Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as we enter the final weeks of the 106th Congress and the home stretch of the Presidential campaign, two health issues demand immediate action--protecting patients against the abuses of HMOs and other health insurance plans and providing coverage of prescription drugs under Medicare for senior citizens. The American people deserve action on each of these issues from this Congress. The position of the two Presidential candidates on these issues has become a key factor in determining whether they are truly committed to serving the needs of the American people, and the position of every member of Congress on these issues is important for the same reason. With regard to the Patients' Bill of Rights, last week, ABC began to air a documentary series--``Hopkins 24/7''--that vividly illustrates once again the need for prompt action to end HMO abuses. Hopkins 24/7 is a documentary on life at one of the nation's finest hospitals--Johns Hopkins. The documentary is the result of three months of intensive filming. The first segment, shown on August 30, showed American medicine at its best, and the abuses by managed care at their worst. A 14-year-old girl, Tiffanie Salvadia, sought care from Johns Hopkins for her cancer of the uterus. The diagnosis had been delayed for six critical weeks because crucial tests were not ordered by her HMO physicians. When Tiffanie finally reached Johns Hopkins, the cancer had spread from her uterus, raising the risk of this serious illness even further. When Tiffany finally reached an institution capable of giving her the quality care she needed, the problems with her HMO were not over: Authorization for a vital test was needed, but the hospital was unable to contact the HMO for the authorization. Fortunately, Hopkins simply went ahead and performed the test, and hoped that the hospital might be able to obtain payment later. Tiffanie ultimately received fine care from Hopkins, and her chances of recovery from the cancer now seem good. But her favorable prognosis is no thanks to her HMO. Here is what Dr. Paul Colombani, the oncologist at Hopkins, had to say about Tiffanie's case and about his experience with managed care generally. On the difficulty in getting the test authorized, he said, ``I have to do the diagnosis codes and the procedure codes. And we have to submit them to the insurance company ahead of time. And they have to say yea or nay. We're not going to do this. You have to do that. I think it is ridiculous that a high school clerk should be telling me that I can or cannot do an operation on a patient.'' On the delay in getting Tiffanie an accurate diagnosis and treatment, the doctor said, ``We see delays in diagnosis because of the inadequacies of the managed care system all the time. And for . . . the .1 percent of patients where it turns out to be a life and death situation, they just look at that as the price of doing business. It's pathetic. In October or September, or whatever, that was the time to do that surgery. Now we're playing catch up.'' Perhaps the most heart-rending comment came from Tiffanie's mother. It is a comment that any parent who has ever had a child with a serious illness can understand. She said, ``My daughter has cancer. I want to concentrate on her, and getting her better and not have to worry about if I have a referral for this or a referral for that.'' ``I want to concentrate on her.'' That should be the right of any parent whose child is seriously ill. But today, because of the abuses of the insurance industry, it is not a right--it is a privilege of the fortunate few. Whether the issue is diagnostic tests, specialty care, emergency room care, access to clinical trials, availability of needed drugs, protection of doctors who give patients their best possible advice, or women's ability to obtain gynecological services--too often, in all these cases, HMOs and managed care plans make the company's bottom line more important than the patient's vital signs. These abuses should have no place in American medicine. Every doctor knows it. Every patient knows it. And in their hearts, every Member of Congress knows it. Almost 11 months ago, the House of Representatives passed the bipartisan Norwood-Dingell bill to end these abuses. It is endorsed by 300 groups of doctors, nurses, patients, and advocates for women, children, and families. It is supported by virtually every medical group in this country. It passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority. It should have sailed through the Senate of the United States. But it continues to languish because the Republican leadership continues to put a higher priority on protecting industry profits than on protecting patients. We have come close to successful passage. On June 8th, the Norwood- Dingell bill fell just one vote short of passage in the full Senate. It was supported by every Democratic Senator--and only four Republican Senators. The American people deserve action before this Congress ends. Every day we delay, more patients suffer. The Patients' Bill of Rights is one of the most important issues facing this Congress--facing every family, too. There is no question where Vice-President Al Gore stands. If Governor Bush supported patients' rights and were willing to show the leadership that the American people have the right to expect in a Presidential candidate, this legislation would clearly pass the Senate. But on this issue, Governor Bush has failed to show the leadership we need. I still believe that enactment of strong, effective legislation is possible this year. I am here to serve notice to the Senate today, that there will be new votes on this issue before we adjourn. I am hopeful that we will be successful. The American people are waiting for relief--and we owe it to them to act. On Medicare prescription drugs, the second major issue of health reform facing us is insurance coverage of prescription drugs under Medicare. After a year of full-time campaigning, Governor Bush today has finally offered a specific prescription drug plan for the consideration of the American people. Unfortunately, that plan is an empty promise for senior citizens. It is not Medicare--and it is not adequate. It is part of a broad plan to make regressive changes in Medicare that will raise premiums, force senior citizens to join HMOs, and further a radical right-wing program of privatization. And drug benefits would not even be available to most senior citizens for four years. Senior citizens need a drug benefit under Medicare. They earned it by a lifetime of hard work. They deserve it, and 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. The Administration and Vice President Gore have proposed one. So have Democrats in Congress. And we intend to assure that the Congress will vote on a real prescription drug program this month. The American people deserve action, and we intend to see that they get it. Too many elderly Americans today must choose between food on the table and the medicine they need to stay healthy or to treat their illnesses. Too many senior citizens take half the pills their doctor prescribes, or don't even fill needed prescriptions--because they can't afford the high cost of prescription drugs. Too many seniors are paying twice as much as they should for the drugs they need, because they are forced to pay full price, while almost everyone with a private insurance policy benefits from negotiated discounts. In the face of declining coverage and soaring costs, more and more senior citizens are being left out and left behind. The vast majority of the elderly are of moderate means. They cannot possibly afford to purchase the prescription drugs they need if serious illness strikes. The older they are, the more likely they are to be in poor health, and the more likely they are to have very limited income to meet their health needs. Few if any issues facing this Congress are more important than giving the nation's senior citizens the health security they have been promised. The promise of Medicare will not be fulfilled until Medicare protects senior citizens against the high cost of prescription drugs, in the same way that it protects them against the high cost of hospital care and doctor care. Vice President Gore has been fighting for prescription drug coverage under Medicare since 1993. President Bill Clinton has called for immediate action in his last two State of the Union Addresses. The Administration has put a solid program on the table for the consideration of Congress--and their program is affordable for senior citizens and also for the federal budget--because they do not use the surplus for hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks for the wealthy. The Bush plan is not adequate and it is not Medicare. In fact, he has also endorsed a regressive plan to change Medicare in a way that will raise premiums and force senior citizens to join HMOs. That is not the kind of Medicare the American people want, and it's not the kind of prescription drug benefit they want either. Under Bush's version of Medicare reform, the premiums paid by senior citizens for conventional Medicare could increase by as much as 47% 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 options that may offer additional benefits. The difference between what senior citizens have today and what George Bush is proposing is not the difference between choice