Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator respond to another question? Is it the Senator's position--and we have been joined by the Senators from California and New York--that there is a greater priority to provide a prescription drug program for the 40 million Americans who need prescription drugs than there is to grant the $1.3 trillion to the wealthiest individuals, that the Senator from Illinois shares the belief that we ought to be addressing that particular issue prior to the time that we give away all of these funds to some of the wealthiest individuals?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, between last Friday and today, in the span of just 4 days, Republican Senators will pass tax breaks, overwhelmingly targeted for the wealthy, that will cost the Treasury one and a half trillion dollars over the next 20 years. You would think that careful attention would be paid to the merits of these astronomical tax giveaways before they are passed. Instead, they are being rammed through 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 enormous resources. What about prescription drug coverage for millions of senior citizens under Medicare? I have just returned from Massachusetts where I met with the elderly people. They are asking, Will the Senate of the United States, will Congress, take action to provide some relief to the elderly people in my State and across the country? Really, the unfinished business of Medicare is the prescription drug program. We did not debate that last Thursday and last Friday. We are not debating that issue today. We have basically said, let's find out how we can give the one and a half trillion dollars away over the next 20 years, instead of dealing with the Medicare issue on prescription drugs. What about greater Federal aid to education to help schools and colleges across the country and the students who attend them? We put into the Record last Friday the most recent studies of the Congressional Research Service that showed that by moving to smaller class sizes, there was an enhancement of academic achievement and accomplishment by students in California. That supports the STARS Program of Tennessee. Senator Murray of the State of Washington has been our leader championing for smaller class sizes, because we believe that that can be enormously important in enhancing academic achievement. If we do that, plus ensure that teachers get training and professional advancement in their classrooms, working to enhance their professionalism, we will see a very important, significant gain in academic achievement and accomplishment. We also know the value of afterschool programs, tutorials, and accountability, as Senator Bingaman has talked about; the newer digital divide that Senator Mikulski has talked about; construction, the need to make sure our schools will be safe and secure and not crumbling, as so many of them are. But, no, we have set that aside. We are not going to have the resources to do that. Make no mistake about it, I say to American families, we have made enhancing academic achievement for our teachers, smaller class sizes, afterschool programs, a lesser priority than providing $1.5 trillion from the Federal Treasury to the wealthiest individuals. What about health insurance for the millions of hard-working Americans who have no coverage today? We made a downpayment in terms of the children in the CHIP program in a bipartisan way. We reach out to try to get coverage for their hard-working parents, an increasing number of Americans, who do not have health insurance. But we have not put that on the agenda. We are not debating that here on the floor of the Senate. There will not be the resources to try to do that. We are saying we want $1.5 trillion for the wealthiest individuals. Health insurance for hard-working Americans is put aside. What about raising the minimum wage for millions of low-income Americans, the 13 million Americans, the majority of whom are women who have children? It is a women's issue, it is a children's issue, and it is a civil rights issue because so many of these men and women are men and women of color. It is a fairness issue. People who work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, should not have to live in poverty. No, we cannot debate that up here in the Senate. We can get tax breaks for the wealthiest individuals in this country, but we will not debate an increase in the minimum wage. We will not do it. I hope we are not going to hear long lectures from the other side about how we ought to be funding, now, the special needs programs. We had great statements from the other side: We have failed in meeting our responsibility to special needs children, to help local communities in the area of education. We have heard that time in and time out, while we have been trying to do some of these other actions for children in this country. We had an opportunity to pay for all those special needs children, but I did not hear from the other side that this is a priority. We did not hear it when they had the $780 billion tax cut 2 years ago, and we could have taken a fifth of that tax cut and funded special needs education for every child in this country for 10 years. No, no, that is not enough of a priority. We are not going to do it. Our tax cut is too important. We are going to give $1.5 trillion away without spending a single nickel on special needs children. The list goes on about protecting Social Security and Medicare. Right now, I am sure there are scores of Members of the Congress and the Senate going on about how we ought to protect Medicare and Social Security. It is very clear what the priority has been in the Senate: $1.5 trillion, not to protect Medicare, not to protect Social Security, but to provide it to the wealthiest individuals in this country. That is what has happened over the period of these last 4 days, including a Sunday when we were not even here. All of these priorities and many more are being blatantly ignored by this Republican Congress in their unseemly stampede to enact these tax breaks for the wealthy. Never, in the entire history of our country, has so much been given away so quickly to so few with so little semblance of fairness or even thoughtful consideration. I make that statement. I wait to be challenged on that. Never, never in the history of this body has so much been given away to so few, in such a short period of time, with such little semblance of fairness and even thoughtful consideration. I hope we are not going to hear from the other side: We need to study these issues more carefully in our committee; this hasn't been carefully considered by the committee--when they come out with that $1.5 trillion tax cut, that never even saw the light of day in committee, on the estate tax. Think of having a committee report, think of having a committee discussion, think of having some debate about what the implications of this might be in terms of a wide range of different issues? Absolutely not. We just took it, faced it, and passed