Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President. Am I recognized, Mr. President? I object. I object.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend the Senate's guest Chaplain today, Minister Angela Williams, for her eloquent prayer opening today's session of the Senate. Angela became a licensed minister in January of this year, and she is currently an associate minister at Shiloh Baptist Church in the District of Columbia. I had the privilege of attending her first sermon there last November. She is also currently a graduate student at Virginia Union University in Richmond, where she is pursuing the degree of master of divinity. Angela's father, J.C. Williams, is also a minister. He served for 28 years with great distinction as a Navy chaplain. He retired in 1998, and is now an associate minister in Martinez, GA. Rev. J.C. Williams served as guest Chaplain for the Senate last September. Our guest Chaplain today wears many hats. Angela Williams is also a talented lawyer, and is a graduate of the University of Texas Law School. As an Assistant United States Attorney in the Middle District of Florida, she was selected to serve on the National Church Arson Task Force, which was created by the Department of Justice to investigate, prosecute, and prevent the epidemic of church arsons that were afflicting many parts of the country. From 1996 to 1998, Angela Williams investigated and prosecuted approximately 25 percent of those Federal cases nationwide. Angela is also well known to many of us in the Senate and the House of Representatives. For the past 2 years, in addition to her ministry, she has served as a member of my Senate staff on the Judiciary Committee. All of us on both sides of the aisle and with the Clinton administration who have worked with Angela have great respect for her ability and dedication. Her principal responsibilities have been in the area of law enforcement issues, especially hate crimes, and she deserves great credit for her leadership on this important issue in our country today. Angela will be leaving my staff at the end of this week. All of us who know Angela wish her well. We have been very impressed with her calling to the ministry and her dedication to it. It has been a privilege to work with her as a member of our Senate family, and we are grateful for her inspiring prayer as guest Chaplain today. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. How much time do we have remaining?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I point out to our colleagues and friends the Calendar of Business for the Senate. This is the calendar of the business pending, the unfinished business, and a list of various pieces of legislation reported out of the committees. The American people probably don't have this at their fingertips, but if you take the time to look at this when you visit the library, or you can write to Members of the Congress, you will find out that in the pending business the first order is a bill to extend programs and activities under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Right next to it, it says May 1, 2000. That means that this has been the underlying and pending piece of legislation. Yet we are denied any opportunity to address what is going to be the Federal participation in working with States and local communities in the areas of education. We didn't address it in the rest of May. We received assurances by the Republican leadership that we were going to come back and address those issues and questions. We didn't do it in June, and we didn't do it in July, although we were told we would be able to address these issues in evening sessions and have a disposition of that legislation. In the meantime, what have we done? As my friend from Illinois has pointed out, we have seen a tax cut of over $1 trillion. We had something else done, too. The House of Representatives have given themselves a pay increase of $3,800 a year. We didn't see the increase in the minimum wage. They didn't vote for that. In fact, when Tom DeLay was asked about the increase in the minimum wage, he said: That doesn't affect us. What he continued to say is we are not in the business; we are overseers of a $2 trillion economy. And he was quite dismissive of the problems and challenges that are affecting working families at the lower wrung of the economic ladder. We have not done the American people's business. We are not addressing the questions of smaller class sizes. We are not addressing the issue of trying to train teachers to be better teachers. We are not addressing the issue of afterschool programs. We are not addressing the efforts to try to deal with the problems of the digital divide. We are not dealing with the greater kinds of accountability of the expenditures of funds in terms of education. That is off the agenda. As has been pointed out many times since the founding of the Republic, debates on the floor of the Senate are about priorities. The majority leaders have effectively dismissed debate, discussion, and action on education in order to have a trillion dollar tax cut for the wealthiest individuals and a pay increase for themselves. No attention to prescription drugs. Thumbs down on that. Thumbs down on a Patients' Bill of Rights. We haven't got time to debate a Patients' Bill of Rights or a Medicare prescription drug program. We haven't got the time to debate a gun issue to try to make our schools safer. But we have the time to debate a trillion dollar tax cut and a pay increase of $3,800. If you take the increase in the minimum wage for 2 years, we are talking about half of what the increase would be for a Member of Congress. We can't even debate it. We can't discuss it. We can't vote on it because that is not part of the agenda of our Republican leadership. That is what this is about. It is about priorities. That is what this election is going to be about, ultimately. No action in terms of the Patients' Bill of Rights, even though we are one vote short of being able to get action, to try to ensure that decisions affecting families are made by doctors and trained medical officials and not accountants for the HMOs. We are not going to have, evidently, action on the gun issues to try to make our schools safer and more secure, to try to limit the availability of guns to children in our society that results in more than 10 children every single day being killed. We are not able to do it. We want to indicate to the majority that we are going to take every step possible to make sure we are going to address those issues. We have been cut out and closed out to date. But we are not going to do it. Here it is Tuesday morning. Quorum calls all day Monday. Quorum calls this morning. Failing to take action on these issues, it is basically an abdication of our responsibility. We are not going to go silently into the night. I understand the hour of 10 o'clock has arrived.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

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