and bureaucracy--it's the difference between choice and coercion--driven by a right-wing agenda of privatization. On this ground alone, it deserves rejection, regardless of its provisions for covering prescription drugs. But the program to cover prescription drugs is equally flawed--so flawed that it is an empty promise for millions of senior citizens. To begin with, the value of the Bush program to senior citizens is only one-half of what Vice President Gore has proposed. The reason is obvious--after massive tax breaks for the wealthy, there is not room in the Bush budget for adequate prescription drug coverage for senior citizens. The Bush plan provides little help to the vast majority of senior citizens who are not poor, but are of modest means and cannot afford large drug expenses or large increases in Medicare premiums. Under the Bush plan, these seniors have to pay three-quarters of the cost of their prescription drug coverage--and the coverage is not even adequate. In the entire history of Medicare, senior citizens have never been asked to pay such a high share of the cost of the premiums for any benefit. The defects in the Bush plan go far beyond the inadequacy of the benefits. It is a program that only a drug company executive could love. For the first four years, there is no Medicare benefit at all, just a program of block grants to the states for providing coverage for low income senior citizens. Senior citizens want Medicare, not welfare, and they deserve Medicare, not welfare. When the Bush plan finally becomes available to all seniors, it does not provide a real Medicare benefit--or any other adequate benefit. Instead, it gives senior citizens what is, in effect, a voucher--and it tells them to go out and buy their own coverage from a private insurance company. If the price is too high in the area in which they live, they are out of luck. If the drug company's list of approved drugs does not include the medicine they need, their only recourse is a time-consuming appeal. There is no defined benefit-- senior citizens are not even guaranteed the same coverage in Missouri that they would get in Mississippi. It is all up to the insurance company. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that under the similar Republican plan passed by the House of Representatives, benefits would be so inadequate and costs so high that less than half of the senior citizens who need help the most--those who have no prescription drug coverage today--will even participate. A prescription drug benefit that leaves out half of the senior citizens who need protection the most is not a serious plan to help senior citizens. It is ironic that in offering this inadequate plan, Mr. Bush has criticized Vice President Gore for a ``big-government, one-size-fits- all'' solution. The Gore plan covers prescription drugs under Medicare in exactly the same way that Medicare covers doctor and hospital costs. Mr. Bush obviously feels this is a one-size-fits all solution. That is why he has endorsed an extreme restructuring of the Medicare program. He may favor forcing the elderly into HMOs, but that is not what Democrats in Congress support. That's not what Vice President Gore supports. Most important, that's not what the American people support. There is still time for Congress to enact a genuine prescription drug benefit under Medicare. The Administration has presented a strong proposal. Let's work together to enact it this year. It is not too late. The American people are waiting for an answer. I am hopeful we will pass that legislation. Again, I am strongly committed, as I believe my colleagues, Senator Daschle and others are, to ensure we will have an opportunity to vote on that measure before we adjourn. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President. I come here to pay tribute to the remarkable career of one of our nation's most influential labor and civil rights leaders, Dolores Huerta, who has retired as Secretary- Treasurer of the United Farm Workers of America. Dolores Huerta is a true national treasure. For half a century, the great victories for farm workers, the advances for these hardworking and proud families, would not have been possible without the able leadership and vision of Dolores Huerta. When farm workers marched, Dolores led the way. When farm workers struck for better wages and working conditions, Dolores was at the front of the line. In all of the great boycotts for better jobs for farm workers and their families, it was Dolores who pulled it all together. Farm workers are her family. And all of us in public life soon learned that if something was wrong with her brother and sisters in the field, Dolores would be knocking on doors to set things right. Her activism was ignited when as a teacher, many of her students came to school suffering from hunger and without adequate clothing. Frustrated by the plight of these children, Dolores decided that she could best serve her community by working as a grass roots advocate and refocused her life to the economic empowerment of the parents of her students-- the farm workers. In 1955, she founded the Stockton, California chapter of the Community Service Organization. There, she began to develop her leadership skills through the organization's advocacy work to end segregation and police brutality, promoting voter registration, and improving public services for the disenfranchised. The plight of migrant farm workers always remained a central part of her public service. She soon met her kindred spirit in the cause for farm worker rights, Cesar Chavez. Dolores and Cesar embarked on a new path to bring the plight of farm workers in our national consciousness. In 1962, they founded the National Farm Workers Association, the predecessor to the United Farm Workers. Never before did farm workers have a voice in the political process. Under her leadership as Political Director, farm workers began to understand that they could achieve social justice by organizing strikes, boycotts, and voter registration drives. Through Dolores' leadership, once invisible farm workers were now given a human face and became an integral part of the struggle to gain civil rights and equal justice for people of all colors and economic backgrounds. Dolores will always hold a special place in the hearts of the Kennedy family. Dolores and Cesar Chavez developed a special relationship with my brother Bobby for John F. Kennedy's 1960 presidential campaign. Together, they established the ``Viva Kennedy'' voter registration drive for Hispanic voters in California. That effort was revived in 1968 for Bobby's presidential campaign. l will always remember how her dedication and hard work were instrumental to my brother's California primary victory. Dolores made it possible for Bobby to reach out to Mexican-Americans and convey the message of a common vision for equal justice. She encouraged those who believed that they were disenfranchised to come to the polls for the first time to join in the fight for civil rights and human dignity. My family will always remember and respect Dolores for her strong and skillful efforts as well as her commitment to the great goals that we share. 1973 was yet another turning point for the farm worker movement. When grape growers decided to discontinue the collective bargaining agreements with the United Farm Workers, Dolores organized a national boycott and public education campaign to inform consumers of the poor working conditions and unfair wages that farm workers endured from the agricultural industry. The striking farm workers were subjected to severe harassment and violence. Many of them lost their lives in the struggle. But they would not give up until justice was won. In the end, the California legislature enacted the Agricultural Labor Relations Act. For the first time, farm workers were granted the right to collectively organize and bargain for better wages and working conditions. Cesar Chavez passed on seven years ago, but the struggle of the farm workers continues. At a time in which most people settle into the slower pace of their golden years, Dolores keeps on fighting the battles that have not yet been won. I am delighted to hear that she will still be on the ramparts and in the trenches for workers in need of her help. Dolores continues to do all she can to empower future generations of Americans to carry the torch that she let so brightly shine over these challenging years. She will also continue her efforts to increase Latino voter participation and develop strong leadership opportunities for Hispanic women around the country, and advocate for the rights of immigrants and working people, speak on behalf of working people across America. Millions of Americans enjoy a higher quality of life because of her skillful efforts. No one has fought harder for civil rights of people of color, for worker's rights, for environmental rights, for women's and children's rights, for quality education and health care, and for economic empowerment for the poor. The Kennedy family is proud to consider Dolores a friend. Dolores Huerta is a living legend and a true American hero. Her vision, compassion, and tireless commitment to all Americans is never ending. Nothing we can say or do can truly repay her for all she has done to make our country the strong and more just nation that it is today. From all of us who love and respect her, we say, ``Job well done!''