it. So it goes on. Plums for the rich and crumbs for everyone else will be the epitaph of this Republican Congress. It's a dream Congress for the superwealthy and their special interest friends, and a nightmare Congress for hard-working families across America. The Republican's trillion-dollar tax breaks will eminently deserve the veto that President Clinton is about to give them. The Republicans fail to honestly weigh the nation's priorities, and I believe that this is an irresponsible and reckless way to legislate. Some may view it as good political theater, red meat for the Republican right wing on the eve of the Republican convention. But it is a disservice to all Americans because it prevents action on the many true priorities facing this Nation. I suspect that Americans who see and understand what is happening here this week in Washington will ask a single question: What if George W. Bush were in the White House? He would sign these irresponsible tax break monstrosities, and the nation would suffer for years to come. I suspect that millions of Americans who see what is happening here would say: No thanks, we don't need a Congress that would pass such irresponsible legislation--and we certainly don't need a President who would sign it. Last Friday's estate tax bill gave $250 billion to America's 400 wealthiest families, yet this same $250 billion would buy 10 years of prescription drug coverage for 11 million senior citizens who don't have access to coverage now. Our senior citizens face a crisis today. 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. Cutting a trillion dollars from the federal budget clearly jeopardizes our ability to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. Today, in schools across the country, students face over-crowded classrooms, teachers go without adequate training, school buildings are crumbling, and violence is a constant threat. One would think that at some opportunity over these past few days we would have debated what most families are concerned about, as well as insuring academic achievement for their children in a safe and secure area. No, we are denied that opportunity. We cannot debate that. We are told somehow that it is not relevant. It is relevant to what parents care about, which is their children in school. I daresay it is a lot more relevant than the fact that we will be giving $1.5 trillion, $250 billion of which will go to the 400 wealthiest families. It is a lot more relevant to their lives than that other factor, the giveaway. Yet, Republicans are rushing through a trillion dollars in tax cuts without serious consideration of what it means for the nation's unmet education needs. Today, the booming economy is helping many Americans, but those who work day after day at the minimum wage are falling farther and farther behind. 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. The number of working poor families who seek emergency help in soup kitchens and food pantries across the nation is far ahead of the ability of agencies to meet their needs. Read the reports from last week about what is happening to children in our society. The total number of poor children has gone down by about a percentage point, a point and a half, maybe, in the last 2 years. But the ones who are living in poverty are living in deeper poverty than they have ever experienced. We are finding an increased number of children who are not being immunized against basic diseases, and here we are cutting $1.5 trillion, when we are not immunizing our children and cannot find ways to make those programs workable and effective. We are not debating that and trying to find ways to improve it. The cost of rental housing is skyrocketing in most cities because of the economic boom, but the wages of millions of families who need that housing has failed to keep pace. My colleague and friend from Massachusetts, John Kerry, made this case so well last week to, effectively, a deaf audience in the Senate. Cutting tax revenues by a trillion and half dollars jeopardizes our ability to respond to these needs. The American people cry out for action on many other basic priorities, but the tax breaks being passed by the Republican Congress would make fair action on all those priorities virtually impossible. Republicans are well aware that their tax-cutting extravaganza would not survive if it were honestly weighed against the nation's real priorities. That is why Republicans resort to gross distortion of the facts. They apply the phony label ``death tax'' of trying to deal with family farms and small businesses. Republicans told story after story about how the estate tax hurts owners of small businesses and family farms. Our Democratic alternative would grant them protection, but it wasn't enough for Republicans. Their position was to basically hold small business owners and small farmers hostage until they could get the larger breaks for the largest estates and the wealthiest individuals in the country. They know this President is going to veto this measure, and instead of truly doing something that would benefit those small family farms and small businesses, they say: Oh, we would rather have it vetoed. We will serve those small family farms up rather than deal with them. They know this is true in the marriage tax penalty as well. Listen to this: They apply the phony label ``marriage tax penalty'' to the current bill even though 58 percent of the tax cuts go to couples who pay no marriage penalty at all. Do my colleagues hear that? Fifty-eight percent of the benefits of this measure, according to the Joint Tax Committee, a measure which we will start voting at 6:30 this evening, will go to couples who pay no marriage tax penalty at all. The Democrats have a simple alternative to address the marriage penalty: Let them file as a single person if it will mean it lowers their taxes. What in the world could be simpler than that? If one is paying more because of their marriage situation as a result of commingling of the funds, Democrats say: OK, file as single individuals. That will solve it. There is no red tape and no administrative bureaucracy. It is simple. It meets a particular challenge. The Republicans: Oh, no. We want our program which will provide this extraordinary windfall to the wealthiest individuals. Our Democratic alternative would cost $11 billion a year less than the Republican bill--but it would provide greater marriage tax penalty relief to families with incomes below $150,000 a year. But, our sensible Democratic approach does not overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy so the Republicans reject it. Republicans intentionally designed their bill to give 78 percent of the total tax savings to the wealthiest 20 percent of taxpayers. Ending the marriage tax penalty is a thinly veiled pretext to their latest installment of massive tax breaks for the wealthy. We saw the same tactics during the debate on the estate tax. We heard story after story of how the estate tax will hurt owners of small businesses and family