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, earlier in the day, I was pointing out that the pending business is the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. We are in the process of reauthorization and had more than 22 hearing days on that legislation. We had an extensive markup on that legislation. We began debate in early May. Over the period of 6 days, we had 2 days when we were not permitted to offer any amendments, and we ended up with rollcalls on 7 amendments; 2 of those were virtually unanimous votes. On May 1, we had floor debate only. May 2, we had floor debate only. On May 3, we had a Gorton amendment, changes in Straight A's, 98-0. A Democratic alternative, which was a completely different approach, was the first major amendment. On May 8, a Collins amendment was a voice vote, and on May 9, a Gregg amendment on teachers, 97-0. There were 8 amendments. We had 6 days of debate. Two were debate only. We had only 7 rollcalls; 2 of those rollcalls were unanimously accepted. I believe this is a matter of significant priority for the American people. On the bankruptcy legislation, we had 16 days of debate and considered 55 amendments. With all respect to the importance of that particular issue, it seems to me the issue of good quality education in K through 12, and the role we have on that issue, is of central importance. I am mindful that the majority leader himself said he believed this was an important matter. He gave the assurances to the Senate going back to 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. January 29th, 1999: But education is going to have a lot of attention, and it's not going to be just words. Then on June 22, 1999: Education is number one on the agenda for Republicans in the Congress this year. In Remarks to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, February 1, 2000: We are going to work very hard on education. I have emphasized that every year I have been majority leader. . . . And Republicans are committed to doing that. February 3, 2000: We must reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. . . . Education will be a high priority in this Congress. April 20, 2000: The majority leader said his top priorities in May included agriculture sanctions, Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization, and passage of four appropriations bills. May 1, 2000: This is very important legislation. I hope we can debate it seriously and have amendments in the education area. Let's talk education. May 2, 2000: Senator Lott was asked on ESEA: Have you scheduled a cloture vote on that? No, I haven't scheduled a cloture vote. . . . But education is number one in the minds of 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. That has been the end of it since May 2. Always something else has come up. Always something else came up in May. Always something else came up in June. Always something else came up in July. It does seem, even with this week, we are now at 4 o'clock in the afternoon of a Tuesday. We could have had some debate on this on Monday or today.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield for one more observation.

Mr. KENNEDY. We do know children start back to school in late August and early September. Time is moving along. There were allocations of resources in appropriations bills where there has been absolutely no authorization or statement of policy. It does seem to me that parents, school boards, and schoolteachers are entitled to a full debate and discussion on these issues and for the Senate to work its will. I appreciate what the Senator has said. I hope he understands we are going to continue to raise this issue as we move along because I do think it is a top priority. The American families who have 58 million children in schools across this country are entitled to a response. I thank the majority leader.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I understand we are in morning business; am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. Is there a limitation on time?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we have recently witnessed another example of the indifference of Members of Congress to the needs of hard-working, low-wage American workers. While our minimum wage bill still languishes, Members of Congress are raising their own pay yet again. Congress has cut the taxes of the wealthiest Americans, but the Republican leadership still insists 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. Over the past decade, in spite of the recent prosperity, the average inflation-adjusted income of the poorest fifth of Americans rose by only 1 percent, while the average inflation adjusted-income of the richest 5 percent rose by 27 percent. The Republican Congress just passed an estate tax repeal that provides 100 percent of its benefits to the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans and 91 percent of its benefits to the wealthiest 1 percent. The Republican marriage tax penalty bill passed last week is also heavily tilted to benefit only the wealthy. Members of this Republican Congress are quick to find time to increase their own salaries and cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans, but they cannot find the time to pass an increase in the minimum wage to benefit those hard-working, low-wage Americans. These low-income working families deserve a raise. Their pay has been frozen for 3 years, and our Democratic proposal will increase the minimum wage by 50 cents this year and another 50 cents next year. The Republican leadership is doing all it can to prevent this fair increase, but this issue will not go away, and we will continue to offer our minimum wage amendment to bills on the floor again and again at every opportunity until we pass it and send it to the President for his signature. In recent months, a bipartisan House voted by a solid majority to increase the minimum wage by $1 over 2 years, and many of our Senate colleagues have also supported an increase: 50 cents now and 50 cents a year from now. The American people agree that the minimum wage should be increased. The time is now to give America's hard-working families the raise they so desperately need and deserve. It is unconscionable for the Republican leadership to vote themselves a pay raise yet again, cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans, and then deny workers at the bottom of the economic ladder a fair pay increase. Our Democratic proposal offers workers the minimum wage raise they need and deserve: No tricks, no poison pills, no tax breaks for the wealthy, and we have bipartisan support for this increase. The issue is a priority. The Senate should act on a fair minimum wage bill, and we should act as soon as possible. It is wrong for the Senate to continue to block this long overdue act of simple justice for working families. This chart shows the real value of the minimum wage. It is from 1968 up to the year 2001. If we were to take the real value and use constant dollars, the