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask to be able to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see my colleagues on the floor. I note that my colleague from New Mexico was here waiting before I came to the floor and before my friend from Iowa arrived. I know he has an important short subject matter. He has not been recognized in the consent agreement, and I want to accommodate all. I believe I am entitled to 30 minutes; I expect to be able to complete my remarks in a shorter period. I want to accommodate the Senator from New Mexico. I will speak 20 minutes, and then yield to the Senator from Iowa. I ask unanimous consent to follow that outline, if it is agreeable to the Members.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this afternoon, we are considering whether to proceed to legislation to establish permanent normal trading relations with China. That's an important issue, and it should be debated. But in the short time remaining this year, we also must answer the call of the American people for real action on key issues of concern to working families. I want to mention briefly and then talk for the few more moments that I have about three specifically. We must raise the minimum wage--with no gimmicks, no poison pills, and no bloated tax breaks for the wealthy. We are willing to consider some tax relief for small businesses to offset any burden of raising the minimum wage. But the minimum wage should be the engine for relief for low-wage workers, not the caboose on a massive train of tax breaks and antiworker legislation. The latest Republican scheme may raise the minimum wage. But it also reduces overtime payments for all workers. Workers all over America are saying that employers are requiring them to work too much overtime. Under the Republican scheme, not only can employers require workers to work more overtime, but employers can pay them less for that overtime. We must pass a real Patients' Bill of Rights--true HMO reform in which all Americans in managed care plans are protected--not just some, as our Republican friends propose. We must strengthen our hate crimes laws. The Senate has passed such legislation on the DOD authorization. It's now up to the Republican leadership to decide whether we stand up against hate and bigotry in America, or will this Congress just take a pass. We must invest in education in ways that will make a real difference for our children. That means helping local schools hire more teachers so we can have smaller class sizes, and a quality teacher in every classroom in America. It means partnering with local schools to modernize school buildings and build more schools. It means increasing Pell Grants so more young Americans have a chance to go to college. It means more pre-school and after-school help for parents and schools. We must adopt sensible gun controls that keep our communities and our schools safe. We should require child safety locks on all guns, and we must close the gun show loophole. We must adopt urgently needed immigration reforms. We must expand the visa quota for skilled workers--the so-called ``H-1B visa.'' And we must adopt new laws to ensure equal treatment under our immigration laws for Latino and other immigrants. Last but not least, we must enact a prescription drug benefit as part of the Medicare program. Whenever a senior citizen signs up for Medicare, a comprehensive prescription drug benefit should automatically come with it. Senior citizens shouldn't have to battle HMOs and insurance companies to get the prescription drugs they need. Yet, that is what our Republican friends propose. Let's do it right--and do it now. Let's pass a prescription drug benefit as an integral and normal part of the Medicare program, just like hospitalization and doctors' visits. This summer, Congress voted tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and a pay raise for itself, but the Republican leadership has continued to block efforts to raise the salaries of America's most underpaid workers--those earning the minimum wage. While Members of this Republican Congress are quick to find time to increase their own salaries and cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans, they have not yet found the time to pass an increase in the minimum wage to benefit those hard-working, low-wage Americans. The Republican leadership has insisted on doing nothing for those at the bottom of the economic ladder. It is an outrage that Congress would raise its own pay but not the minimum wage. I was pleased to hear during the recess that House Republicans are finally coming around to our way of thinking. Last week, after three years of foot-dragging, Speaker Hastert offered the President a plan to raise the minimum wage. This is a positive development, and it gives us real hope that we can raise the pay of the lowest paid workers this year. These low income working families deserve a raise. Their pay has been frozen for three years. Since January 1999 alone, minimum wage workers have now lost $3,000 due to the inaction of Congress. If we fail to increase the minimum wage this year, it will lose all of the value gained by the last two increases. Minimum wage earners should not be forced to wait any longer for an increase. But we can't use this as an excuse to cut workers' overtime pay, as Speaker Hastert proposes. We can't raise the minimum wage on one hand-- and cut overtime pay for millions of Americans on the other hand. The typical American family is working more and more hours, according to a study released for Labor Day by the Economic Policy Institute called ``The State of Working America 2000-2001.'' Employees have increasingly been forced to work mandatory overtime--time they would rather be spending with their families--and they should be fairly compensated for that work. Several new studies further prove how important a minimum wage increase is. A recent report released by the Economic Policy Institute entitled ``The Impact of the Minimum Wage: Policy Lifts Wages, Maintains Floor for Low-Wage Labor Market'' reveals that 63 percent of gains from a $1 increase in the minimum wage would go to families in the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution. The study also finds that the higher wage raises the incomes of low-wage workers, with no evidence of job loss. In addition, the study reports that, among people who will benefit from an increase in the minimum wage, 1.75 million workers are parents with earnings below $25,000 a year. A June 2000 Conference Board report, ``Does A Rising Tide Lift All Boats? America's Full-time Working Poor Reap Limited Gains in the New Economy,'' found that poverty has risen among full-time, year round workers since 1973. Lower skilled workers have profited much less from the current economic boom. They have yet to recover from the serious erosion of their earnings from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s. The number of full-time workers in poverty has doubled since the late 1970s--from about 1.5 million to almost 3 million by 1998. Millions of poor children are dependent upon these full-time workers. ``Minimum Wage Careers?'', an August 1999 study by two government economists, found that 12 percent of all workers have spent the first ten years of their careers within $1 of the minimum wage. 8 percent of workers, predominantly women, minorities, and the less-educated, spend at least 50 percent of their first ten post-school years in jobs paying less than $1 above the minimum wage. This research demonstrates that millions of workers stay at or near the minimum wage long after their entry into the workforce. The minimum wage is not just an ``entry level'' wage. As the study concludes, ``minimum wage legislation has non-negligible effects on the lifetime opportunities of a significant minority of workers.'' Raising the minimum wage is not just a labor issue. The minimum wage issue is also a family issue. Forty percent of minimum wage workers have families. Parents are spending less and less time with their families. Listen to this: 22 hours less a week than they did 30 years ago, according to a study last year by the Council of Economic Advisers. As reflected in a report released by the Economic Policy Institute last week, an average middle-class family in 1998 spend 6.8 percent more time at work