farms. I found Senator Conrad's presentation of our Democratic alternative compelling and effective, virtually unchallenged on the floor of the Senate. Oh, yes, there was a challenge saying: Look, why are we supporting that because all of the various groups evidently support the Republican position? I thought that was very interesting coming after our debate on HMO reform where we had 330 organizations support our HMO reform, and this particular Senate voted against it when they did not have a single one supporting their proposal and the responses by Senator Conrad were responsive to this challenge. They are holding small businesses and farmers hostage to their flagrant scheme to help the super-rich even while they talk piously of helping the middle class. This Republican Congress is the trillion-dollar-travesty Congress. Fortunately, President Clinton and Al Gore are here--in this case, President Clinton--with a veto pen to burst their bubble. But thank goodness that working families, middle-income families, have a President who really cares about the economic and financial situation in this country. I take pride that I was one of 11 Members of the Senate who voted against the Reagan tax cut that took us from $400 billion to $4 trillion in debt. That is why I am always interested in listening to those on the other side talk about what wonderful economic programs we have had over the recent times. Let me finally use these charts to demonstrate, once again, what this repeal of the estate tax will cost. It is $55 billion per year that we are effectively giving the wealthiest individuals by the year 2010. This could fund every program in the Department of Education. We are not saying that just throwing money at it answers all the problems. But it is a pretty clear indication about what a nation's priorities are, about how we are going to allocate resources. We could have fully done that, funded all of education, on this. We could have funded the total cost of prescription drug medicines for every beneficiary and had $15 billion left over. We could have had funding for all the beneficiaries, for all of our senor citizens. We could have provided the funding for the $20 billion which takes care of all the medical research in the National Institutes of Health, and you would still have $35 billion left. This is an indication of priorities. This is another indication. This chart depicts that from the Republican estate tax, those who are going to benefit from it, benefit from it to the average of $268,000. All we are trying to get is a Medicare prescription drug benefit that will be valued for our senior citizens at $900. Here it is: $268,000, by 2010, for those who will benefit under the Republican tax cut. All we are trying to do is get $900 for our senior citizens, our 40 million senior citizens we will have at that time. Or to put it another way, the beneficiaries will have the estates worth $2.3 million. The people we are trying to help average $13,000 a year. They are the people we are trying to look out for. This is the contrast. I believe, as I have said, never has so much been given to so few in such a short period of time--without, I think, the fair, adequate national debate or discussion in terms of what is really necessary, in terms of meeting the human needs of families in this country, the educational needs, the health needs, of what is needed in terms of housing for working families and what is necessary in terms of prescription drugs. How are we going to have clean air? How are we going to have clean water? How are we going to clean up the brownfields? How are we going to make sure people are going to continue to have an opportunity to work in employment and have the training and the skills in order to be able to compete in the new economy? All of those priorities have been washed away. With $1.3 trillion, we would be able to provide the investments for the American people. We have given that away. We have given that away without adequate and fair consideration of these priorities. I welcome the fact that we have a President who is going to veto those measures. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are talking about relief from the so- called marriage penalty in the Tax Code. But low-income married parents face a more serious marriage penalty under Medicaid. Under the current law, parents who are married lose their health coverage under Medicaid in some 14 States. In other States, they lose their health coverage under Medicaid if they work more than 100 hours a month. That is wrong. Our answer to this problem is to provide States with the resources and authority to expand S-CHIP and Medicaid to the parents of the children who are covered under these programs. It is a sensible system. The President has paid for it in his budget. It provides needed relief from the health marriage and work penalty under Medicaid. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am disappointed that the Senate has taken four days now to debate the estate tax before making any real progress on education, health, or debt reduction. Democrats agree that owners of small businesses and farms need relief from this tax, and if the Republicans had worked with us, this problem could have been solved long ago. Instead, our Republican colleagues are holding small business owners and farmers hostage as their excuse to provide an enormous windfall to the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers--people who have an average income of over $800,000 a year. The repeal of the estate tax that they seek, costing over $50 billion a year, is the ultimate tax break for the wealthy, and any repeal bill will eminently deserve the veto that President Clinton has promised if it reaches his desk. The Senate has much higher priorities that we should have addressed this week. Tens of millions of senior citizens face a crisis because they can't afford the prescription drugs they need. The extraordinary promise of fuller and healthier lives brought by new prescription drugs is beyond their reach. They need help to afford these life-saving, life-changing miracle drugs. But instead of doing the work that is needed to enable all seniors to access the prescription drugs they need, the Senate spends day after day doing the bidding of a few thousand of America's wealthiest citizens. We send tens of millions of young children to dilapidated, crumbling, over-crowded schools with underpaid teachers each day--yet we stand here debating a bill to repeal the tax on multi-million dollar estates. Millions of working men and women and their families struggle to survive on the minimum wage at its current unfair level of $5.15 an hour. The Republican Senate has no time to meet their needs--yet the time of the Senate is instantly available to those who make thousands of dollars each hour. Congress has not found time to resolve any of the daily problems facing the vast majority of the nation's working families, its senior citizens, and its school children. In this ``do-nothing Congress,'' the