minimum wage would be $7.66, if we were to have the same purchasing power as we had in 1968. We have seen the minimum wage decline over these years, particularly in recent years. Without an increase, it will be valued at $4.90. If we were to have the increase of 50 cents and 50 cents, the purchasing power would only be $5.85, which is still below what it was for over 12 years. That is all we are asking: Let's bring it up by 50 cents this year and 50 cents next year. Even though that would be $6.15, it represents $5.85 of purchasing power in constant dollars. What we are seeing is that it is almost $2 lower than what the minimum wage was in 1968. This is against the situation, if one looks over this particular chart, that working families are living in poverty. If one looks at what has happened, again in constant dollars, of where the minimum wage has been going in recent years in adjusted inflation dollars, then one sees where the poverty line has been going in recent years. We are finding out now that since 1988, minimum wage workers are working, in many instances, longer, harder, more jobs, and are sinking deeper and deeper into poverty. This is against the background of the last 10 days where we gave over $1.5 trillion--a huge amount in estate taxes, the majority of which goes to the highest income individuals, and $300 billion to the wealthiest individuals in marriage tax penalty relief. Then last week, the House of Representatives voted themselves a $3,800 pay increase. That represents what a minimum wage worker would make in 2 years. They voted themselves that in 1 year. This is where we have seen America's poorest families are getting poorer. The bottom fifth of the families are right at the edge where they have been from 1979 to 1999, 20 years, working harder, working longer, and their benefit from the economic expansion is virtually nonexistent. The middle fifth has gone up 5 percent, and the top fifth of families has gone up 30 percent. These are the men and women who are the backbone of the whole economic expansion. Yet they are the ones who are experiencing almost crumbs in advancing their quality of life and their lifestyle. Last week, we saw all this happening in the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives increased their pay by $3,800 a year. As I mentioned, if our minimum wage amendment is passed, it works out to be less than $2000. Even if we give the increase in the minimum wage, minimum wage workers in 2 years will make half of what the pay increase will be for Members of Congress. That is not bad enough, but Congressman DeLay was asked by a columnist, Mark Shields: Can you and Dick Armey and others who voted for that pay raise or cost-of-living increase defend voting against an increase in the minimum wage? Mr. DeLay said: Well, Mark, we don't work for minimum wage. . . . How dismissive can one be? Evidently, Members of Congress, their children, and their lives are more important than workers who are working hard as children's aides in the Head Start Program, or working in nursing homes taking care of seniors. These are men and women who have a great sense of dignity and pride in their work, working, in many instances, two or three jobs. Mr. DeLay says: [W]e don't work for minimum wage. Members of Congress represent 250 million people. . . .'' How dismissive: We are more important. I defy that. These are men and women who are working, and working hard, and who have a sense of dignity and a sense of pride in the work they do. They are teachers' aides. They are children's aides, working in child care programs. They work in nursing homes. They work in the buildings across this country in order to make the buildings clean for American industry. This is basically a women's issue because the great majority of minimum wage workers are women. It is a children's issue because millions of the women who are working at the minimum wage have children, and their lives are all being affected by this. It is a civil rights issue because great numbers of the minimum wage workers are men and women of color. And most profoundly, it is a fairness issue, where we hear so many speeches here in the Senate saying: We honor work. We want Americans who want to work. Here are men and women, who are working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year, trying to make ends meet, trying to bring up children, trying to pay for rent because they don't have the income in order to purchase a house, trying to put food on the table, and trying to spend some time with their families. It is an interesting fact, American workers now spend 22 hours less per week with their children. Why? Because they have to work at more jobs, and to work longer at their jobs. So it is a family issue. Of all the times we listen to statements about family values and fairness in our society, we are crying crocodile tears, evidently, because we heard last week that people who have estates over $100 million should not be taxed twice. Even if you scored $100 million, we are still going to provide more tax breaks. We refuse to even permit a vote on an increase in the minimum wage here in the Senate, while we are going out and increasing our own salary, and doing it in a contemptuous way to these men and women. Shame on this body. We are going to bring this up. We have heard a lot about: This is not relevant. Is it going to be fair to bring this up? We are going to be told that we do not set the agenda in the Senate. I can just tell you, there are men and women who have struggled, and struggled mightily, and are struggling today. They deserve the increase. These arguments about inflation are out the window. Every economic indicator has demonstrated that the last two increases have had no impact in any way in terms of inflation. The idea that we are going to have lost jobs is absolutely preposterous. Every economic study has indicated the same. We have responded to those arguments. This is a fairness issue. It is a decency issue. It is about our fellow citizens. It is about work. It is about families. It is about children. It is about women. It is about fairness in civil rights. We are going to continue to pursue this item. We are going to pursue it this week and the 4 weeks when we return in September. We are going to continue to pursue it until we have justice for these workers. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this vote is about our priorities as a nation. The price tag on this tax giveaway is almost exactly what we need to provide a Medicare prescription drug benefit to millions of senior citizens who desperately need this help: $292 billion over the next decade. In the past week or so, our Republican friends have passed tax breaks that total about a trillion dollars over the next ten years, benefiting the wealthiest Americans. We don't just look at it over 5 years, we ought to be looking at the consequences of this bill over a 10-year period, and even longer. And the record shows that the tax proposals are not what they are claimed to be. This so-called marriage penalty tax break is a sham. Democrats strongly support eliminating the marriage penalty in the tax laws, and our Democratic alternative will do that. But less than half the tax breaks in the phony Republican bill are actually directed, as the Senator from New York pointed out, at the marriage penalty. Once again, our Republican friends are using an attractive label like ``marriage penalty'' as a cover for unjustified tax breaks for the wealthy at the expense of urgently needed priorities, such as prescription drug coverage for our senior citizens. The Republican trillion dollar tax breaks for the wealthy mean: No Medicare prescription drug benefit for the Nation's senior citizens; no new teachers for the Nation's schools; no increase in the minimum wage for the Nation's hard-working, low-wage workers; no protections for patients across the Nation facing abuses by HMOs; nothing to make the Nation's schools or our neighborhoods safer. This tax break for the wealthy is a giant step in the wrong direction for America. President Clinton is right to veto it. Never in the history of the Senate has so much been given to so few, with so little consideration for working families in America. Mr. President, Republicans say that President Clinton himself called for marriage penalty relief in the State of the Union address that he delivered five months ago, so he should hurry and sign this bill. I wonder whether they heard the same speech that I heard last February. President Clinton certainly called for elimination of the marriage penalty, but he also urged action on other national priorities that are every bit as important--a Medicare prescription drug benefit, support for the nation's schools, and many other urgent national needs. This is a do-nothing Republican Congress on all of these other priorities. The shamefully excessive single-minded focus has been on tax breaks for the wealthy, to the exclusion of all other major priorities. The GOP tax cuts already approved by this Congress will consume about a trillion dollars of the projected surplus over the next ten years. The bill that Republicans brought to the Senate today is a marriage penalty in name only. It fails to eliminate 62 of the 65 marriage penalties in the tax code--while the Democrats' marriage penalty alternative eliminates every single one. In the interest of all Americans, President Clinton offered to compromise and sign the Republican marriage penalty bill despite its shortcomings, but only if the Republican Congress made progress on at least one of the other urgent needs facing the nation--prescription drug coverage to end the unconscionable crisis that millions of senior citizens face every day--the high cost of the drugs they need to safeguard their health. The extraordinary promise of fuller and healthier lives offered by new discoveries in medicine is often beyond their reach. They need help to afford the life-saving, life-changing miracle drugs that are increasingly available. Republicans in Congress have rejected this reasonable offer by the President and are still pursuing their irresponsible tax-cut agenda. Republicans have eyes only for tax breaks. They've attached tax breaks to the minimum wage bill in the House, more tax breaks to the bankruptcy bill in the Senate, and still more tax breaks to the Patients' Bill of Rights in the House. They have tried to pass tax breaks to subsidize private school. They even want to eliminate the estate tax, the ultimate tax break for the wealthy. Earlier this week, the Republican leadership forced through the Senate a complete repeal of the estate tax which will cost over $50 billion a year when fully implemented. Over 90 percent of the benefits in that bill will go to the richest 1 percent of taxpayers. In total, Republicans in the House and Senate have already passed tax cuts that would consume almost a trillion dollars of the budget surplus over the next ten years, and far more than that in the next decade, because these GOP tax schemes are so backloaded to conceal their true cost to the nation's future. Fortunately, the nation has a President who will not hesitate to stamp ``veto'' on all of these irresponsible GOP giveaways. But what if we had a President who would sign these monstrosities? The American people have a basic choice to make in November. Do they want the record budget surplus to be used for strengthening Social Security and Medicare--for providing a prescription drug benefit under Medicare--and for improving our schools? Or do they want to give trillions of dollars to the wealthiest individuals and corporations in the nation? These are the basic policy choices for what kind of America we want in the years ahead. Democrats do not oppose tax cuts, but we do insist that tax cuts must be reasonable in amount and must be fairly allocated to all Americans. We also want action on other key priorities for the nation's future. Taking a trillion dollars out of the federal treasury for tax breaks clearly jeopardizes our ability to provide a prescription drug benefit for Medicare. It jeopardizes our ability to fix crumbling schools, reduce class sizes, and ensure that teachers are properly trained. It jeopardizes our ability to help the 4 million Americans who have no health insurance today because their employers won't provide it and they can't afford it on their own. Just one of the Republican bills--the repeal of the estate tax--will give $250 billion to America's 400 wealthiest families over ten years. $250 billion will buy ten years of prescription drug coverage for eleven million senior citizens who have no coverage now. Yet, these astronomical tax giveaways are being rammed through Congress by a right wing Republican majority in Congress bent on rewarding the wealthy and ignoring the country's true priorities that have a far greater claim on these resources. The prosperous economy is helping many Americans. But those who work day after day at the minimum wage are falling farther and farther behind. The number of families without health insurance is rising alarmingly. A recent study by the pro-business Conference Board finds that the number of working poor is actually rising, in spite of the record prosperity. More and more working families are being forced to seek emergency help in soup kitchens and food pantries, and those charities are often unable to meet the increasing need. Yet Congress stands on the sidelines. The result of the GOP tax break frenzy is to crowd out necessary spending on priorities that the American people care most about. These other priorities for all Americans are being ignored by the GOP Congress in this unseemly stampede to enact tax breaks so heavily skewed to the wealthiest Americans. Never in the entire history of the country has so much been given away so quickly to so few, with so little semblance of fairness or even thoughtful consideration. If we are serious about ending the marriage penalty, instead of using it as a fig leaf for enormous tax