, including actual cuts in payments for various services. While some changes were clearly justified, the overall cuts were much deeper than intended and are too severe to sustain. Last year, in passing the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999, we made a good start. It gave needed relief to Medicare providers. But when we enacted that bill last year, we also knew that it was only a down-payment, and that additional relief would be needed. The bill we are introducing today follows through on that commitment. It would invest $80 billion over 10 years to restore payments to Medicare and Medicaid providers, improve benefits, and increase access to health care under Medicaid and CHIP. It provides the funding needed to allow these essential health professionals and institutions to do what they do best--provide the best health care possible for elderly and disabled Americans on Medicare. It will ensure that the nation's health care system is able to care responsibly for today's senior citizens, and is adequately prepared to take care of those who will be retiring in the future. No senior citizen should be forced to enter a hospital or a nursing home because Medicare can't afford to pay for the services that will keep her in her own home and in her own community. No person with a disability should be told that occupational therapy services are no longer available. Because legislation to balance the budget reduced the rehabilitation services they need. No community should be told that their number one employer and provider of health care will be closing its doors or engaging in massive layoffs, because Medicare can no longer pay its fair share of health costs. No freestanding children's hospital should wonder whether it can continue to train providers to care for children, because of uncertain federal support for its teaching activities. Yet these scenes and many others are playing out in towns and cities across the country today, in large part due to the excessive cuts required by the Balanced Budget Act three years ago. With the retirement of the baby boom generation, the last thing we should do is jeopardize the viability and commitment of the essential institutions that care for Medicare beneficiaries. Yet that is now happening in cities and towns across the nation. In the vast majority of cases, the providers who care for Medicare patients are the same providers who care for working families and everyone else in their community. When hospitals who serve Medicare beneficiaries are threatened, health care for the entire community is threatened too. This legislation is an important step to maintain excellence throughout our health care system. I commend Senator Daschle and Senator Moynihan for their leadership on this vital issue. It deserves prompt consideration by the Finance Committee and the entire Senate, and it should be enacted into law before we adjourn.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, one of our top priorities in Congress is to improve public schools for all students--by reducing class size, improving training and support for teachers, expanding after-school programs, modernizing and building safe school facilities, and increasing accountability for results. But some in Congress advocate diverting scarce resources to subsidize private schools through vouchers, when it is public schools that need the help and support. An article in today's Wall Street Journal by North Carolina Governor Jim Hunt eloquently explains why we should do more to support public schools, and why we should oppose private school vouchers. Governor Hunt is a respected leader and renowned champion on education issues. He has been a strong advocate for many years for improving public schools, particularly by upgrading curricula, supporting better teacher training, and increasing early childhood education opportunities. As Governor Hunt states, it would be a step in the wrong direction to undermine these important priorities by relying on voucher schemes, just as we are starting to see solid results in improved student achievement. I believe that Governor Hunt's article will be of interest to all of us who care about these issues, and I ask unanimous consent that it may be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are going to take every opportunity-- and there will be some that will come down--to try to do something in terms of the minimum wage. As I have said before, this is a women's issue because the majority of the recipients of the minimum wage are women. It is a children's issue because a majority of the women who get the minimum wage have children. This is a family issue. We hear ``family values'' around here. This is a family values issue because whether those parents have time to spend with those children depends on income. It is a children's issue. It is a civil rights issue because the great percentage of those who are out there working are men and women of color. And beyond that, it is fairness issue. In the United States of America, with the economy going right through the roof, with the greatest economic prosperity in the history of the Nation, we are going to say: If you work hard, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year, we don't think you ought to live in poverty. The Republican leadership refused to let us get a vote on this. That is absolutely unconscionable. The American people ought to understand it on election day. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I had hoped to be able to address some of the issues here this afternoon, but we will have to work out additional time later in the afternoon. The appropriations bill that is before us effectively will increase the pay for Members of Congress by over $5,000 a year. I support that particular proposal, but we ought to know that that is what is effectively included in this legislation. That is there basically because of the Republican leadership. As I mentioned, I support that, as I have supported other pay increases in the past. But what Americans should understand is the fact that on the one hand the Republican leadership is prepared to have a $5,000 increase in the pay of Members of Congress and still deny us the opportunity to vote for a 50-cent-an-hour increase this year and a 50-cent-an-hour increase next year for the hard-working Americans who are at the bottom end of the economic ladder. It is basically and fundamentally wrong. And the American people ought to understand it. We have 2\1/2\ weeks left. We ought to be able to make a judgment decision whether those Americans--some 10.1 million who will be affected by the increase in the minimum wage--ought to be able to have an increase in the minimum wage. We believe they should. We have fought to try to get that to happen. We have been limited in our opportunities to address that issue because of parliamentary tactics which have been used by the Republican majority in the Senate to deny us that. No one needs a briefing about the issues on the increase in the minimum wage. They are basic. They are fundamental. Ninety-five percent of the Members of this body have voted on this issue. It would not take a great deal of time. We would be willing to enter into an hour equally divided if we were able to get an opportunity to vote on an increase in the minimum wage. The American people ought to understand what the priorities are as we are coming to the last days of this Congress with 2\1/2\ weeks left. This is an issue of priorities. The Republican leadership has said we will put this appropriations bill forward. They have basically sidetracked the whole debate on the education bill, even though that was a priority for them before and even though their standard bearer is out there talking about the importance of higher education. I wish that the candidate would just call up the majority leader and say: Put the education bill on the floor of the Senate. Why aren't you doing it? We are going to be dealing with the H-1B legislation which is going to affect 100,000 visas and denying the opportunity to make other kinds of changes in that particular program. We are saying that that is more important than having a short debate on an increase in the minimum wage? As my friend and colleague has pointed out--who are these people? They are basically people who are assistants to teachers, who work in the schools in this country. Who are they? They are helping assistants to child care workers, who are looking after the children of working families. Who are these people? They are assistants in nursing homes, who are looking after the parents who have retired and are now in nursing homes being taken care of either by their children in nursing homes or perhaps even under the Medicaid system. These are the people who are minimum wage workers. They are the men and women who clean the buildings around this country. What has happened to them over the period? I wish the Members of this body had seen the excellent piece on ABC this morning that talked about what is happening in the workforce. It pointed out that now the American worker is working longer than any other worker and that the rates of productivity have increased. Generally speaking, when you have an increase in productivity and you have workers willing to work more, they get an increase in their pay. Not here, not minimum wage workers. What we have seen is that those at the top part of the economic ladder have been experiencing a very substantial increase and those on the bottom fifth of the economic ladder, which include the minimum wage workers, have actually fallen behind in their purchasing power. If we do not take action on an increase in the minimum wage in the final 2\1/ 2\ weeks, then the increase we had 3 years ago will effectively be wiped out for these workers. That is quite a message; that is quite a priority. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to advise me when I have 2 minutes remaining. What has happened? We have offered this. And what has come back now from the other side, from the Republican leadership? They say: All right, we will let you have a 2-year increase in the minimum wage if you will agree to a $76 billion tax reduction for the wealthiest individuals in this country. Some deal, some deal for workers--$76 billion in tax reductions. You would think at least they would have the common sense just to do it for the small mom-and-pop stores. No. This is for the big boys, tax cuts, $76 billion. The last time we had an increase in the minimum wage, it was $21 billion. A lot of people thought that was too much. Seventy six billion dollars they want. And that isn't enough. What they also want to do is wipe out time and a half for overtime for 73 million Americans, cut back on overtime pay. So you don't have to even pay, not only the minimum wage workers, but those above them, overtime pay. That is part of the deal: We will give 50 cents an hour to hard-working Americans this year and 50 cents next year. Give us the $76 billion. Let us be able to make other workers work. It will save us billions and billions and billions of dollars in terms of payroll. That is the deal they are offering. Beyond that, I know this isn't a typical Republican position. They say: We are going to preempt the States that are out there in terms of the tax credit for workers in restaurants where they are able, instead of paying the full minimum wage, to say: We will only pay part. And if they get the rest in terms of tips, we don't have to make up the wages. That is a fine situation anyway. Someone is able to provide additional kinds of services; because of that, able to get a tip; and you are going to penalize them. We are going to put that into giving the credit to the employers. It is a lousy deal for workers in the first place. The Restaurant Association and their employees have gone through the roof anyway since the last time we passed it. Nonetheless, what they are saying is, OK, here is one deal for the minimum wage, but because some of the States have been a little more understanding and a little more helpful to these workers, we will preempt those States. I don't hear any statements on the other side of the aisle: Well, we don't want one size fits all. If you eliminate ``one size fits all'' and ``Washington knows best'' from the Republican vocabulary, they haven't got much to say. On this bill, there is no consistency. Give us $76 billion. Let us eliminate overtime. Then we will have a deal. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator be good enough to yield for a moment for a question?

Mr. KENNEDY. I note that we are going to hear from former Vice President Quayle at 6 p.m., and Senator Stevens wanted to address the Senate. Just as a point of information, I welcome the chance to be able to address the Senate tomorrow. If the Senator is going to continue for a while, if he could let us know, because I wanted to have the opportunity to hear from Mr. Quayle and also to accommodate Senator Stevens. The Senator is addressing a very important matter that is relevant to the remarks of the Senator from Arizona. Could he give us any indication?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues in introducing the Needle Stick Safety and Prevention Act. I commend Senators Jeffords, Enzi and Reid for their effective work on this bill that is vitally important to health care professionals and all Americans who come in contact with them. The need for needle stick protection is compelling. Last year alone, there were almost 800,000 needle stick injuries to health care professionals. Over 1,000 health care workers were infected with serious diseases, including HIV, Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C. Sadly, all of these injuries were preventable. The good news is that through the provisions of this bill, many future needle stick injuries will be prevented. In fact, the Center for Disease Prevention estimates that needle stick injuries will be reduced by as much as 88 percent. But as is so often the case, numbers alone cannot convey the full story of human tragedy resulting from these injuries. One of my constituents, Karen Daley of Boston, is the President of the Massachusetts Nurses Association and was a registered nurse, a job she loved and found very fulfilling. In January 1999, while working in an emergency room in Boston, Karen was accidentally stuck by a contaminated needle. Six months later, she tested positive for HIV and Hepatitis C. Fortunately, Karen is in relative good health, although she will never again be able to practice her chosen profession of nursing. The Needle Stick Safety and Prevention Act is intended to prevent tragic accidents like this. This bill requires employers to implement the use of safety-designed needles and sharps to reduce the potential transmission of disease to health care workers and patients. This bill also provides that employers establish an injury log to record the kind of devices, and the location, of all needle stick accidents. Equally important, this bill allows non-managerial employees--those on the front lines of service delivery--to be involved in determining the appropriate devices used in health care settings. This bill has bipartisan support in the Senate and the House. It also is supported by the American Hospital Association, the American Nurses Association, the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of Federal, State County and Municipal Employees. I urge all of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to join us in supporting this important bill, and I am hopeful that it can be enacted into law before this session of Congress ends.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues in introducing the Needle Stick Safety and Prevention Act. I commend Senators Jeffords, Enzi and Reid for their effective work on this bill that is vitally important to health care professionals and all Americans who come in contact with them. The need for needle stick protection is compelling. Last year alone, there were almost 800,000 needle stick injuries to health care professionals. Over 1,000 health care workers were infected with serious diseases, including HIV, Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C. Sadly, all of these injuries were preventable. The good news is that through the provisions of this bill, many future needle stick injuries will be prevented. In fact, the Center for Disease Prevention estimates that needle stick injuries will be reduced by as much as 88 percent. But as is so often the case, numbers alone cannot convey the full story of human tragedy resulting from these injuries. One of my constituents, Karen Daley of Boston, is the President of the Massachusetts Nurses Association and was a registered nurse, a job she loved and found very fulfilling. In January 1999, while working in an emergency room in Boston, Karen was accidentally stuck by a contaminated needle. Six months later, she tested positive for HIV and Hepatitis C. Fortunately, Karen is in relative good health, although she will never again be able to practice her chosen profession of nursing. The Needle Stick Safety and Prevention Act is intended to prevent tragic accidents like this. This bill requires employers to implement the use of safety-designed needles and sharps to reduce the potential transmission of disease to health care workers and patients. This bill also provides that employers establish an injury log to record the kind of devices, and the location, of all needle stick accidents. Equally important, this bill allows non-managerial employees--those on the front lines of service delivery--to be involved in determining the appropriate devices used in health care settings. This bill has bipartisan support in the Senate and the House. It also is supported by the American Hospital Association, the American Nurses Association, the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of Federal, State County and Municipal Employees. I urge all of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to join us in supporting this important bill, and I am hopeful that it can be enacted into law before this session of Congress ends.