list of priority matters on which nothing is done goes on and on--gun safety, the patients' bill of rights, protecting children from tobacco, protecting the environment. There is no time for any of these issues-- but there is always time to help millionaires and even billionaires reduce their taxes. It is obvious where the priorities of our Republican friends lie. All Americans should take a clear look at what the Republicans really want when they propose a full repeal of the estate tax. Current law now taxes only the largest 2 percent of all estates. No one else pays any estate tax. Today anyone can bequeath unlimited resources to a spouse completely free of the estate tax, and $675,000 to anyone else--again completely without tax. Present law already exempts up to $1.3 million for family-owned businesses and farms. We Democrats seek to substantially raise these exemptions so that next year, no one pays the tax on the first two million dollars in value of any estate, and by 2010, no one pays the tax on the first four million dollars in value of any estate. The Democratic plan affords owners of small businesses and family farms double these exemptions, so that couples who own a small business or family farm worth up to $8 million would pay no estate tax at all. If a business or farm is worth over $8 million, only the portion over $8 million in an estate is taxed under the Democratic plan. The Democratic plan will eliminate all estate taxes for more than half of those who currently pay them. I stand with my Democratic colleagues in fully supporting this common sense approach to estate tax reform. Estate tax repeal, however, is simply a boon for the three thousand largest estates each year, valued not in millions, but in the tens of millions of dollars. These huge estates are the only ones significantly affected by the estate tax. Currently, over half of all estate taxes are paid by the top one tenth of the wealthiest one percent--estates worth more than $5 million. There are fewer than three thousand of these estates out of the 2.3 million Americans who die each year. According to an analysis by the Citizens for Tax Justice, 91 percent of the tax benefits from repeal of the estate tax would go to the top 1 percent of taxpayers-- who have an average annual income of $837,000. As Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers has said, repealing the estate tax would qualify as the most regressive and back-loaded tax legislation ever. Republicans don't want to talk about who will really benefit from this enormous tax cut. Instead, they talk about the plight of small family owned farms and businesses. What they don't tell you is that these family owned small businesses and farms account for less than ten percent of estate taxes today. We could act now--and we should--to help families keep their farms and businesses when the owner dies. This concern is legitimate--but it does not justify eliminating the entire estate tax. The estate tax problem for small businesses and family farms could be solved at a fraction of the cost of the Republican bill. Our Democratic proposal provides full relief to these families. If helping owners of small farms and businesses were the Republicans' real goal, they would join us to pass the Democratic estate tax reform overwhelmingly. After all, the Democratic plan exempts almost all owners of small businesses and farms immediately, while the Republican plan takes ten years before exempting anyone. Republicans obviously know that giving immediate relief to family farms and small firms will take away any pretext at all for the enormous windfall that they want to give the richest taxpayers. They know they can never explain the real purpose of their estate tax repeal to the voters--so they are holding relief for small business owners and small farmers hostage to their unacceptable larger scheme for helping the super-rich. The people whom the Republican leadership is really working for--but whom they don't want to mention--are those few people who inherit the 3,000 estates each year that are worth more than $5 million. These estates are one in every thousand estates--yet they pay over half of the current estate tax. When pressed to explain why these estates need to have taxes eliminated entirely, Republicans respond vaguely in terms of ``fairness.'' They never explain why it is fairer to tax the earned income of working families than the unearned inheritance of the wealthiest families in America. That is a fairness issue they never want to talk about. There is nothing compassionately conservative about repealing the estate tax. Republican President Theodore Roosevelt thought the estate tax was fair when he proposed it a century ago. He believed then and we believe today that those who have the largest financial resources have an obligation to help provide for the basic needs of the less fortunate members of this community. Obviously, today's Republicans don't share Teddy Roosevelt's values. The supporters of the Republican estate tax repeal have also carefully designed it to conceal its real long-run cost. Under their scheme, full repeal would not occur until the year 2010. When fully phased in, the repeal will cost over $50 billion a year. The cost of repealing the estate tax will be nearly three quarters of a trillion dollars in the second ten years. This nation cannot afford to devote three quarters of a trillion dollars to repealing the estate tax. The 98 percent of Americans who would receive no tax relief from repeal of the estate tax know it is unfair to spend this vast amount on the wealthiest taxpayers. Let's consider what $50 billion a year can accomplish for the American people--if we don't repeal the estate tax. It is more than the entire budget for the Department of Education. We could double the federal investment in schools--provide smaller classes with better teachers, state of the art computer technology for every classroom, and modern school facilities across the nation. We could double the financial assistance for college students. Consider what $50 billion a year could do for senior citizens. It is $10 billion more than is needed to fully fund prescription drug coverage for all elderly Americans under Medicare. We have a bipartisan congressional goal to double the funding for medical research through the National Institutes of Health and improve the health of our entire nation. Fifty billion dollars a year would allow us to virtually triple the NIH budget. These are the most pressing needs of the American people--not repeal of the estate tax. Astonishing as it may seem, I have heard my Republican colleagues stand on this floor and claim that the projected budget surplus enables us to easily afford their estate tax repeal. But by the time their law is fully effective in 2010, it will cost the Treasury over $50 billion each year, rising to $750 billion over ten years. Repeal of the estate tax would also cost the country billions in charitable contributions. A Treasury Department analysis estimates that it would cause