then it did in 1989. These extra hours at work mean that parents have less time to spend with their children. Raising the minimum wage issue is also a children's issue. Thirty- three percent of minimum wage earners are parents with children under 18. Over 8 million children living in poverty live in working poor families. The Children's Defense Fund recently released a report called ``The State of America's Children 2000.'' A chapter on Family Income explains that if ``recent patterns persist, one out of every three children born in 2000 will have spent at least a year in poverty by his or her 18th birthday.'' The inadequate pay of these workers is the reason why 33 percent of all poor children, or 4.3 million children, in 1998 were poor despite living in a family where someone worked full- time, year-round. Children who grow up in poor families face a much higher risk of poor health, high rates of learning disabilities and developmental delays, and poor school achievement and they are far more likely to end up in poverty themselves. Raising the minimum wage is also a civil rights issue. A disproportionate share of minorities will be affected by an increase in the minimum wage. While African Americans represent 12 percent of the total workforce, they represent 16 percent of those who would benefit from a minimum wage increase. Only 11 percent of the workforce is Hispanic, but 19 percent of those who would directly affected by an increase in the minimum wage are Hispanic. Raising the minimum wage is also a women's issue. Sixty percent of minimum wage earners are women. The workers affected by an increase in the minimum wage are concentrated in female-dominated occupations. Above all, raising the minimum wage is a fairness issue. Minimum wage earners, such as waitresses and teacher's aides, childcare workers, and elder care workers, deserve to be paid fairly for the work that they do. They should not be forced into poverty for doing the work that is so important to the citizens of the Nation. In this period of unprecedented economic prosperity, the 10 million workers at the bottom of the economic ladder who will benefit from raising the minimum wage should not be forced to wait any longer for the fair increase they deserve. Each day we fail to raise the minimum wage, families across the county continue to fall farther behind. Two facts tell the story. The minimum wage would have to be $7.66 an hour today--instead of its current level of $5.15--to have the same purchasing power it had in 1968. If wages had kept pace with worker productivity gains over the last twenty-five years, the minimum wage would have to be $8.79 today. We heard a great deal about opposition to the increase in minimum wage because we are not getting increases in productivity. No economy has ever had the dramatic increases in productivity as we have had, Mr. President. If we tied those increases in productivity to where the minimum wage should be, it would be at $8.79 instead of $5.15. These disgraceful disparities show how far we have fallen short in guaranteeing that low-income workers receive their fair share of the nation's prosperity. No one--no one--who works for a living should have to live in poverty. We are not going to go away or back down. We have bipartisan support for this increase. It is long past time for this Congress to pass a fair minimum wage bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I agree. I think we can and we should do both of them. We can do them very quickly. We have had the hearings in the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee members understand these issues. They can help provide information to our colleagues if they are in doubt. But the compelling need for action in these areas is just extraordinary. I hope my friend and colleague from Nevada is not going to just end with this challenge. I hope he will continue to work, and I certainly will join him, as many colleagues will, and try to get action. We are unable to get the action today, but we have time remaining. I want to say I look forward to working with him to make sure we get action one way or another, hopefully with the support of the Republican leadership. But if we are not able to have that support, I hope at least they will get out of the way so we can give justice to these very fine individuals. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. The part of this proposal that the Senator was trying to have before the Senate is really to equalize the treatment of those in Central America and Haiti with those from Nicaragua and Cuba because of the assurances that were given. The Senator has talked about the registry which has been periodically updated since the 1920s, to reflect the importance of allowing long- time, deeply rooted immigrants who are contributing to the country to obtain permanent resident status and eventually become citizens. Consider the case of Adriana, who came to the United States with her parents in 1981. In 1986, her family became eligible for legalization, since they had arrived here before 1982. They completed their applications and attempted to submit them to the INS. However, the INS erroneously declared them ineligible because they had briefly left the country in 1985. That year, Adriana and her parents had returned to their native land to visit her dying grandmother. They returned to the United States on tourist visas. In 1989, Adriana learned that the INS had been wrong in denying their right to apply for legalization. They successfully challenged the INS action, but because of changes in 1996, the family is still in legal limbo. Adriana's dream of becoming a special education teacher is on hold, and every day she lives in fear of deportation. Here is a person who, under the law, under the holdings, should be permitted to remain in the United States permanently but is being denied that because of some legal impediments. I understand that the Senator's proposal effectively says to those who have been adjudicated in courts of law, which is the basis of this legislation, that those courts of law holdings should be upheld legislatively here in the Senate. Isn't that effectively what the second provision of the Senator's proposal would do?

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct. At this time, our fellow citizens ought to understand that if you are Guatemalan, El Salvadoran--someone who has been involved in the conflict in that region over the years and is now in the United States--you go off to work in the morning, and you may be married to an American wife, and you may have children who are Americans, and you can be picked up and deported, while the person who is working right next to you in the same shop may have been born 5 miles away but will have the protections of law. Does that seem fair to the Senator from Nevada?

Mr. KENNEDY. Is the Senator suggesting he'll call upon Governor Bush and the Republican leadership in the House and Senate and say that this is something that needs to be supported, that this is something that is a priority with 4 weeks left in this session and that he hopes very much that the leadership will bring this up for final action?

Mr. KENNEDY. That is a very moving story. I see others who want to address the Senate. Let me ask the Senator a final question. Does the Senator hope the Republican leadership will come and either explain their objection to considering and taking action on these issues, or at least that the Republican leadership will give the Senator the assurance that we will bring this up after the completion of the debate on the China trade issue by, say, mid- September? The Senator would certainly welcome that, would he not? And if we are not able to get those kinds of assurances, the silence by the Republican leadership in addressing this issue, I think, would be very significant indeed. We all know what is happening around here. I think if the leadership gave assurances to the Senator from Nevada and most importantly, to the many families in this country affected by our unfair immigration laws, that we will consider this legislation--would the Senator not agree with me--that that would be an enormous step forward and magnificent progress? But if we are not able to get those assurances, how does the Senator interpret the silence of the leadership on this issue?