breaks for the wealthy, we can easily do so at a reasonable cost that leaves ample room for other high priorities. I strongly support tax relief to end the marriage penalty. The marriage penalty is unfair, and it should be eliminated. But I do not support the GOP proposal. That proposal is a trojan horse. Marriage penalty relief is not its real purpose. Only 42 percent of the tax benefits--less than half of the total--goes to persons subject to the marriage penalty. The rest of the tax breaks--58 percent--go to those who pay no marriage penalty at all, and many of them are actually receive what is called a marriage bonus under the law. Republicans who claim their bill is intended only to eliminate the marriage penalty either haven't read the bill, or they are violating the ``Truth in Advertising'' laws. Most married couples today do not pay a marriage penalty. A larger percentage of couples actually receive a marriage bonus than pay a marriage penalty. The marriage penalty is paid by couples in which both spouses work and also have relatively equal incomes. They deserve relief from this penalty. They deserve it immediately, and we can provide it modest cost. But the Republican bill does not target its tax cuts to those who actually pay a marriage penalty. The cost of their bill is highly inflated and heavily backloaded to make the cost in the early years seem low. The current bill will cost nearly fifty billion dollars more over the next ten years than the bill which the Senate passed earlier this week. In just three days, the price tag has risen from $248 billion to $293 billion. That's an inflation rate which should alarm every American. As with all Republican tax breaks, the bill earmarks the overwhelming majority of its tax benefits for the wealthiest taxpayers. The final bill sandpapers one of the roughest edges by deleting a provision that would have solely benefitted taxpayers with six figure incomes. But the overall bill is still grossly unfair to middle and low income working families. More than two thirds of the total tax savings go to the wealthiest 20 percent of taxpayers. An honest plan to eliminate the marriage penalty could easily be designed at much lower cost. House Democrats offered such a plan, and so did Senate Democrats. Our Democratic proposal would cost $11 billion a year less, when fully implemented, than the Republican plan, yet provide more marriage penalty tax relief to middle income families. The problem is obvious. Republican colleagues insist on using marriage penalty relief as a cover for large tax breaks that have nothing to do with the marriage penalty and that are heavily weighted to the wealthiest individuals in the nation. The message to all Americans is clear and unmistakable--Beware of Republicans bearing tax cuts. They're not what they seem, and they're not fair to the vast vast majority of the American people. This GOP Congress is a dream Congress for the very wealthy and their special interest friends, but it is a nightmare Congress for hard- working families all across America. Whether the Republican tax breaks arrive at the White House in smaller prices or in one big mess, their trillion-dollar tax breaks will eminently deserve the veto that President Clinton is about to give them.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, all of use are saddened by the death in our Senate family. I join Senators on both sides of the aisle in mourning the loss of our colleague and friend, Paul Coverdell, and I extend my deepest condolences to the members of his family. Senator Coverdell and I differed on many of the major issues of the day. But it was obvious to all of us who served with him that he was a leader of genuine conviction, deep principle, great ability, and high purpose. His commitment to public service was extraordinary. It was always a privilege to work with him. I especially admired his dedication to seeking common ground--to exploring every aspect of every issue, and to learn as much as possible about it--to going the extra mile to achieve worthwhile compromise instead of confrontation--and above all to finding practical answers to the many serious challenges we face together in the Senate. He was deeply committed to enhancing the qualify of life for all Americans. We both shared a strong commitment to improving education in all of the Nation's schools. I'm saddened that he will no longer be with us as the Senate turns again in coming days to the important debate on support for elementary and secondary education in schools and communities across the country. I also particularly admired Paul Coverdell's leadership role as Director of the Peace Corps in the Bush administration from 1989 to 1991, before he came to the Senate. Over the years, the Peace Corps has had special meaning for all of us in the Kennedy family, because it is one of the finest legacies of President Kennedy. I know that my brother would have been proud of Paul Coverdell's commitment to the Peace Corps and its ideals and its service to peoples in need in many different lands. In a very real sense, the campaign slogan that Paul Coverdell used so effectively in his successful Senate re-election campaign in Georgia 2 years ago sums up his extraordinary career, and tells why he had so much respect and friendship from all of us. That slogan consisted of two simple words--``Coverdall Works.'' And it was true, in every sense of the word. Paul Coverdell served the Senate well, the Nation well, and the people of Georgia well, and we will miss him very much.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. The American food supply is one of the safest in the world--but it is not safe enough. Over 75 million Americans a year are stricken by disease caused by contaminated food they eat. Each year, 9,000 people--mostly the very young and the very old--die as a result. The costs of medical treatment and losses in productivity for these illnesses are as high as $37 billion annually. The emergence of highly virulent strains of bacteria, and the increase in the number of organisms resistant to antibiotics, are compounding these problems and making foodborne illnesses an increasingly serious public health challenge. Americans deserve to know that the foods they eat are safe, regardless of their source. Yet too many citizens today are at unnecessary risk of foodborne disease. This Congress can make a difference. The FDA requested a budget increase of $30 million in 2001 for its Food Safety Initiative activities. With these additional funds, the FDA can improve its inspection of high-risk food establishments and strengthen its laboratory capabilities. Without this funding, the agency will conduct 700 fewer inspections next year. The Senate Appropriations Committee recognized the importance of protecting our food supply by granting the FDA the majority of its requested increase for food safety. The amendment I propose will give the FDA the additional $6 million it needs for these efforts. In response to improved surveillance