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this has been a very difficult debate for all of us in the Senate who care about labor rights, about human rights, and about the environment in China. These issues are important, and we can't ignore them. I especially commend the many leaders throughout the country on labor issues, human rights issues, and environmental issues for stating their case and their concerns on these challenges so eloquently and effectively. It's clear that we must do more than this agreement does to make sure that free trade is also fair--that it improves the quality of life of people everywhere, and creates good jobs here at home. The demonstrations at last year's WTO negotiations in Seattle and in other cities since then show that we must pay much greater attention to these concerns. Too often the current system of trade enriches multi- national corporations at the expense of working families, leaving workers without jobs and without voices in the new global economy. Too many companies export high-wage, full-benefit jobs from our country and replace them with lower-paying jobs in the third world countries with few, if any, benefits. For too many families across America, globalization has become a ``race to the bottom'' in wages, benefits, and living standards. In recent years, corporate stock prices have often increased in almost direct proportion to employee layoffs, benefit reductions, and job exports. This growing inequality threatens our own economic growth and prosperity, and we must do all we can to end it. I am also very concerned about a trade deficit that continues to grow at an alarming pace. In this historic time of economic prosperity, the trade deficit remains one of the most stubborn challenges we face. While the current trade deficit is clearly a sign that the U.S. economy is the strongest economy in the world, we cannot sustain this enormous negative balance of trade for the long term. We risk losing even more of our industrial and manufacturing base to foreign countries with lower labor standards. Similarly, all of us who care about human rights and environmental rights must find more effective ways to address these concerns. The flagrant violations of human rights that continue to take place in China are unacceptable. And so is the callous disregard of the environment by that nation as its economy advances. The answer to these festering problems is to give these fundamental issues a fair place at international bargaining tables. Clearly, we do not do enough for labor rights, human rights, and the environment when we negotiate trade agreements. I intend to vote for this agreement, however--as flawed as it is-- because I am concerned that the alternative would be even less satisfactory. But I welcome the Administration's commitment to give these other issues higher priority in future trade negotiations, and I look forward to working to achieve these essential goals. The global marketplace is a reality, and the United States stands to gain much more by participating in it than by rejecting it. I'm hopeful that we will be able to work together in the future on these basic issues in ways that bring us together, not divide us. It is especially significant that all of the economic concessions made in this agreement are made by China. It will not change our own market access policies at all. The concessions that China has made are substantial, and President Clinton and his Administration deserve credit for this success. In particular, US Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky did a excellent job negotiating this agreement for the United States. By approving PNTR, Congress is not deciding to accept China into the World Trade Organization. China will join the WTO regardless of our vote in Congress. What Congress is deciding is whether to accept or reject the extraordinary economic concessions that China has offered to the United States. If we reject PNTR, we reject the bulk of the concessions that China reluctantly made. We would be allowing China to keep its barriers up--and we might well be inviting the WTO to impose sanctions against us for not playing by the rules we agreed to. Within five years, under this agreement, China will completely end its tariffs on information technology. It will eliminate its geographical limitations on the sale of financial services and insurance. It will do away with quotas on products such as fiber-optic cable. And it will end the requirement to hire a Chinese government ``middle-man'' to sell and distribute products and services in China. These are major concessions that no one could have predicted even two years ago. China has also agreed to eliminate export subsidies. The inefficient, state-owned industries in China will no longer be able to rely on government support to stay afloat. They will be required to compete on a level playing field. China has agreed that its state-owned industries will make decisions on purely commercial terms, and will allow US companies to operate on the same terms. The agreement also contains strong provisions against unfair trade and import surges. We will have at our disposal effective measures to prevent the dumping of subsidized products into American markets for years to come. The agreement contains strong and immediate protections for intellectual property rights, which will benefit important US industries such as software, medical technology, and publishing. Strong protections are also included against forced technology transfer from private companies to the Chinese government--a provision that has benefits for both commercial enterprises and national security. All of these protections and concessions will be lost if Congress fails to pass PNTR. Rejection of this agreement would put American businesses and workers at a major disadvantage with our competitors in Europe and in many other nations in securing access to the largest market in the world. One out of every ten jobs in Massachusetts is dependent upon exports, and that number is increasing. If we accept the concessions that China has given us, companies in cities and towns across the state will be more competitive. More exports will be stimulated, and more jobs will be created here at home. It is clear that many of our businesses will reap significant benefits from this trade agreement. But it is also clear that some businesses and workers will be hurt by it as well. It is our responsibility to do everything we can to reduce the harm that free trade creates. We must strengthen trade adjustment assistance and worker training programs. As we open our doors wider to the global economy, we must do much more to ensure that American workers are ready to compete. We must make the education and training of our workforce a higher priority as we ask our citizens to compete with workers across the globe. Importing skilled foreign labor is no substitute for fully developing the potential of our domestic workforce. The growth in the global marketplace makes education and training more important than ever. We need to create high-tech training opportunities on a much larger scale for American workers who currently hold relatively low-paying jobs and wish to obtain new skills to enhance their employability and improve their earning potential. As the economy becomes more global and more competitive, it would be irresponsible to open the doors to new foreign competition, without giving our own workers the skills they need to compete and excel. I'm very hopeful that passage of this agreement will provide a strong new incentive for more effective action by Congress on all these important issues. The issue of PNTR also involves major foreign policy and national security considerations. When China joins the World Trade Organization, it will be required to abide by the rules and regulations of the international community. The Chinese government will be obligated to publish laws and regulations and to submit important decisions to international review. By integrating China into this global, rules- based system, the international community will have procedures never available in the past to hold the government of China accountable for its actions, and to promote the development of the rule of law in China. The WTO agreement will encourage China to continue its market reforms and support new economic freedoms. Already, 30 percent of the Chinese economy is privatized. Hard-line Chinese leaders fear that as China becomes more exposed to Western ideas, their grip on power will be weakened, along with their control over individual citizens. As the economic situation improves, China will be able to carry out broader and deeper reforms. While economic reforms are unlikely to result immediately and directly in political reforms, they are likely to produce conditions that will be more conducive to democracy in China in the years ahead. All of us deplore China's abysmal record on human rights and labor rights and the environment, and we have watched with dismay as these abuses have continued. It is unlikely that approving PNTR will lead to an immediate and dramatic improvement in China's record on these fundamental issues. But after many years of debate, the pressure created by the annual vote on China's trade status has not solved those problems either. Approving PNTR leaves much to be desired on all of these essential issues. But on balance, I believe that it can be a realistic step toward achieving the long-sought freedoms that will benefit all the people of China. The last thing we need is a new Cold War with China.