Mr. KENNEDY. There are three major provisions in the legislation. The other important part of the bill is what is called 245(i), which was a section of the immigration bill that should not have been allowed to expire in 1997. It had been in effect for years. Then it was allowed to expire. All we are trying to do is give it some life again because it had been so successful prior to that time. This provision would permit immigrants eligible to become permanent residents to apply for green cards here in the United States for a $1,000 fee, instead of being forced to return to their native land to apply. The fee was a significant source of funds for INS enforcement and for the processing of applications. Section 245(i) is pro-family and pro-business. It allows immigrants with close family members in this country to remain here and apply for permanent residence. It enables businesses to keep valuable employees, and it provides INS with millions of dollars in additional revenues each year, at no cost to taxpayers. Restoring the ability to apply for green cards in this country also alleviates other unnecessarily harsh provisions in the law which bar these immigrants from returning to the United States for up to 10 years. Consider the case of Norma, who entered the United States from Mexico, settled in North Carolina, and married a U.S. citizen. They have been married for 2 years, have a child, and are expecting another this fall. They recently purchased a new home for their growing family. Norma and her husband are troubled over what to do about her immigration status. She can stay here and risk being deported. Or she can return to Mexico to apply for an immigrant visa, but she would be barred from re-entering the United States for 10 years. That is the current law, 10 years. The restoration of section 245(I) will allow this new family to stay together. Until then, she remains here in legal limbo, unable to become a permanent resident. Section 245(I) had been in effect for 8 years without any kind of abuses. I remember the hearings we had on the 1996 act. I was amazed when this was added. I fought it, voted against it, but it was put into law. The restoration of section 245(I) will allow this new family to stay together. Until then, she remains here in legal limbo, unable to become a permanent resident, and risks being deported. We describe it as 245(I), but this is a real family. These are real cases, real cases of family unity. It is something that is closely related to how parents are going to be able to deal with their children. In talking about the registry, these are individuals who should be entitled to remain here under court order because they comply legally, but because there was a mix-up in the INS, they have been denied that opportunity. We are trying to bring justice to them, justice and fairness to Central Americans, and treat them equally. These don't seem to me to be very complex issues. These issues do not demand a great deal of time in order to be able to understand them or to debate them. These issues, it seems to me, should be very comprehensible to Members of the Senate. I understand the Senator from Nevada is attempting to say: as we come to the end of this session we have been unable to get these matters to the floor because of a range of different activities. Now, in the final days, as a matter of simple fairness, as a matter of family policy, as a matter of common sense, as a matter of continuing our commitment to these individuals, and as a matter of basic and fundamental justice, we ought to take this action. Is that the position of the Senator from Nevada?

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator would be good enough to yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. It is a privilege to join my colleagues in introducing the ``Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act of 2000.'' This important legislation will help re-establish fairness and balance in our immigration laws by making it fairer to apply for green cards, advancing the date for registry from 1972 to 1986, and providing equal treatment for Central American and Haitian immigrants. Our legislation will also provide fairness for immigrants from Central American countries and Haiti. In 1997, Congress granted permanent residence to Nicaraguans and Cubans who had fled from dictatorships in those two countries. But it excluded many other Central Americans and Haitians facing similar conditions. The legislation will eliminate this unfair disparity by extending the provisions of the 1997 Act to all immigrants from Central America and Haiti. By providing parity, we will help individuals such as Gheycell, who came to the United States at the age of 12 with her father and sister from worn-torn Guatemala. She went to school here, and became active in her community. In high school, she formed a club that helped the homeless in Los Angeles. She is now attending college. Her family applied for asylum and all were given work permits. They now qualify for permanent residence. But because Gheycell is 21, she no longer qualifies, and risks being deported to Guatemala. Under our proposal, she will be able to remain in the United States with her family and continue her education. The legislation will also change the registry cut-off date so that undocumented immigrants who have been residing in this country since before 1986 can remain in the United States permanently. The registry date has periodically been updated since the 1920's to reflect the importance of allowing long-time, deeply-rooted immigrants who are contributing to this country to obtain permanent residence status and eventually become citizens. These issues are matters of simple justice. The Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act is strongly supported by a broad coalition of business, labor, religious, Latino and other immigrant organizations. Conservative supporters include Americans for Tax Reform and Empower America. Labor supporters include the AFL-CIO, the Union of Needletrades and Industrial Textile Employees, and the Service Employees International Union. Business supporters include the National Restaurant Association and the American Health Care Association. 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 supporting the bill include the U.S. Catholic Conference, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services. Members of these groups agree that immigrants are an important asset for the economy, and that by enabling them to become permanent residents, they will be freed from exploitation. This legislation will adjust the status of thousands of workers already in the U.S. and authorize them to work. This policy is good for families and good for this country. It will correct past government mistakes that have kept countless hard-working immigrant families in a bureaucratic limbo far too long. In taking these steps, Congress will restore fairness to our immigration laws and help sustain our economic prosperity. I understand, we are coming into the last day of this particular session of this Congress. We will have approximately 4 weeks when we return. But we are running into the last days. The Senator from Nevada was asking for consideration--since we have been in a quorum call, we probably do have the time to deal with these issues, which are not new issues--that we take the steps to try to provide some simple justice for many of our fellow citizens and workers here in the United States who have, because of the failure of action by Congress, or because of the particular decisions of the courts, been denied fairness in their treatment before the law. I would like to ask the Senator from Nevada if he remembers the time, about 3 years ago, when we saw action taken in order to permit permanent resident status for Nicaraguans and Cubans. And yet, at least at that time, there were solemn guarantees that we were going to be able to have similar consideration for Guatemalans, El Salvadorans, Haitians, the other Central Americans who have been involved in similar kinds of conflict. There was a unified position within the community that--because of the turmoil, because of the dangers to many of those people in returning to their country, dangers of retribution--that we ought to give them at least the opportunity for permanent resident status. A decision was made at that time to only do it for the Nicaraguans and the Cubans. But there was the promise that we were going to do it for the rest of the Central Americans. This effort by the Senator from Nevada basically says: we made the promise. We gave the guarantee to these individuals. This is an effort by the Senator from Nevada to make sure that Nicaraguans, Cubans, Haitians, Guatemalans, and El Salvadorans are treated fairly and treated the same. Is that one of the efforts that the good Senator is attempting to achieve?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, religious freedom is a bedrock principle in our Nation. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 reflects our commitment to protect religious freedom and our belief that Congress still has the power to enact legislation to enhance that freedom, even after the Supreme Court's decision in 1997 that struck down the broader Religious Freedom Restoration Act that 97 Senators joined in passing in 1993. Our bill has the support of the Free Exercise Coalition, which represents over 50 diverse and respected groups, including the Family Research Council, the Christian Legal Society, the American Civil Liberties Union, and People for the American Way. The bill also has the endorsement of the Leadership Conference for Civil Rights. The broad support for this bill by religious groups and the civil rights community is the result of many months of difficult, but important negotiations. We carefully considered ways to strengthen religious liberties in other ways in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision. We were mindful of not undermining existing laws intended to protect other important civil rights and civil liberties. It would have been counterproductive if this effort to protect religious liberties led to confrontation and conflict between the civil rights community and the religious community, or to a further court decision striking down the new law. We believe that our bill succeeds in avoiding these difficulties by addressing two of the most obvious current threats to religious liberty and by leaving open the question of what future Congressional actions can be taken to protect religious freedom in America. Our goal in passing this legislation is to reach a reasonable and constitutionally sound balance between respecting the compelling interests of government and protecting the ability of people freely to exercise their religion. We believe that the legislation accomplishes this goal in two areas where infringement of this right has frequently occurred--the application of land use laws, and treatment of persons who are institutionalized. In both of these areas, our bill will protect rights in the Constitution--the right to worship, free from unnecessary government interference. I commend Senator Hatch for his commitment and diligence in developing this legislation. The consensus bill before us is in large part the product of his skillful leadership. Many others in the Senate also deserve credit for this legislation, including Senator Lieberman, Senator Daschle, Senator Schumer, Senator Reid, Senator Bennett, Senator Hutchinson, and Senator Gordon Smith. A broad array of groups also played a central role in crafting this legislation. Among those deserving special recognition are the American Civil Liberties Union, the Baptist Joint Committee, People for the American Way, the Union of Orthodox Congregations, the American Jewish Committee, and the Christian Legal Society. Professor Douglas Laycock of the University of Texas School of Law had an indispensable role in this process. Finally, I commend the White House and the Department of Justice for their guidance and expertise in developing an effective and constitutionally sound bill. Senator Hatch and I are including in the Record a section-by-section summary of the bill along with a joint statement providing a detailed explanation of the need for this important legislation. Numerous committee reports have also described numerous examples of thoughtless and insensitive actions by governments that interfere with religious freedom, even though no valid public purpose is served by the governmental action. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 is an important step forward in protecting religious liberty in America. It reflects the Senate's long tradition of bipartisan support for the Constitution and the nation's fundamental freedoms and I urge the Senate to approve it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, contingent workers in our society face significant problems, and they deserve our help in meeting them. These men and women--temporary and part-time workers, contract workers, and independent contractors--continue to suffer unfairly, even in our prosperous economy. A new report from the General Accounting Office emphasizes that contingent workers often lack income security and retirement security. We know that for most workers today, a single lifetime job is a relic of the past. The world is long gone in which workers stay with their employer for many years, and then retire on a company pension. Since 1982 the number of temporary help jobs has grown 577 percent. The GAO report shows that 30 percent of the workforce--39 million working Americans--now get their paychecks from contingent jobs. Contingent workers have lower incomes than traditional, full-time workers and many are living in poverty. For example, 30 percent of agency temporary workers have family incomes below $15,000. By comparison, only 8 percent of standard full-time workers have family incomes below $15,000. Contingent workers are less likely to be covered by employer health and retirement benefits than are standard, full-time workers. Even when employers do sponsor a plan, contingent workers are less likely to participate in the plan, either because they are excluded or because the plan is too expensive. Only 21 percent of part-time workers are included in an employer-sponsored pension plan. By comparison, 64 percent of standard full-time workers are included in their employer's pension plan. Non-standard or alternative work arrangements can meet the needs of working families and employers alike, but these arrangements should not be used to divide the workforce into ``haves'' and ``have-nots.'' Flexible work arrangements, for example, can give working parents more time to care for their children, but many workers are not in their contingent jobs by choice. More than half of temporary workers would prefer a permanent job instead of their contingent job, but temporary work is all they can find. As the GAO report makes clear, employers have economic incentives to cut costs by miscategorizing their workers as temporary or contract workers. Too often, contingent arrangements are set-up by employers for the purpose of excluding workers from their employee benefit programs and evading their responsibilities to their workers. Millions of employees have been miscategorized by their employers, and as a result they have been denied the benefits and protections that they rightly deserve and worked hard to earn. All workers deserve a secure retirement at the end of their working years. Social Security has been and will continue to be the best foundation for that security. But the foundation is just that--the beginning of our responsibility, not the end of it. We cannot expect Americans to work hard all their lives, only to face poverty and hard times when they retire. That is why I am introducing, with Senators Torricelli and Harkin, the Employee Benefits Eligibility Fairness Act of 2000 to help contingent workers obtain the retirement benefits they deserve. This legislation clarifies employers' responsibilities under the law so that they cannot exclude contingent workers from employee benefit plans based on artificial labels or payroll practices. This is an issue of basic fairness for working men and women. It is unfair for individuals who work full-time, on an indefinite long-term basis for an employer to be excluded from the employer's pension plan, merely because the employer classifies the workers as ``temporary'' when in fact they are not. The employer-employee relationship should be determined on the facts of the working arrangement, not on artificial labels, not on artificial accounting practices, not artificial payroll practices. It is long past time for Congress to recognize the plight of contingent workers and see that they get the employee benefits they deserve. These important changes are critical to improving the security of working families, and I look forward to their enactment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, contingent workers in our society face significant problems, and they deserve our help in meeting them. These men and women--temporary and part-time workers, contract workers, and independent contractors--continue to suffer unfairly, even in our prosperous economy. A new report from the General Accounting Office emphasizes that contingent workers often lack income security and retirement security. We know that for most workers today, a single lifetime job is a relic of the past. The world is long gone in which workers stay with their employer for many years, and then retire on a company pension. Since 1982 the number of temporary help jobs has grown 577 percent. The GAO report shows that 30 percent of the workforce--39 million working Americans--now get their paychecks from contingent jobs. Contingent workers have lower incomes than traditional, full-time workers and many are living in poverty. For example, 30 percent of agency temporary workers have family incomes below $15,000. By comparison, only 8 percent of standard full-time workers have family incomes below $15,000. Contingent workers are less likely to be covered by employer health and retirement benefits than are standard, full-time workers. Even when employers do sponsor a plan, contingent workers are less likely to participate in the plan, either because they are excluded or because the plan is too expensive. Only 21 percent of part-time workers are included in an employer-sponsored pension plan. By comparison, 64 percent of standard full-time workers are included in their employer's pension plan. Non-standard or alternative work arrangements can meet the needs of working families and employers alike, but these arrangements should not be used to divide the workforce into ``haves'' and ``have-nots.'' Flexible work arrangements, for example, can give working parents more time to care for their children, but many workers are not in their contingent jobs by choice. More than half of temporary workers would prefer a permanent job instead of their contingent job, but temporary work is all they can find. As the GAO report makes clear, employers have economic incentives to cut costs by miscategorizing their workers as temporary or contract workers. Too often, contingent arrangements are set-up by employers for the purpose of excluding workers from their employee benefit programs and evading their responsibilities to their workers. Millions of employees have been miscategorized by their employers, and as a result they have been denied the benefits and protections that