and increased sampling and testing, illnesses from the most common bacterial foodborne pathogens decreased by 21% from 1997 to 1999. As a result, 855,000 fewer Americans each year suffer from foodborne diseases. But contaminated food still remains a significant public health problem. Recently, a new strain of an organism contaminated oysters in Texas, and caused an epidemic of diarrhea. This year, the FDA recalled several smoked fish products manufactured in New York because of outbreaks of disease. In March, 500 college students in Massachusetts became ill with Norwalk-like virus. Each year there are also at least 4700 cases of Salmonella in Massachusetts. We must do more to protect our citizens from foodborne diseases. Imported foods are a significant part of the problem and often pose especially serious health risks. Americans are consuming foods from other countries at increasing rates. Since 1992, the number of food imports has tripled. At that time, the FDA was able to inspect only 8% of these imports. Since then the rate of FDA inspections of imported food has dropped to less than 1%, because resources did not increase for monitoring these imports. Other countries have often not implemented food safety protections comparable to those in the United States, and general sanitary conditions are often poor. As a consequence, foods from such countries are more likely to be contaminated with disease-producing organisms. In 1995, 242 people contracted Salmonella from alfalfa sprouts imported from the Netherlands. In 1996, over 1,400 people became ill from contaminated raspberries from Guatemala. Just this year, infected shrimp from Vietnam caused Salmonella and E. coli outbreaks. In earlier decades, diseases such as tuberculosis and cholera were the focus of food safety concerns. Today diseases caused by dangerous new strains of E. coli have become primary causes of foodborne illness. These new organisms necessitate increased investment in research, technology, and surveillance to protect the safety of our food supply. Food safety are also especially important to protect the growing number of individuals in vulnerable populations, such as young children, the elderly, those with lowered immunity from HIV, and those with inadequate access to health care. By providing the FDA with the necessary resources to combat foodborne diseases, we can protect tens of millions of our fellow citizens across the country each year. Investment in food safety is an investment in the health of every American. Congress should give the FDA the resources it needs in order to ensure the safety of the food we eat. The amendment I am proposing is a major step to meet this challenge, and I urge the Senate to approve it. amendment no. 4002 On page 71, line 3, strike the comma and insert the following: ``prior to July 1, 2001,''.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the American food supply is one of the safest in the world--but it is not safe enough. Over 75 million Americans a year are stricken by disease caused by contaminated food they eat. Each year, 9,000 people--mostly the very young and the very old--die as a result. The costs of medical treatment and losses in productivity from these illnesses are as high as $37 billion annually. The emergency of highly virulent strains of bacteria, and the increase in the number of organisms resistant to antibiotics, are compounding these problems and making foodborne illnesses an increasingly serious public health challenge. Americans deserve to know that the foods they eat are safe, regardless of their source. Yet too many citizens today are at unnecessary risk of foodborne diseases. This Congress can make a difference. The FDA requested a budget increase of $30 million in 2001 for its Food Safety Initiative activities. With these additional funds, the FDA can improve its inspection of high-risk food establishments and strengthen its laboratory capabilities. Without this funding, the agency will conduct 700 fewer inspections next year. The Senate Appropriations Committee recognized the importance of protecting our food supply by granting the FDA the majority of its requested increase for food safety. The amendment I propose will give the FDA the additional $6 million it needs for these efforts. In response to improved surveillance and increased sampling and testing, illnesses from the most common bacterial foodborne pathogens decreased by 21 percent from 1997 to 1999. As a result, 855,000 fewer Americans each year suffer from foodborne diseases. But contaminated food still remains a significant public health problem. Recently, a new strain of an organism contaminated oysters in Texas, and caused an epidemic of diarrhea. This year, the FDA recalled several smoked fish products manufactured in New York because of outbreaks of disease. In March, 500 college students in Massachusetts became ill with Norwalk-like virus. Each year there are also at least 4700 cases of Salmonella in Massachusetts. We must do more to protect our citizens from foodborne diseases. Imported foods are a significant part of the problem and often pose especially serious health risks. Americans are consuming foods from other countries at increasing rates. Since 1992, the number of food imports has tripled. At that time, the FDA was able to inspect only 8 percent of these imports. Since then the rate of FDA inspections of imported food has dropped to less than 1 percent, because resources did not increase for monitoring these imports. Other countries have often not implemented food safety protections comparable to those in the United States, and general sanitary conditions are often poor. As a consequence, foods from such countries are more likely to be contaminated with disease-producing organisms. In 1995, 242 people contracted Salmonella from alfalfa sprouts imported from the Netherlands. In 1996, over 1,400 people became ill from contaminated raspberries from Guatemala. Just this year, infected shrimp from Vietnam caused Salmonella and E. coli outbreaks. In earlier decades, diseases such as tuberculosis and cholera were the focus of food safety concerns. Today diseases caused by dangerous new strains of E. coli have become primary causes of foodborne illness. These new organisms necessitate increased investment in research, technology, and surveillance to protect the safety of our food supply. Food safety efforts are also especially important to protect the growing number of individuals in vulnerable populations, such as young children, the elderly, those with lowered immunity from HIV, and those with inadequate access to health care. By providing the FDA with the necessary resources to combat foodborne diseases, we can protect tens of millions of our fellow citizens across the country each year. Investment in food safety is an investment in the health of every American. Congress should give the FDA the resources it needs in order to ensure the safety of the food we eat. The amendment I am proposing is a major step to meet this