charitable contributions to be reduced by $6 billion per year. Colleges that rely on donations to build buildings and provide scholarships would be hurt. Medical schools that rely on donations to conduct medical research would be halted. Public Hospitals that rely on donations to buy equipment and buildings would have to cut back on their ability to provide health care. Shelters that rely on donations to keep people warm and fed would have to turn more people away. Six billion dollars is precious to the non-profit sector of this Nation. The entire Department of Education will have budgeted $48 billion in fiscal year 2005. You don't hear Republicans saying we can easily afford to double education spending. Instead, during the recent debate on the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, we repeatedly heard our Republican colleagues say that they had to compromise among competing meritorious priorities to fit within their limited budget. They have ample money for the super-rich--but nothing for students in crumbling schools. The same is true for prescription drugs. President Clinton's proposal would cost about $40 billion in 2010, the year before Republicans want to begin giving over $50 billion each year in tax breaks to the wealthiest of all Americans. I vote for prescription drugs over estate tax repeal. I vote for education over estate tax repeal. I vote for medical research over estate tax repeal. This issue should not even be a close question for 98 percent of Americans. The Republican Party is living up to its reputation as the ``Let Them Eat Cake'' Party. What do they propose for senior citizens who desperately need prescription drugs? Republicans say, ``Let them eat cake.'' What do they propose for schools and students? Republicans say ``Let them eat cake.'' What do they propose for workers struggling to survive on the minimum wage? Republicans say, ``Let them eat cake.'' What do they propose for the richest 1 percent of taxpayers? A $50 billion annual windfall at the expense of America's hard-working families. I say, ``Let them eat cake'' will work no better for the Republican Party than it did for Marie Antoinette.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Republican marriage tax plan provides a quarter of a trillion dollars in tax breaks over the next ten years. Only 15 cents of every dollar in tax breaks goes to families with incomes of less than $50,000 a year. Sixty-eight cents of every dollar goes to families with incomes of more than $75,000 a year and 40 cents goes to individuals with more than $100,000 in income. Someone with $200,000 in income gets a $1,300 tax break, while a family struggling to make ends meet on $30,000 a year gets a meager $172--about fifty cents a day. Many of the tax breaks in the bill have nothing to do with the so-called marriage penalty. I'd like to point out that right now we have a marriage and work penalty in Medicaid. Up to 14 states--which account for more than 22 percent of the population--penalize two-parent low-income families by having stricter eligibility standards for Medicaid or even prohibiting enrollment. For example, in Maine, married parents earning a total of $14,000 annually can't qualify for Medicaid, but a single parent earning the same amount can. The work penalty is equally appalling. In 37 states, a single parent with two children can qualify for Medicaid only if she earns 80 percent of the poverty level or less. Only 13 states offer Medicaid coverage to a single parent who works full-time in a minimum wage job and has two children. That's wrong, and this amendment would fix it. It would also provide financial incentives and new options for states to expand CHIP and Medicaid to parents and older youths, and it would improve enrollment in CHIP and Medicaid. These are two important steps that we should be able to take this year. An overwhelming majority of the uninsured are working men or women, or family members of workers. In fact, the vast majority are members of families with at least one person working full-time. Most uninsured workers are not uninsured by choice. They are uninsured because their employer either does not offer coverage, or because they are not eligible for the coverage if it is offered. Seventy percent of uninsured workers are in firms where no coverage is offered. Eighteen percent are in firms that offer coverage, but they are not eligible for it, usually because they are part-time workers or have not worked in the firm long enough to qualify for coverage. Only 12 percent of uninsured workers are offered coverage and actually decline, and some of them do so because they have other coverage available. Most of the uninsured have low or moderate incomes. Thirty-seven percent are at or below the federal poverty level. Twenty-eight percent have incomes between 100 and 200 percent of poverty. Fifteen percent have incomes between 200 and 300 percent of poverty. While good coverage for all Americans may not be feasible at this time, we can and must do more to close the current health insurance gap. It is a national scandal that lack of insurance coverage is the seventh leading--and most preventable--cause of death in America today. Numerous studies indicate that lack of insurance leads to second- class health care or no health care at all. A recent article in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that angina patients with insurance are more than twice as likely as uninsured patients to receive needed bypass surgery. Across the nation, more than 32,000 patients are going without needed heart surgery because of their lack of insurance. The numbers are equally dramatic when it comes to cancer. Early detection and treatment of cancer often makes the difference between life and death. Uninsured patients are two and a half times more likely not to receive an early diagnosis of melanoma and one and a half times more likely not to benefit from early detection of breast cancer, prostate cancer, or colon cancer. Tragically, the new and promising treatments resulting from our national investment in the NIH are out of reach for millions of uninsured Americans. In 1997, we took a major step toward guaranteeing health insurance to millions of children in low-income working families whose earnings are above the cut-off for Medicaid. Every state is now participating in the children's health insurance plan, and most states have plans to increase coverage under these programs again this year. As of January, two million children had been enrolled in the program, and many other children had signed up for Medicaid as a result of the outreach efforts. Soon, more than three-quarters of all uninsured children in the nation will be eligible for assistance through either CHIP or Medicaid. An article in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that 57 percent of uninsured children had an unmet major medical need before enactment of CHIP. But just one year after receiving coverage, only 16 percent of these same children had an unmet medical need. The lesson