they rightly deserve and worked hard to earn. All workers deserve a secure retirement at the end of their working years. Social Security has been and will continue to be the best foundation for that security. But the foundation is just that--the beginning of our responsibility, not the end of it. We cannot expect Americans to work hard all their lives, only to face poverty and hard times when they retire. That is why I am introducing, with Senators Torricelli and Harkin, the Employee Benefits Eligibility Fairness Act of 2000 to help contingent workers obtain the retirement benefits they deserve. This legislation clarifies employers' responsibilities under the law so that they cannot exclude contingent workers from employee benefit plans based on artificial labels or payroll practices. This is an issue of basic fairness for working men and women. It is unfair for individuals who work full-time, on an indefinite long-term basis for an employer to be excluded from the employer's pension plan, merely because the employer classifies the workers as ``temporary'' when in fact they are not. The employer-employee relationship should be determined on the facts of the working arrangement, not on artificial labels, not on artificial accounting practices, not artificial payroll practices. It is long past time for Congress to recognize the plight of contingent workers and see that they get the employee benefits they deserve. These important changes are critical to improving the security of working families, and I look forward to their enactment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce the introduction of the Family Care Act of 2000, which takes the next logical step in assuring access by as many citizens as possible to affordable health insurance. I commend Congressman John Dingell and the rest of our colleagues for their fine work in crafting this legislation. The number of uninsured Americans is now more than 44 million, and the figure is rising by an average of one million a year. America is the only industrial country in the world, except South Africa, that fails to guarantee health care for all it citizens. It is a national scandal that lack of insurance coverage is the seventh leading--and most preventable--cause of death in America today. Three years ago, we worked together to create CHIP, the federal-state Children's Health Insurance Program, which provides coverage to children in families with incomes too high for Medicaid and too low to afford private health insurance. More than two million children have been enrolled in that program, and millions more have signed up for Medicaid as a result of outreach activities. Soon, more than three-quarters of all uninsured children in the nation will be eligible for assistance through either CHIP or Medicaid. But, despite this progress, the parents of these children, and too many others, have been left behind. The time has come to take the next step. The overwhelming majority of uninsured low-wage parents are struggling to support their families. I will ask unanimous consent to insert a statement in the Record from Patricia Quezada, a parent of three lovely girls, who would benefit from this legislation. Parents who work hard, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, should be eligible for assistance to buy the health insurance they need in order to protect their families. Our message to them today is that help is on the way. Often, they work for companies which don't offer insurance, or they aren't eligible for insurance that is offered. Fewer than a quarter of the jobs taken by those who have been forced off the welfare rolls by welfare reform offer insurance as a benefit--and even when it is offered too few companies make it available for dependents. The time has come to take the next step. The Family Care Act of 2000 will provide with the resources, incentives and authority to extend Medicaid and CHIP to the parents of children covered under those programs. Coverage for parents also means better coverage for children. Parents are much more likely to enroll their children in health insurance, if the parents themselves can have coverage, too. This step alone will give to six and a half million Americans the coverage they need and deserve. The Family Care Act will also improve the outreach and enrollment for CHIP and Medicaid, and encourage states to extend coverage to other vulnerable population, such as pregnant women, legal immigrants, and children ages 19 and 20. This program is affordable under current and projected budget surpluses. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost will be $11 billion over the next five years. Last Monday, a majority of the Senate voted in favor of this proposal as an amendment to the marriage penalty bill. We needed 60 votes, so it was not successful then, but we clearly have a bipartisan majority of the Senate. The bottom line is that we have the resources to take this needed step, and end the suffering and uncertainty that accompanies being uninsured. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that statements and letters of support for this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, 10 years ago today Congress passed landmark civil rights legislation, based on the fundamental principle that people should be measured by what they can do, not what they can't do. With the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, America began a new era of opportunity for the 47 million disabled citizens who had been denied full and fair participation in society. We continue to build in Congress on the bipartisan achievements of the ADA. I'm gratified by President Clinton's strong endorsement today of the Grassley-Kennedy Family Opportunity Act now pending in Congress. The goal of our legislation is to remove as many of the remaining barriers as possible that prevent families raising children with disabilities and special health needs from leading full and productive lives. No family in this country should ever be put in a position of having to choose between a job and the healthcare their disabled child needs. The Family Opportunity Act ensures that no family raising a child with special needs would be left out and left behind. For generations, people with disabilities were viewed as citizens in need of charity. Through ignorance, the nation accepted discrimination and succumbed to fear and prejudice. The passage of the ADA finally moved the nation to shed these condescending and suffocating attitudes--and widen the doors of opportunity for people with disabilities. Today we see many signs of the progress that mean so much in our ongoing efforts to see that persons with disabilities are included--the ramps beside the stairs, the sidewalks with curbs to accommodate wheelchairs, the lifts for helping disabled people board buses. Whether they are family members, friend, neighbors, or co-workers, persons with disabilities are no longer second class citizens. They are demonstrating their abilities and making real contributions in schools, in the workplace, and in the community. People with disabilities are no longer left out and left behind--and because of that, America is a stronger, better and fairer country today. As the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the many disabled persons who worked so long and hard and well for its passage continue to remind us, equal opportunity under the law is not a privilege, but a fundamental birthright of every American.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce the introduction of the Family Care Act of 2000, which takes the next logical step in assuring access by as many citizens as possible to affordable health insurance. I commend Congressman John Dingell and the rest of our colleagues for their fine work in crafting this legislation. The number of uninsured Americans is now more than 44 million, and the figure is rising by an average of one million a year. America is the only industrial country in the world, except South Africa, that fails to guarantee health care for all it citizens. It is a national scandal that lack of insurance coverage is the seventh leading--and most preventable--cause of death in America today. Three years ago, we worked together to create CHIP, the federal-state Children's Health Insurance Program, which provides coverage to children in families with incomes too high for Medicaid and too low to afford private health insurance. More than two million children have been enrolled in that program, and millions more have signed up for Medicaid as a result of outreach activities. Soon, more than three-quarters of all uninsured children in the nation will be eligible for assistance through either CHIP or Medicaid. But, despite this progress, the parents of these children, and too many others, have been left behind. The time has come to take the next step. The overwhelming majority of uninsured low-wage parents are struggling to support their families. I will ask unanimous consent to insert a statement in the Record from Patricia Quezada, a parent of three lovely girls, who would benefit from this legislation. Parents who work hard, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, should be eligible for assistance to buy the health insurance they need in order to protect their families. Our message to them today is that help is on the way. Often, they work for companies which don't offer insurance, or they aren't eligible for insurance that is offered. Fewer than a quarter of the jobs taken by those who have been forced off the welfare rolls by welfare reform offer insurance as a benefit--and even when it is offered too few companies make it available for dependents. The time has come to take the next step. The Family Care Act of 2000 will provide with the resources, incentives and authority to extend Medicaid and CHIP to the parents of children covered under those programs. Coverage for parents also means better coverage for children. Parents are much more likely to enroll their children in health insurance, if the parents themselves can have coverage, too. This step alone will give to six and a half million Americans the coverage they need and deserve. The Family Care Act will also improve the outreach and enrollment for CHIP and Medicaid, and encourage states to extend coverage to other vulnerable population, such as pregnant women, legal immigrants, and children ages 19 and 20. This program is affordable under current and projected budget surpluses. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost will be $11 billion over the next five years. Last Monday, a majority of the Senate voted in favor of this proposal as an amendment to the marriage penalty bill. We needed 60 votes, so it was not successful then, but we clearly have a bipartisan majority of the Senate. The bottom line is that we have the resources to take this needed step, and end the suffering and uncertainty that accompanies being uninsured. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that statements and letters of support for this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, too many Americans nearing age 65 face a crisis in health care. They are too young for Medicare, and unable to obtain private coverage they can afford. Often, they are victims of corporate down-sizing, or of a company's decision to cancel its health insurance. These Americans have been left out and left behind through no fault of their own--often after decades of loyal work--and it is time for Congress to provide a helping hand. Almost three and a half million Americans ages 55 to 64 have no health insurance today, including more than 60,000 in Massachusetts. Many of these Americans have serious health problems that threaten to destroy the savings of a lifetime and that prevent them from finding or keeping a job. Even those without significant health problems know that a serious illness could wipe out their savings. Even those with good coverage today can't be certain it will be there tomorrow. No one nearing retirement can be confident that the health insurance they have now will protect them until they qualify for Medicare at 65. The health and financial well-being of these near-elderly are often at risk because of the serious gaps in our health care system. Those without coverage are twice as likely to be in fair or poor health than persons with coverage. They are four times as likely not to receive a recommended medical test or treatment, and five times as likely to forego needed medical care when they are sick. The bill that Senators Rockefeller, Daschle, and I are introducing today is a lifeline for these Americans. It is a constructive step toward the day when every American will be guaranteed the fundamental right to health care. It will enable uninsured Americans ages 62 to 65 to buy into Medicare by paying monthly premiums. It will also enable those ages 55 to 61 who lose their jobs to buy in. In addition, it will help retirees ages 55 and older whose health insurance is terminated by their employers by extending COBRA. Finally, tax credits equal to 25% of the premium will be available for enrollees in all three programs to help them afford to buy into the programs. The estimated cost of the tax credits is $8.4 billion over the next ten years. In the past, opponents have used scare tactics to claim that these proposals pose a threat to Medicare. They are nothing of the kind. There is no additional burden of Medicare as a result of this legislation. The tax credits are paid for by general treasury funds. The Medicare costs are paid for through enrollee premiums. The existing Medicare Trust Fund is protected by placing the programs in their own trust fund. The Medicare Trustees will monitor the program to ensure that it is self-financing. The number of near-elderly who are uninsured is growing every year. Relief of this kind was originally proposed by President Clinton, and it deserves broad bipartisan support. The health and financial consequences of the lack of insurance are significant--especially for the near-elderly. These Americans need and deserve the help that this bill provides. We intend to do all we can to see that this proposal is enacted as soon as possible.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, too many Americans nearing age 65 face a crisis in health care. They are too young for Medicare, and unable to obtain private coverage they can afford. Often, they are victims of corporate down-sizing, or of a company's decision to cancel its health insurance. These Americans have been left out and left behind through no fault of their own--often after decades of loyal work--and it is time for Congress to provide a helping hand. Almost three and a half million Americans ages 55 to 64 have no health insurance today, including more than 60,000 in Massachusetts. Many of these Americans have serious health problems that threaten to destroy the savings of a lifetime and that prevent them from finding or keeping a job. Even those without significant health problems know that a serious illness could wipe out their savings. Even those with good coverage today can't be certain it will be there tomorrow. No one nearing retirement can be confident that the health insurance they have now will protect them until they qualify for Medicare at 65. The health and financial well-being of these near-elderly are often at risk because of the serious gaps in our health care system. Those without coverage are twice as likely to be in fair or poor health than persons with coverage. They are four times as likely not to receive a recommended medical test or treatment, and five times as likely to forego needed medical care when they are sick. The bill that Senators Rockefeller, Daschle, and I are introducing today is a lifeline for these Americans. It is a constructive step toward the day when every American will be guaranteed the fundamental right to health care. It will enable uninsured Americans ages 62 to 65 to buy into Medicare by paying monthly premiums. It will also enable those ages 55 to 61 who lose their jobs to buy in. In addition, it will help retirees ages 55 and older whose health insurance is terminated by their employers by extending COBRA. Finally, tax credits equal to 25% of the premium will be available for enrollees in all three programs to help them afford to buy into the programs. The estimated cost of the tax credits is $8.4 billion over the next ten years. In the past, opponents have used scare tactics to claim that these proposals pose a threat to Medicare. They are nothing of the kind. There is no additional burden of Medicare as a result of this legislation. The tax credits are paid for by general treasury funds. The Medicare costs are paid for through enrollee premiums. The existing Medicare Trust Fund is protected by placing the programs in their own trust fund. The Medicare Trustees will monitor the program to ensure that it is self-financing. The number of near-elderly who are uninsured is growing every year. Relief of this kind was originally proposed by President Clinton, and it deserves broad bipartisan support. The health and financial consequences of the lack of insurance are significant--especially for the near-elderly. These Americans need and deserve the help that this bill provides. We intend to do all we can to see that this proposal is enacted as soon as possible.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I will not object. Mr. President, I will not object to that. I want to gain recognition to explain my position.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader. I made the point earlier that we did have before the Senate the pending business, which is the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It did seem, since it was the pending business, that under the rules generally, after the time expires under morning business, we would go back to that legislation. I know the majority leader has attempted to work out a process with the minority leader to move forward the business of the Senate. The education bill has been the pending business since May of this year. That has taken us through May, through June, and through July. I still think we can complete the ESEA prior to recessing this week. If we are unable to get agreement on these appropriations bills--I know they are important and generally, as the year goes on, they receive a higher priority, but it does seem to me that education has a high priority as well. I had thought we were going to have an opportunity to deal with the education legislation during the evenings of last week. We were unable to do so. We got caught up in the Agriculture appropriations bill. I am wondering whether the majority leader can give us any indication whether he has an intention of getting back to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and, if so, when that might be because with the successful motion the Senator has made and with the invoking of cloture, as I understand, the elementary and secondary education bill is returned to the calendar and will not be before the Senate as the pending business. With those actions, we are returning the elementary and secondary education bill uncompleted to the calendar. It does seem to me to be a priority. I am wondering what assurances the leader might be able to give us on the issue.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Objection.

Mr. KENNEDY. I have to get recognition by the Chair in order to be able to proceed. I felt I was denied that recognition. I had every intention to exchange----