challenge, and I urge the Senate to approve it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Wellstone's amendment. We need to do all we can to understand why food stamp participation has declined so sharply. We know that poverty among working families is growing, not declining, even in this time of prosperity, and we need to find better answers to this problem. The Conference Board is a global business membership organization that has enabled senior executives to exchange ideas on business policy and practices for nearly a century. The most recent Conference Board study is entitled ``Does a Rising Tide Lift All Boats? America's Full- Time Working Poor Reap Limited Gains in the New Economy.'' The conclusions of this pro-business group are surprising. The Conference Board found that the number of full-time workers classified as poor increased between 1997 and 1998, the last year for which data is available. And despite the strongest economic growth in three decades, the poverty rate among full-time workers is higher now than it was during the last recession. The Congressional General Accounting Office also studied this issue of declining food stamp participation, and it found that food stamp participation is declining much more rapidly than poverty. The obvious result is that millions more Americans, including children and working families, are going without adequate nutrition today than before the welfare reform law was enacted. In Massachusetts, Project Bread operates a statewide hunger hotline, where operators respond to 2,300 requests for referrals each month. Last month, a mother from Worcester called. She had just been released from the hospital after the birth of her fifth baby. Doctors had ordered her to stop working 3 months ago, due to complications with her pregnancy. Her husband drives a bus, and their single salary was barely enough for the family to get by. When she called the hotline, there was no money and no food in the house, and hotline workers characterized her situation as desperate. In many other communities, the nation's mayors have been distressed by the sudden sharp increases in requests for emergency food from working families. Too many of those in need are being turned away, because the resources are so inadequate. We clearly need a better understanding of why this alarming level of hunger persists in our record-breaking economy. We need this additional information as soon as possible. We must accurately determine why food stamp participation has declined. I look forward to working with my colleagues to deal more effectively with this tragic problem of hunger.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support this amendment and I commend the sponsors for their efforts to address the high cost of prescription drugs. I support this amendment, and I commend its sponsors for their efforts to address the high cost of prescription drugs. The American public wants affordable medicines, and I believe we should do all we can to reduce the financial burden imposed on our citizens by high drug costs. It is worth emphasizing that imports of prescription drugs from other countries must be accompanied by strict precautions to protect the public. Federal standards require that all prescriptions sold in the United States must be safe and effective. The public health protections guaranteed by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act do not end at the gates of the manufacturer's plant but extend all the way to the doorstep of the consumer. Congress has promised the American people that the medications they use will be effective and be free of contaminants. In 1988, President Reagan signed into law the Prescription Drug Marketing Act to protect Americans from counterfeit, contaminated, and other unsafe medications. Today counterfeit drugs continue to plague the citizens of many countries, including our own. In 2000, at least 30 people in Cambodia died from fake malaria medications. 60,000 people in Niger were vaccinated against a deadly epidemic of meningitis with counterfeit vaccines, and received water injections instead of real medicines. This past year the United Kingdom broke up a smuggling ring to import counterfeit drugs into the U.K. from India. According to a DEA official, 25% of the prescription drugs brought by consumers into the U.S. from Mexico are fake. From 1989 to 1994 a counterfeit antibiotic from China was sold in the U.S. through legal distribution channels resulting in almost 2,000 adverse events, including 49 deaths. In spite of an Import Alert issued by the FDA in September 1999, the fake medication may still be entering the U.S. I raise these problems to emphasize that without adequate protections, legalizing importation by pharmacists and wholesalers will increase the risks already posed by fake and contaminated drugs. This amendment deals with these safety concerns primarily by placing the responsibility for assuring the quality of imported products on the importer, subject to FDA oversight--and it gives FDA broad authority to impose additional requirements necessary to protect public health. The FDA needs adequate tools to combat counterfeit or adulterated drugs. Adequate funding for the FDA is essential to ensure the safety of imported prescription drugs. FDA currently inspects less than 1% of all drug shipments from other countries. Clearly, additional resources will be necessary to implement this amendment. As we all know, the real issue is providing an effective and affordable prescription drug benefit to senior citizens and the disabled under Medicare. That is the basic and fundamental issue. We wouldn't be having this debate if we were providing an effective prescription drug program to the seniors under the Medicare program. It wouldn't be necessary. We wouldn't have to be taking these additional risks. This is not a substitute for the Senate taking action on that important measure. The President has reiterated the fact that he would be glad in working with our Republican friends to sign their marriage penalty legislation if it included a prescription drug program. It is absolutely essential. This legislation is no substitute for it. The cost of the drugs these patients needed far exceeded their ability to pay, even if the cost was deeply discounted. A patient with high blood pressure, irregular heartbeat, and an enlarged prostate would pay $3,100 annually for drugs. This particular chart indicates the general patient profile for some of the most common kinds of concerns, particularly for the elderly. They are the ones who have the highest utilization of the prescription drugs. They are the ones who need the protections under Medicare. They are the ones who, hopefully, we are going to take action on in this Congress to protect. We are talking about osteoporosis, or heart trouble with a typical cost of $2,412--that is 20 percent of the pretax income; high blood pressure, irregular heartbeat, enlarged prostate, $3,100, 26 percent of pretax income; severe