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, it is a privilege to take this opportunity to commend a fellow Massachusetts resident, William F. Hofmann of Belmont, who will be installed as President of the nation's largest insurance association--the Independent Insurance Agents of America--next month in Orlando, Florida. Bill is a partner in Provider Insurance Group, which has offices in Belmont, Brookline and Needham. Bill's impressive career as an independent insurance agent has been marked by outstanding dedication to his clients and his community. He began his service in the insurance industry with the Independent Insurance Agents of Massachusetts, where he served as president. He also represented Massachusetts on the IIAA's National Board of State Directors. In 1980, he was honored with the Mr. Chairman's Award'' by the American Association of Managing General Agents' for his distinguished service as chairman of its Education Committee. Bill was elected to IIAA's Executive Committee in September 1995 and was honored by his peers when they named him President-Elect of the Association last fall. He will be inaugurated as President next month during the annual meeting in Orlando. As a member of the Executive Committee leadership panel, Bill has worked to strengthen the competitive standing of independent insurance agents by helping to provide the tools they need to operate more successful businesses. Before joining the IIAA's national leadership team, Bill was active on several of its committees. He served as chairman of the Education Committee for four years, and in 1994 he received a Presidential Citation for his work in this area. Bill also has distinguished himself as an active and concerned member of his community. He served as president and on the Board of Directors of the Boston Children's Service. He also has been active in the Belmont Youth Basketball program, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Boosters Club. He has served as chairman of the Belmont Red Cross and as treasurer of the Belmont Religious Council. Bill is also an elected town meeting member, finance committee member, and registrar of voters in Belmont. I am proud of Bill's accomplishments, and I know that he will have a successful year as president of the Independent Insurance Agents of America. As his past accomplishments demonstrate, Bill will serve his fellow insurance agents with distinction, and provide them with strong leadership. I extend my warmest congratulations to Bill and his wife Marilyn as the incoming President and First Lady of this distinguished organization.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the final points I want to make are that 70 percent of Medicare beneficiaries, more than 27 million seniors, will not even be eligible for Governor Bush's immediate helping hand program. Finally, the nation's Governors have already rejected the block grant approach. Republican and Democratic Governors have said: This will be a massive administrative nightmare for our States; we do not want the responsibility even if it is going to be funded. We can understand that. We have an important opportunity to make a difference for our seniors with a good prescription drug program. Let's reach across the aisle. Let's join forces. Let's try to get the job done before we recess. The opportunity is there. We are willing to do that, but we need to have a response from the other side and a willingness of the Republican leadership to try to get the job done. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 8 minutes. First of all, I commend my friend and colleague from Florida on an excellent presentation and one that commends itself to the common sense of all of us in the Senate. The fact is the Medicare program was built upon the existing programs in 1965. Since that time, we have discovered the importance of preventive health care--how important it is in keeping people healthy and how important it is for actually saving Medicare funds over a long period of time. The Senator from Florida has indicated a pathway we might follow to deal seriously with these issues. We should not have to explain to this body that for every $1 we spend for immunizations, we save $8 to $9 by preventing disease. I admire and am a strong supporter of the administration's series of recommendations for preventive care. The Senator from Florida has outlined a process and system where we can finally take action on these recommendations. The bottom line is the Budget Committee doesn't take into consideration the savings from preventive care so this body has been extremely slow in enacting these programs. But these preventive measures make a great deal of sense. They make sense for ensuring good quality health care for the families of this country, and they make sound economic sense. I certainly agree with the Senator that along with preventive care, we ought to understand the importance of prescription drugs. I think what he has outlined today is enormously important for us to consider. I will take a few moments to move beyond this very excellent presentation into what the challenge is for all of us in the Congress over these next 5 weeks. There is time, I believe, to take action on a good prescription drug program. We have, now, two different systems which have been offered to the American people. The first is the proposal that was advanced initially by President Clinton and is now enhanced by Vice President Gore. The proposal has been changed--not really dramatically--but I think it has been more carefully attuned to the needs of Medicare enrollees than the alternative which has been presented by Governor Bush. I hope even in the short time that remains--when we conclude the action on trade issues we still have more than 3 weeks of Senate time-- I hope we can still take action on a minimum wage. Every Member of this body knows that issue well. We know what is before us. We ought to take action on the Patients' Bill of Rights. We have a bipartisan effort to try to do that. There have been some suggestions and recommendations in order to accommodate some of those who voted against this previously. We now, hopefully, will gain support for those proposals. Finally, and very importantly, the other remaining issue which is of vital importance to seniors is a prescription drug program. Let me mention quickly some of the concerns I have about this program and some of the advantages that I believe are in the Vice President's program. The Vice President's program is built upon Medicare. We have heard on the floor of the Senate the Medicare system is a one-size-fits-all program. The fact is that seniors understand Medicare. They support Medicare. They understand there have to be some changes in the Medicare program but, nonetheless, it is a tried, tested process and it is one which offers the necessary flexibility. What has been proposed by the Vice President is a prescription drug program that goes into effect a year from now, and is gradually phased in over a period of time. The seniors of this country would have a benefit for prescription drugs a year from now. I think that is very important and one of the most compelling parts of the Vice President's program. The alternative is the proposal offered by Governor Bush. I read here from the Governor's own proposal. It says in his proposal that effectively it will be a block grant program that will in effect ensure low-income seniors do not have to wait for overall reform. Our seniors ought to have some pause, because he is talking about overall reform of the Medicare system. That ought to bring some pause. We do not really know what overall reform is. I think most seniors would say: We have confidence in the Medicare system. We want a program that will get the benefits to us quickly. He says that low-income people will not have to wait for the overall reform. We are not sure what that really means. To have your prescription drugs covered, Governor Bush will establish the