is clear. Access to insurance improves access to health care, which improves health. We have the resources. We have good programs. We must do all we can to increase their effectiveness. Clearly, the states and the federal government have more to do. The overwhelming majority of uninsured low-wage parents are struggling to support their families. Too often, there is too little left to pay for health care. Parents who work hard, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, should be eligible for assistance to buy the health insurance they need to protect their families. Our message to them today is that help with health care is on the way. As I mentioned earlier, under current law, Medicaid is generally available only to single-parent families. Our proposal also repeals this ``health marriage tax.'' It is a serious penalty for low-wage two- parent families, and one which is comparable to the ``marriage penalty'' in the tax code. This proposal also rewards work. Currently, most parents in families with an employed person are not eligible for Medicaid, while families headed by non-workers are eligible if their income is low enough. That's not right. Eligibility should be tied to need, not to employment status. It's a historical artifact of the system and it ought to be changed. Coverage for parents also means that coverage for their children is more likely too. Parents are much more likely to enroll their children in health insurance programs, if the parents themselves can obtain coverage. These steps will provide up to six and a half million more Americans with the health insurance coverage they need and deserve. If we are sincere in this debate about helping working families, our goal should be to enact this coverage before the end of this year. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I will take a few minutes more of the Senate's time to review where we are as an institution and where we are effectively as a country on the people's business. We have just passed an estate tax bill that is going to cost the Treasury $750 billion over the next 20 years. Half of the benefit of that, some $300 billion, will benefit some 1,400 families. Four hundred families will benefit by $250 billion. So this is a proposal that is basically benefiting the wealthiest individuals in the country. With the marriage penalty tax that is before us, it is $250 billion over a 10-year period, and 40 percent of the people who benefit from it have incomes over $100,000--$100 billion of that $250 billion is going to go to people with incomes in excess of $100,000. As the result, at the end of this week and at the end of consideration of the legislation before us, we will have expended $1 trillion. Going into Monday night, when we are going to complete the issue on the marriage penalty, we will have spent $1 trillion. We have to ask, who has benefited and who has not. Quite clearly, as this chart points out, the people who have benefited are the wealthiest individuals in our country. We see the average value of estate exempted under the Republican plan is $2.3 million. The median income of a Medicare beneficiary is $13,800. We find out, if we look at another indicator about who is going to benefit, that the Federal expenditure per person under the Republican estate tax repeal is $268,000 versus $900 for the Medicare prescription drug coverage we are trying to pass here. We think it is about time that we started looking out after the senior citizens, 40 million of them, who need a prescription drug program. We know they have enormous needs. That is why we are in such strong support of the proposal being advanced by Senator Robb, Senator Graham, the leader, and other measures. At the end of this week and the beginning of next week, with the expenditure of about $1 trillion from the Treasury, we are not buying one new book for a child in America. We are not buying one new Band-Aid or one prescription drug for a senior citizen who is in need. We are not making our schools any safer by an effective program that might limit guns in our schools in this country. We have not done a single thing to stop an accountant in an HMO from denying care that may put a patient at further risk in our society. We have not done anything about prescription drugs. We have not done anything to provide a real Patients' Bill of Rights. That is at the end of this week, where we have spent $1 trillion. When I go back to Massachusetts in a short while, people are going to be asking: What have you done? You spent $1 trillion. Have you done anything for our schoolchildren? Have you done anything for our parents? Have you done anything about prescription drugs? Have you done anything to make our health care system safer? Have you done anything to make our schools safer? Have you done anything to increase access to health care? The answer to all of those is no, we have not. That is very clearly not a matter of accident. That is a matter of choice. It is a matter of priority. It is a result of the Republican leadership having set out an agenda, and it is an agenda to which I take strong exception. I cannot believe that it is the agenda of working families in this country. It cannot reflect their priorities. Working families are concerned most about their children. They are concerned about their parents. They are concerned about their jobs and safety and security. They are concerned about living in safe and secure neighborhoods with clean air and clean water. We have not touched a single item that will impact and affect average families in America. As an institution, we have failed to meet their priorities. We are going to continue to fight these battles, next week and beyond, all the way through, as long as we are in session. We will fight it continuously right up to the time of the election. I want to be clear. I support legislation that would provide tax relief to the working families who are currently paying a marriage penalty. Such a penalty is unfair and should be eliminated. However, I do not support the proposal which the Republicans have brought to the floor. While its sponsors claim the purpose of the bill is to provide marriage penalty relief, that is not its real purpose. In fact, only 42 percent of the tax benefits contained in the legislation go to couples currently subject to a marriage penalty. The majority of the tax benefits would actually go to couples who are already receiving a marriage bonus, and to single taxpayers. As a result, the cost of the legislation is highly inflated. It would cost $248 billion over the next ten years. And, as with most Republican tax breaks, the overwhelming majority of the tax benefits would go to the wealthiest taxpayers. This bill is designed to give more than 78 percent of the total tax savings to the wealthiest 20 percent of taxpayers. It is, in reality, the latest ploy in the Republican scheme to spend the entire surplus on tax cuts which would disproportionately benefit the richest taxpayers. That is not what the American people mean when they ask for