arthritis, ulcers, gastric reflux, depression, $3,696, 31 percent; ulcers, high blood pressure, heart disease, asthma, $4,800, 40 percent. This basically shows not only the access but the enormous costs of the prescription drugs to address these particular items. A patient with heart disease and severe anemia, $26,500, and 22 percent. If we look at this chart, most senior citizens have very moderate incomes. Look at this. Fifty-seven percent are under $15,000; 21 percent are under $24,000. We have virtually 80 percent below $24,000. We are talking about a handful of senior citizens in the upper areas. Eighty percent of our seniors are people of extremely modest means. The cost of these drugs are going absolutely out of sight. That is why we have to have a program that is going to provide coverage, and that is going to be universally affordable for our seniors and for the Federal Government as well. This is a drug crisis for our seniors. The coverage is going down, and the costs are going up. I will take just a moment of the Senate's time to point out what is happening to our senior citizens. Twelve million--effectively a third--of our seniors have no coverage whatsoever. Eleven million of them have employer-sponsored coverage. We are going to show a chart in just a moment that shows employer- sponsored drug coverage is collapsing. Some three million have Medicare-HMO, and we will find what is happening in the HMOs where they are putting limitations of what they are going to be prepared to reimburse under prescription drugs. The next is Medigap costs which are going right up through the ceiling and becoming less and less affordable. The only group of Americans who have dependable, reliable, affordable prescription drugs are the 4 million Americans under Medicaid. It is a national disgrace when we know the commitment that was made here in the Congress in 1964 and in 1956 that said to our senior citizens, work hard, we will pass Medicare, and you will not have to worry about your health care needs in your golden years. We didn't include a prescription drug program because the private sector didn't have it then. Only 3 cents out of every dollar was expended on prescription drugs. Now it is up 20 cents, and in some places even 30 cents, in terms of the costs of the health care dollars. Health benefits have dropped by 25 percent. That is between 1994 and 1997. This arrow is continuing to go right down. The other chart showed where you have 11 million seniors getting covered by employer-based programs. This chart indicates that they are rapidly losing coverage at the present time. We have 11 million who do not have any coverage, and 12 million who have employer-sponsored coverage. But that is going down. This shows what is happening if they get Medicare HMO drug coverage. We see 75 percent will limit coverage to less than $1,000. They are putting limitations on what they will pay for. The chart shows the five major illnesses affecting and impacting our senior citizens cost vastly higher than $1,000. Therefore, our seniors, even if they have coverage under an HMO, are still paying an unaffordable amount of money if $1,000 is the limitation. Mr. President, 32 percent have imposed caps of less than $500. We are seeing the collapse of coverage that is out there for our senior citizens. This chart shows what is happening in the medigap coverage--which is effectively becoming unaffordable--in the sample premium for a 75-year- old person in various States. This is virtually unaffordable. This chart shows the costs of drugs compared to the Consumer Price Index over recent years, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999. In 1995, 2.5 percent; in 1996, 3.3 percent; in 1997, 1.7 percent; in 1999, 2.7. The top of the chart shows the actual drug costs in terms of the expenditures being made by seniors to get the drugs they need. We see a very modest increase in the Consumer Price Index. Yet for senior citizens who use three times the amount of drugs as the rest of the population, we find out this is continuing to increase, placing extraordinary pressure on seniors. In many instances, they are completely unaffordable. As mentioned earlier in the debate, the Pharmaceutical Research Manufacturers say: Private drug insurance lowers the prices 30 percent to 39 percent. That says it all. It is saying you could go ahead and have a reduction in the costs of these prescription drugs anywhere from 30 percent to 39 percent, and they can still make an adequate and generous profit. This is from the industry itself. The seniors are hearing this and living it, as pointed out by the Senator from North Dakota and my friend, the Senator from Vermont. They are seeing this. They know this has happened. They have to go abroad in order to try to get these vital prescription drugs. The unanswered question is, If we can go across and buy them, why can't we do this in a way that is going to be more accessible and available not only to those able to go over but also to our friends and neighbors and fellow senior citizens? It is out of that enormous frustration and these facts that this amendment comes to the floor. That is why I believe it should be supported. I think it is essential, but it is not going to address the fundamental issue, which is the Medicare program that will cover all of our senior citizens and effectively do it in a way that will see a significant reduction of costs. I thank the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Vermont be good enough to yield 12 minutes?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Just before the Senator leaves that thought about the need for support for special education, this is something the Senator from Iowa has been particularly interested in and in which he is strongly supported by the Senator from Illinois and myself. We have heard a lot of lectures out here about the importance of helping local communities who have these extraordinary challenges of families who have children with these special needs, and it places a very special burden on local communities. I think the Senators from Iowa and Illinois and others understand the importance of giving help and relief to these communities all across this country. We hear about the need out there. I am wondering whether the Senator shares my belief that after giving $1.3 trillion away, whether we should not have used some of those resources to try to help local communities and help families who have these kinds of special needs for their children? We are going to be hard pressed to find the resources to do that. Perhaps the Senator would also tell me why it is now that we have gone all of this last year, all of this year, and we still can't get a minimum wage up to look out for the interests of 13 million Americans who are working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, who take pride and have a sense of dignity, that we can't have an opportunity to address it, when in the last 5 days we have given $1.3 trillion away to the wealthiest individuals.