immediate helping hand which will provide $48 billion to States for 4 years to deal with low income seniors. So it will be 4 years before 27 million seniors will be able to participate because there are 27 million seniors who do not fall within Governor Bush's definition of those who need an immediate helping hand. Those 27 million seniors will wait 4 years--and then wait for the overall Medicare reform. The Vice President's plan goes into effect 1 year from now. Second--and I think enormously important--is what we call the guaranteed benefit. This is very simple. A guaranteed benefit means the doctor will make the decision on your prescription drug needs. When seniors go in--whatever their condition, whatever their disease, whatever their problem--the doctor makes the recommendation as to what prescription drug is needed. That is fundamental. That is the guaranteed benefit. That is not true with regard to the Governor's proposal. It will be the HMO that the individual is enrolled in that will decide. We will find that the HMO will make the decision about what prescription drugs are covered--whether it will be the only drug on the HMO's formulary, or whether other kinds of prescription drugs will be permitted to be used. That is interesting, is it not, Mr. President? Most seniors want the doctor to make the recommendation. This underlies the basic difference between our two parties on the prescription drug issue. We are for the Patients' Bill of Rights so doctors are allowed to make health care decisions. We want to make sure that doctors are going to make decisions about prescription drugs rather than turning this right over to the HMO. Finally, what is being established under the Gore proposal is very clear. The government and the Medicare beneficiary will have a shared responsibility in paying for prescription drugs. There will not be any deductibles. There will be a premium, and half of the premium will be paid for by the Federal Government. Under the Bush proposal, we do not know what the HMO is going to charge. There is no prohibition against a deductible and we do not know what the copayments will be. We have no idea what the premium will be. The Governor says the government will pay 25 percent of whatever the premium is, but there is no assurance to seniors that there is not going to be a sizable deductible in that program. The size of the deductible is a mystery. Under the Vice President's program, we can give assurance today that when the program goes into effect, as part of the Medicare program, whatever that senior citizen needs, if the doctor prescribes it, that senior citizen will get it. Those who are opposed to Vice President Gore's program, who support the Governor's proposal, cannot make that claim. They cannot tell us what the premiums are going to be over a period of time because they are not spelled out, at least in the papers that have been made available. The only thing that we know--which causes many of us a great deal of concern--is that after 4 years, after overall reform of the Medicare system, then there will be a program for prescription drugs. That is a long time to wait. That is a very long time to wait. What I have found in my State is that people want a prescription drug program and they need it now.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I don't intend to object if I have an opportunity to follow--I ask that I may be recognized following Senator Hagel.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know we are very much involved in this extremely important decision on the question of trade with China, but I do want to take a few moments this morning to address another issue which I think is of central concern to families across this country. I think it is particularly appropriate that we give additional focus and attention to the priority of education policy as we are coming into the final days of this session of Congress. I think there is a heightened interest in this issue as some 53 million children are going back to school. They have started going back to school in the last 10 days and are going back to school this week. And, fifteen million children are going to colleges, going back to school now, this week and next. Parents are wondering what the circumstances will be for their children this school year and in the future, and who is going to ensure their children are going to get an adequate education and will move ahead. Parents understand full well that education is key to the future for their children and, obviously, education is key to our country's future as we are moving more and more into a new information-age and technologically-advanced global economy. This is a matter of enormous urgency. We understand that there is a fundamental responsibility for the education of children in the elementary and secondary high schools of this country at the local and State level and that the role of the Federal Government is much more limited. Approximately 7 cents out of every dollar that is spent locally actually comes from the Federal Government. In my travels around my State of Massachusetts, in talking to parents, they are interested in a partnership. They are interested in their children doing well. They want support for programs that work, and they are less interested in the division of authority between local and State governments and the participation of Congress in assisting academic achievement. The backbone of congressional participation in the education of children is the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That is an act of enormous importance. It is not only myself who is saying this, but we have the statements of the majority leader, Senator Lott, who in January 1999 indicated: Education is going to be a central issue this year. . . . For starters, we must reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That is important. Remarks to the Conference of Mayors on January 29, 1999: But education is going to have a lot of attention, and it's not just going to be words. . . . Press conference, June 22, 1999: Education is number one on the agenda for Republicans in the Congress this year. Remarks to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, February 1, 2000: We're going to work very hard on education. I have emphasized that every year I've been majority leader. . . . And Republicans are committed to doing that. A speech to the National Conference of State Legislatures, February 3, 2000: We must reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. . . . Education will be a high priority in this Congress. Congress Daily, April 20, 2000: . . . Lott said last week his top priorities in May include agriculture sanctions bill, Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization, and passage of four appropriations bills. Senate, May 1: This is very important legislation. I hope we can debate it seriously and have amendments in the education area. Let's talk education. Press Stakeout, May 2. Question: Senator, on ESEA, have you scheduled a cloture vote on that? Senator Lott: No, I haven't scheduled a cloture vote. . . . But education is number one in the minds of the American people all across the 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. Those are the assurances we have been given by the majority leader, and we have had 6 days of discussion about elementary education. Two of those days were discussion only. We had a total of eight amendments, seven rollcalls, one voice vote, and three of those seven were virtually unanimous. So we have not had this debate which not only the majority leader has said is important, but which families believe is important. The reason they believe it is important is because of the substance of education policy that will be included in that debate. I remind the Senate where we are on the expansion of the number of children enrolled in school. In K-12 enrollment, it is at an all-time high. In 1990, 46 million K-12 children were enrolled, and by the year 2000, 53 million children. There are increasing pressures on local communities across the country. This chart shows that student enrollment will continue to rise over the next century. There are 53 million students enrolled in the year 2000, but if you look at the projections, 94 million are estimated to be enrolled by the year 2100--41 million more students over the next century, virtually doubling the Nation's population in education which will require building schools and hiring more qualified teachers all across this country. This is a matter of enormous importance to national policy and family policy. We believe we should not give short shrift to debating what our policies may be. We may have some differences on different sides of the aisle, but we should be debating these policy issues. On the issue of priorities this year, such as bankruptcy--which we debated for 16 days, we had 55 amendments; 16 days on bankruptcy, 55 amendments. As I