relief from the marriage penalty. With this bill, the Republicans have deliberately distorted the legitimate concern of married couples for tax fairness. All married couples do not pay a marriage penalty. In fact, a larger percentage of couples receive a marriage bonus than pay a marriage penalty. The only couples who pay a penalty are those families in which both spouses work and have relatively equivalent incomes. They deserve relief from this inequity and they deserve it now. We can provide relief to the overwhelming majority of the couples simply and at a modest cost. That is what the Senate should do. Instead, the Republicans have insisted on greatly inflating the cost of the bill by adding extraneous tax breaks primarily benefitting the wealthiest taxpayers. A plan that would eliminate the marriage penalty for married couples could easily be designed at a much lower cost. The House Democrats offered such a plan when they debated this issue in February. The Senate Democrats are offering such an alternative plan today. If the real purpose of the legislation is to eliminate the marriage penalty for those working families who actually pay a penalty under current law, it can be accomplished at a reasonable cost. The key to drafting an affordable plan to eliminate the marriage penalty is to focus the tax relief on those couples who actually pay the penalty under current law. The Republican proposal fails to do this, and, as a result, it actually perpetuates the marriage penalty despite the expenditure of $248 billion on new tax cuts. Under the Democratic plan, the tax relief actually goes to those currently paying a marriage penalty. It is also essential to target the tax benefits to the middle income working families who need tax relief the most. The Democratic plan focuses the tax benefits on those two earner families with incomes less than $150,000. By contrast, major portions of the tax benefits in the Republican plan would go to much wealthier taxpayers at the expense of those families with more modest incomes. As a result, the 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 we have consistently faced is that our Republican colleagues insist on using marriage penalty relief as a subterfuge to enact large tax breaks unrelated to relieving the marriage penalty and heavily weighted to the wealthiest taxpayers. The House Republicans put forward a bill which would cost $182 billion over 10 years and give less than half the tax benefits to people who pay a marriage penalty. Even that was not enough for the Senate Republicans. They raised the cost to $248 billion over 10 years with nearly all the additional amount going to the wealthiest taxpayers. A substantial majority, 58 percent of the tax breaks in the Senate bill would go to taxpayers who do not pay a marriage penalty. Nor is this the only excessive and unfair tax cut bill the Republicans have brought to the floor this year. They attached tax cuts to the minimum wage bill in the House, tax cuts to the bankruptcy bill in the Senate. They have sought to pass tax cuts to subsidize private school tuition and to eliminate the inheritance tax paid by multimillionaires. Just this morning, the Republican leadership forced through the Senate a complete repeal of the inheritance tax, which will cost over $50 billion per year when fully implemented. More than 90 percent of the tax benefits of that bill will go to the richest one percent of taxpayers. In total, the Republicans in the House and Senate have already passed tax cuts that would consume over $700 billion during the next ten years. The result of this tax cut frenzy is to crowd out necessary spending on the priorities that the American people care most about--education, prescription drugs for seniors, health care for uninsured families, strengthening Medicare and Social Security for future generations. It's misguided and short-sighted, and I strongly object to it.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, pay discrimination against women continues to be a serious problem in our society. The wage gap now costs America's families $200 billion a year. Nearly two-thirds of working women report that they provide half or more of their family's income, and nearly one in five U.S. families is headed by a single woman. Yet single mothers continue to earn the lowest average rate of pay. Although the Equal Pay Act was signed into law 37 years ago, the wage gap today continues to plague American families, and wage discrimination continues to be a serious and pervasive problem in workplaces across the country. In spite of the Equal Pay Act, women still earn only 73 cents for every dollar earned by men. And the pay disparities between white men and women of color are even more disturbing. African American women earn just 63 cents, and Latinas earn only 53 cents for every dollar earned by white men. And men of color suffer from pay inequality as well. These disparities translate into large costs in lost wages and lost opportunity. The average working woman loses $4,200 in income annually, and suffers a loss of $420,000 over her career. In Massachusetts, women earn an average of $512 weekly, compared to $640 earned by men for the same period of time. This gender gap has a long-term impact, since lower wages and lower lifetime earnings lead to lower pension benefits in retirement. The median pension benefit received by new female retirees is less than half that of benefits received by men. Women are entitled to the same paychecks as male colleagues who perform the same or comparable work. Without this guarantee, women are less able to provide an economic safety net for themselves and their families. If married women were paid the same wages as men in comparable positions, their family incomes would rise by nearly 6 percent, and their families' poverty rates would fall. If single women earned as much as men in comparable positions, their incomes would rise by 13 percent, and their poverty rates would be reduced as well. These figures demonstrate the severe effect of pay disparities on the lives of women and their families. Equal pay helps men as well as women. One of the major causes of pay inequity is sex segregation in the workplace. Jobs traditionally held by men, such as jobs which involve heavy lifting or truck driving, are compensated more highly than jobs traditionally held by women, which often involve caretaking or nurturing activities. Both men and women in jobs predominantly held by women--such as sales, service, nursing, child care, teaching and clerical positions--suffer the effects of pay bias. As the percentage of women within an occupation increases, the wages for that job decrease. Women and men alike will receive significant gains in earnings if they are paid the same wages as comparable workers in jobs that are not predominantly female. Men and women who work in predominantly female occupations earn less than comparable workers in other occupations. Women would gain $89 billion a year, and men would gain $25 billion from pay equity increases