mentioned, we had eight amendments on elementary and secondary education. Three were unanimous and one vote was by a voice vote. So we really have not met our responsibilities, I do not believe, on debating education policy. I strongly favor Federal commitment and investment in programs that have been tried, tested, and proven to be effective and that can be implemented at the local level and have a positive impact on the children. I want to take a moment to bring the Senate up to speed about what is happening in schools across the country. More students are taking the SAT test: In 1980, 33 percent; 1985, 36 percent; 40 percent in 1990; 42 percent in 1995; 44 percent in 2000. More and more of the children in this country are recognizing the importance of taking the scholastic aptitude test. Children are aware they have to apply themselves, as reflected in the number of students taking the test, and that college education is the key to success in America. Also, the results have been positive. Even though more students are taking the SAT, and the students are more diverse, math scores are the highest in 30 years. But, in order to sustain the gains made, children need to continue to have well-qualified teachers, they need an investment in preschool programs, they need afterschool programs, they have to have available to them the latest technologies so they can move ahead in their academic work. This is another chart showing more students are taking advanced math and science classes. This reflects 1990 to 2000: Precalculus, in 1990, was 31 percent. It is now 44 percent. Calculus, 19 percent in 1990; 24 percent in 2000. In physics, 44 percent in 1990 to 49 percent in 2000. We are finding more students are taking college level courses, advanced placement courses, the more challenging courses, and they are doing better and better in these undertakings. However, our work is far from over. We cannot get away from the fact that there are many others in our country, in urban areas and rural areas, who are facing extraordinary challenges. Those disadvantaged children are really the ones on which we are focused in terms of the Federal elementary and secondary education programs. Basically, there are important ways in which we can give some help and assistance to these children. We believe in smaller class sizes, with well-trained teachers, and afterschool programs. We believe in making sure the children are going to be ready to learn, either through the Head Start Program or through helping and assisting local groups to try to give help and assistance to those children as they are preparing, even for Head Start, the ready-to-learn program, which basically was a goal we agreed to--Democrats and Republicans alike--in their conference in Charlottesville about 10 years ago. That is an area in which we have not been able to gain support, although we have a bipartisan proposal that is actually currently pending--would be pending were we to get back to the elementary and secondary education bill. We believe the success of the STAR Program in Tennessee and also in the State of Wisconsin demonstrates the importance of smaller classrooms. Also, all of the various studies have shown quite clearly the importance of having well-trained teachers. We can learn from States that have moved ahead in providing adequate compensation of teachers, such as Connecticut, North Carolina, and other States, and that have shown that when you have teachers who are well trained and well paid, you get an enhanced academic achievement for these students. We support afterschool programs--they have a tremendous impact on helping children to enhance their academic achievement. We should also make college more accessible to every qualified student through GEAR UP and college tuition help, the excellent proposal that has been advanced by Vice President Gore to provide a tax deduction for tuition for children, for parents whose children are going on to college. Also, in the area of skills training, we tried to address that in an amendment. We actually were able to get a majority in the Senate to support the restoring of a training program, but we have been unable to get that implemented because there was a point of order made against it. We had to amend a bill which did not make it possible for us to carry that forward into a conference. All of these are matters of enormous importance. We have been impressed--I have--by the debate and discussion at the national level about the Vice President's proposal to understand that learning has to be a continuum and that skills training has to be a continuum. I often am reminded of the fact that when I first was elected to the Senate, we had a very efficient shipyard down in Fall River, MA. The workers who worked there, their fathers worked there, their grandfathers worked there. More often than not, the sons wanted to work there. But there has been a change. That yard has been closed. Now what we find out is--not only there but across my own State of Massachusetts and across the country--everyone who enters the job market is going to have, on average, seven different jobs over the course of their lifetime. We have to be able to have continuing education and training programs accessible and available to young and old alike, so that people are going to be able to upgrade their skills. That is enormously important. It is enormously important not only to the young, but it is enormously important to communities such as mine, Massachusetts, where we have an older workforce--we have a transition from a lot of the older industries into newer kinds of industries--and where the real difference is in the development of skills. We would have the opportunity to address many of those issues I have very briefly mentioned in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We certainly would be able to address universal preschool, the issues of qualified teachers, and the importance of skills training that is going to be school based. We could address modern and safe schools. We would be able to address afterschool opportunities, smaller class sizes, and the higher education issues. Lifelong training would perhaps not be exactly targeted in those programs, but we will have an opportunity to address that, I believe, in the final budget negotiations that are going to be taking place between the two Houses, and with the appropriations. Being able to have a clear indication about where we in the Congress stand on these issues could be enormously instructive in terms of allocating scarce resources. I just want to say, we are continually frustrated that we have not been able to get this matter back up in the Senate for debate. We note that we were on a two-track agenda just last week, where we did the trade issues during the day and the appropriations in the evening. We would like to suggest that we could do the trade issues, as they are going along, but we are prepared to move ahead to consider the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the evenings. We could consider it this week, next week, until we have reached a conclusion to it. We recognize the importance of it. If we are looking around for priorities--we heard last week about the importance of a lockbox; and we ought to certainly address that issue before we adjourn--but I daresay for most families, this week is education week as their children go back to school. They want to know what they might be able to expect from the Congress, what kind of partnership should they be able to expect, and we should not just give them silence, which we effectively are giving them. I welcome the fact that this week we are having Vice President Gore speak on the various aspects of education for a series of days in different parts of the country. I would like to see a national debate on education. I would like to see him out there speaking about it. I would like to have seen Governor Bush speaking about it. I would like to see the engagement of their ideas in the forums of their debates. But we ought to be discussing these issues here on the floor of the Senate. That is something I think is of importance. Every day we let this go by, every day that we refuse to bring this up, I think we are denying the American people the kind of debate on an issue they care about, which they deserve. We hear both of the candidates talk about education. Let the record just demonstrate that we, on our side, want to get back and debate this issue. We want to take action on it. We are prepared to go forward on it. We do not need phone calls from the Vice President on this. We are prepared to go ahead--and go ahead today, tonight, any other time, on it. We wish the Governor would call the Republican leadership and say: Look, I am interested in the education issues as well. Why don't you go ahead and have a good debate on that issue and in the Senate. Let me tell you what my positions are. Let's have a debate. Let's let the American people understand. Let's give them a window into this discussion, which is so important for families in this country. Let's not exclude them. I can imagine, as the Vice President is going around talking about education, there are going to be people saying: What is happening in the Congress? I hope he understands that we, on this side, are prepared to have these matters debated, discussed, and resolved. We wish we could join with our colleagues on the other side to do so. Historically, the issues on education have never been really partisan. We have some differences in terms of accountability, which the Vice President strongly supports. But we believe we ought to be able to have a debate and discussion in the Senate on this issue. We think we are denying the American people the opportunity. So I would invite the Governor to contact the Republican leadership here and say: If you are really interested in education, let's bring the elementary and secondary education bill back to the floor. Let's debate it. We are glad to consider it in the evening time. We have now just about a month left in this session of the Senate. We ought to be resolving the issues on education, on the Patients' Bill of Rights, on prescription drugs, and on the increase in the minimum wage. If we did those four, if we took care of those four issues, I think we could say that this was a Congress of considerable achievement and considerable accomplishment. Those are central, focused issues about which both of the candidates are talking. But they are speaking all over the country; they are not speaking to us here in the Senate. We have no debate on minimum wage. We are not getting back to the minimum wage or prescription drugs. We aren't getting back to education. Since we are not going to be able to do that and have it rescheduled, we are going to have to take whatever steps we possibly can on whatever bills that are going to come up in the remaining days. We want to do this well. We want to do it with the understanding of the leadership on both sides. But if we are not going to be able to get focus and attention on these issues, then we are going to have to take whatever opportunity we have, on any of the measures that are coming down the line, in trying to press the people's business in the form of education. And that I commit we will do. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, senior citizens need a drug benefit under Medicare. They've earned it by a lifetime of hard work, and they deserve it. It is time for Congress to enact it. The clock is running out on this Congress, but it is not too late for the House and Senate to act. Al Gore and George Bush have proposed vastly different responses to this challenge. The Gore plan provides a solid benefit under existing Medicare. The Bush plan, by contrast, cannot pass the truth in labeling test. His plan is not Medicare--and it is not adequate. It is too little, too late. It puts senior citizens needing prescription drug coverage at the mercy of unreliable HMOs. And it is part of a proposal to privatize Medicare that will raise premiums and force the most vulnerable elderly to give up their family physician and join HMOs. Senior citizens need help now. Al Gore's plan provides prescription drug coverage under Medicare for every senior citizen in 2002--the earliest date such a program could realistically be implemented. Under the Bush plan, there is no Medicare coverage of prescription drugs for four years. Instead, Governor Bush proposes a block grant to states for low-income seniors only. Less than one-third of seniors would even be eligible. Only a minority of those who are eligible would participate. Senior citizens want Medicare, not welfare. Al Gore's plan recognizes that. George Bush's plan does not. On this chart, we see the differences between the two programs. This effectively, in under Vice President Gore, would go to the year 2002--a little over a year from where we are now. Under the Bush program, effectively it will go in 4 years after enactment. It would be a block grant that would go to the States to deal with those neediest among our poor. But it would effectively leave out 29 million Medicare recipients. Under the Gore program, you have guaranteed benefits. What does ``guaranteed benefits'' mean? That means a senior goes into a doctor's office. The doctor says that you need XYZ drug. They could prescribe it, and the individual patient is going to be assured of it. Under the Bush program, under the HMO, which particular prescription drugs are going to be included? Just like it is under the HMO, to make a decision on what the premium is going to be, what the copayment is going to be, and what the deductible is going to be. There isn't a person today, including Governor Bush, who can tell what the benefit package would be for a senior under his program. They couldn't tell what the deductible, what the premium or what the copay would be. Under the Gore program, they could; and it is basically under the Medicare system. When Governor Bush says it is an ``immediate helping hand,'' that really can't pass the truth-in-labeling test. The claim is that it would help. The truth is, it is too little for too few. Seventy percent of the Medicare beneficiaries--more than 27 million-- would not be eligible for the block grant program. Effectively what we are saying is that under the program, 27 million will not be eligible under the block grant program. Even fewer would participate. Less than 20 percent of the eligible low-income seniors currently participate in the State-run Medicare premium assistance program, which is known as SLMB. That is where the States are basically helping and assisting through Medicare to offset the premiums for the lowest income. The States have shown a remarkable lack of interest in protecting the low-income seniors, and it is very little too late. They will do much better with regard to this program. This is a matter of very considerable concern. Again, the challenge is this ``immediate helping hand.'' We also say this can't pass the truth-in-labeling test. All 50 States must pass enabling or modifying legislation. We are going to have a different benefit package in each of the States under this particular program. Only 16 States currently have any drug insurance program at the existing time. If you look at the CHIP experience, which was enacted in August of 1997, when the funding was already available to any of the States that went ahead and passed the law, it still took over 2 years for Texas to implement the CHIP program. We haven't even gotten the block grant money. It will have to be approved by the Congress in the future. As Governor Bush has pointed out, many States don't have the legislation. They meet biannually, and this will require enabling legislation in the States. Beyond that, the Governors have already rejected the block grant program. The Governors rejected the State block grant program. They did so in February of this year. If Congress decides to expand the prescription drug coverage for seniors, it should not shift that responsibility, or its costs, to the States. That is exactly what this program does. Here are the Governors, in a bipartisan way, indicating that they didn't want to take the new administration on and the bureaucracy of trying to administer this program. They didn't want the responsibility, and they didn't want to have to put out any of the costs as well. It is a very clear indication that the Governors are not interested in this program, to have it implemented with regard to the States. The Gore plan provides the guaranteed benefits. The Bush plan leaves the benefits and premiums up to the HMOs. We are out on the floor of the Senate trying to get a Patients' Bill of Rights up to try to make sure the HMOs are going to be responsive to the health care needs of our people in this country and do what is necessary for them as identified by the doctors and trained professionals. Here we are having a whole new program that is going to be effectively administered by the HMOs. Under the Gore plan, there is no deductible. The Government pays for 50 percent, up to $2,000, and rising to $5,000. Premiums are limited to the cost of the services--not the profits of the HMOs. The Government and beneficiaries each pay half of the premium. There is a $4,000 limit on the out-of-pocket costs. It seems to me we have this dramatic difference in these approaches between the two programs. Under the Gore proposal, this will be a prompt help for senior citizens, just 1 year after enactment; under Governor Bush's proposal, it will take 4 years after enactment to be put in place in the 50 different States, it will rely upon the HMOs, and it will take care of less than a third of the needs of our senior citizens. We have a guaranteed benefit program. They have no guaranteed benefit program. We will not hear any Republican able to identify what prescription drugs are going to be guaranteed to the seniors of this country. Under the Gore proposal, whatever the doctor says is going to be necessary will be guaranteed. We have guaranteed access to the needed drugs. The doctor decides. Mr. President, I think there is a dramatic contrast and difference. Look at the cost under the different proposals. We find with a 25- percent premium payment under the Medicare actuaries, they have indicated there will be a rise in the premiums anywhere from 35 to 45 percent. It was because of those findings, which have been substantiated by the Senate Finance Committee, that the basic Gore program has indicated there has to be a support of at least 50 percent of the premium in order to make sure it will be universal. It is voluntary. But with this kind of a 50-percent premium offset, the best estimate is, according to the Senate Finance Committee hearings, there will be virtually a universal appeal for that. With 25 percent of premium, according to the Finance Committee hearings, they believe the increase in the cost of the premiums will rise from 35 to 45 percent. In conclusion, we have the Federal budget commitment of $253 billion under Vice President Gore; it is $158 billion under Governor Bush. The Federal contribution to beneficiary premiums is 50 percent under Vice President Gore; under Bush, it is 25 percent. I say to the editorial writers, read the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee. Find out, in the questions and answers at those hearings, whether anyone believes with a 25-percent offset in premium--without knowing what the premium is going to be, because the premium is going to be established by the HMO--whether the overall costs in terms of prescription drugs is not going to increase anywhere from 35 to 42 percent. The proportion of our seniors participating in the drug coverage is virtually 100 percent; in the Bush program, less than half. I think it is important to have an understanding of what is before the Congress in the Senate. We still have time to take action. We are interested in taking action. We ought to be able to develop a bipartisan effort to try to deal with the principal concerns of our senior citizens. We all know that if Medicare were being passed today rather than in 1965, a prescription drug benefit would be included. The guarantee in 1965 to our senior citizens was: Work hard, contribute into the Medicare system, and your health care needs will be attended to. We are not attending to the needs of our senior citizens. Every day that goes by without a prescription drug benefit, we are violating that commitment to our senior citizens, and that is wrong. We have in the last 4\1/2\ weeks the opportunity to take meaningful steps to address that critical need for our senior citizens. We should not fail them. That is what I think is a fundamental responsibility we have in the Senate. More than 900,000 senior citizens lost their Medicare under HMOs this year. Yes, 900,000 senior citizen lost their Medicare HMO coverage this year. Yet that is going to be the pillars on which this program is going to be built after 4 years; 934,000 Medicare beneficiaries lost their HMO coverage this year. Approximately 30 percent of beneficiaries live in areas with no HMOs. In vast areas of the country, there are virtually no HMOs at all. We have seen them leaving in droves, including the States of Connecticut and my own State of Massachusetts. It has been true in the State of Maryland. There is one HMO left in the State of Maryland. Now we have 30 percent of all beneficiaries living in areas with no HMOs. Private insurance premiums will increase 10 to 30 percent this year. This is the principal concern. In the first 4 years, 29 million senior citizen otherwise eligible under Medicare will not be able to participate in the Bush program. After that, it will be built upon the HMOs without a defined benefit package, without any indication of what the premiums, copays, or deductibles are going to be. The alternative is a very impressive and significant downpayment in the commitment of this country to building on Medicare. I know there are many--and probably most--who are opposed to building on Medicare, who are against the Medicare system in any event. One doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that. But we believe the Medicare system has worked and is working. It has to be strengthened, it has to be improved. There are many features in terms of health care that it doesn't cover. It don't cover the eye care, dental care, or foot care that it should. It doesn't do the prescription drug coverage, which is life and death. That is the major opening. We find under the Bush plan the benefits provided are guaranteed to not be adequate. The Bush program allocates $100 billion less to prescription drug coverage than the Gore plan over 10 years. The reason for this large gap is obvious. The Bush approach allocates too much of the surplus to tax breaks for the wealthy, and too little is left to help our senior citizens. Under the Bush plan, the Government contributes 25 percent of the cost of prescription drug premiums--half as much as under the Gore program. In the entire history of Medicare, citizens have never been asked to pay such a high proportion of the cost of any benefit. They have never been asked to pay such a high proportion of the cost of any benefit. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated under the similar Republican plan passed by the House of Representatives, benefits would be so inadequate, costs so high, that more than half of the senior citizens who need help the most will not be able to participate. Any prescription drug benefit that leaves out more than 6 million of our senior citizens who need the protection the most is not a serious plan to help senior citizens. Perhaps the worst aspect of the Bush plan is that it makes prescription drugs available to senior citizens only if they also accept the extreme changes in Medicare that would dramatically raise premiums for their doctors and hospital bills and coerce the most vulnerable seniors to join HMOs. That is not the kind of Medicare coverage and it is not the kind of prescription drug benefit the American people want. Under Bush's vision of Medicare reform, the premiums paid by senior citizens for conventional Medicare could increase by as much as 47 percent in the first year and continue to grow over time, according to the nonpartisan Medicare actuaries. The elderly would face an unacceptable choice between premiums they can afford and giving up their family doctor by joining an HMO. Senior citizens already have the right to choose between conventional Medicare and private insurance that offers additional benefits. The difference between what seniors have today and what George W. Bush is proposing is not the difference between choice and bureaucracy, it is the difference between choice and coercion, driven by the right-wing Republican agenda to undermine Medicare by privatizing it. On this ground alone it deserves rejection. We don't have to destroy Medicare in order to save it. There is still time this year for Congress to enact a genuine prescription drug benefit under Medicare. Al Gore and the administration have presented a strong proposal. Let's work together to enact it. The American people are waiting for our answer. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it has been more than a year since the Columbine tragedy, but still this Republican Congress refuses to act on sensible gun legislation. Since Columbine, thousands of Americans have been killed by gunfire. Until we act, Democrats in the Senate will read the names of some of those who have lost their lives to gun violence in the past year, and we will continue to do so every day that the Senate is in session. In the name of those who died, we will continue this fight. Following are the names of some of the people who were killed by gunfire one year ago today. September 7, 1999: Ignacio Barba, 25, Oakland, CA; Ernest Bolton, 48, Dallas, TX; Steven Celestine, 5, Miami, FL; Fareed J. Chapman, 19, Chicago, IL; Selester Edward, 21, Louisville, KY; Samuel Girouard, 18, Bellingham, WA; Allen Howe, 32, New Orleans, LA; Robert Jenkins, 29, Charlotte, NC; Leo Kidd, 28, Detroit, MI; Alvin Marshall, 45, Pittsburgh, PA; Stacy Stewart, 28, St. Louis, MO; William Thornes, 23, Washington, DC; Darrly Towns, 15, Detroit, MI; Dao Vo, 19, Seattle, WA; Bathsheba Woodall, 23, Philadelphia, PA. One of the gun violence victims I mentioned was only five years old. Steven Celestine, a little boy from Miami, was shot and killed one year ago today by his own father, as his mother tried to protect him in her arms during an argument between the parents. We cannot sit back and allow such senseless gun violence to continue. The deaths of this small child and the others I named are a reminder to all of us that we need to enact sensible gun legislation now.