in female-dominated jobs. The 4 million men who work in predominately female occupations lose, on average, over $6200 each year. The increase in payroll costs that would result from these wage adjustments would be only 3.7 percent of total hourly payroll costs throughout the economy. Some argue that these differences in pay are based on different levels of education, years in the workforce and similar factors. But, these factors alone do not explain away the wage gap. Studies have found substantial pay differences between men and women working in the same narrowly defined occupations and establishments. Studies of discrimination in hiring offer additional evidence on the gender pay gap. Educational advancement hasn't solved this problem. Although women have now surpassed men in the percentage of those earning a college or advanced degree, college-educated women earn almost $14,000 less than college educated men. A black woman with a master's degree earns almost $10,000 less annually than a college-educated white male. A college- educated Hispanic female makes only $727 more than a white male with a high school degree. These disparities in compensation for men and women can be explained by one factor--blatant discrimination. Consider the story of Sarah Foulger, who served as pastor of a church in Maine for more than 10 years. For the last 5 of those years, she asked for a pay raise, and every year she was told the increase had to be delayed or reduced. Within weeks of her departure, the church was able to significantly increase the salary of the male pastor hired to replace her. After 17 years of her ministry, she earned less than $7,000 in pension credits. The third of her salary that was missing-- multiplied by just 4 years of being underpaid --would have added up to enough money to pay for a State college education for one of her children. Gender and race-based wage discrimination is also present on Capitol Hill, and it is glaring and embarrassing for all of us. Women custodial workers in the House and Senate Office Buildings have been underpaid for years, and have finally brought suit against the Architect of the Capitol. Even though the women custodians perform essentially the same work under the same job conditions as male workers, they are paid almost a dollar less an hour. But there are some successes. Nancy Hopkins is a molecular biologist and professor at M.I.T. When she learned that she was making less than her male colleagues, she took the issue to the administration. M.I.T's top officials responded by issuing a report acknowledging that its female professors suffered from pervasive, if unintentional, discrimination. The report documented discrimination in hiring, awards, promotions, membership on important committees, and allocation of important resources such as laboratory space and research funding. Eastman Kodak Company provides another significant example. After an internal study of its compensation practices, Kodak voluntarily agreed to pay $13 million in back pay to 2,000 female and minority employees who had been underpaid because of their race or gender. Kodak continues to work to improve the number of women and minorities in mid-level and senior-level management positions. The plight of these women who work hard and are denied fair compensation is unacceptable. The disparities are particularly alarming because they persist almost 40 years after the Equal Pay Act was enacted, and at a time when our nation is experiencing unprecedented prosperity, when women are entering the workforce in record numbers, and when women are spending less time at home with their children, and more time at work. Businesses and other private institutions across the country also have a responsibility to do more to correct this injustice. I commend M.I.T. for the impressive example it has set by acknowledging that women professors suffer from pervasive pay discrimination and by making a clear commitment to correct it. And I commend Eastman Kodak for its efforts to address the wage gap in response to NAACP concerns, by launching an investigation and providing raises for 12 percent of its female and 33 percent of its black employees. More businesses and organizations need to follow these leads. Congress must do more to solve this unconscionable problem. Our goal is not just to reduce the pay gap, but to eliminate it entirely. Senator Daschle's Paycheck Fairness Act is a needed step to correct this injustice in pay. It will provide more effective remedies for women denied equal pay for equal work. And Senator Harkin's Fair Pay Act will prohibit wage discrimination based on sex, race, or national origin for employees in equivalent jobs in the same workplace. Congress should pass both the Paycheck Fairness Act and The Fair Pay Act. These bills are necessary steps to eliminate the disparity between the earning power of men and women. It's the right thing to do--and the fair thing to do--for working families. At a time when our economy is more prosperous than ever, when unemployment is at a 30 year low, and when women are entering the labor force at an all time high, there is no excuse for discrimination that cheats women out of their fair pay. Amendment No. 3848 (Purpose: To amend title XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act to permit States to expand coverage under the Medicaid program and SCHIP to parents of enrolled children and for other purposes)

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of the Harkin amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the need for action by Congress on prescription drug coverage for senior citizens is as clear as it is urgent. Medicare is a specific contract between the people and their government. It says, ``Work hard, pay into the trust fund during your working years, and you will have health security in your retirement years.'' But that promise is being broken today and every day, because Medicare does not cover prescription drugs. This amendment is about priorities. The Republican marriage penalty relief proposal is little more than a fig leaf for a package of other tax breaks for the wealthy. I am all for marriage penalty relief. I am all for providing targeted tax relief to working families. But that's not what's at stake here. This amendment simply says that marriage penalty relief shall not take effect until legislation has been enacted that provides a voluntary, affordable outpatient Medicare prescription drug benefit to all Medicare beneficiaries which that guarantees meaningful, stable coverage, including stop-loss and low-income protections. 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 at all--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. Too many seniors are ending up hospitalized--at immense cost to Medicare--because they aren't receiving the drugs they need to treat their illness. Pharmaceutical products are increasingly the source of miracle cures for a host of dread diseases, but senior citizens are being left out and left behind because Congress fails to act. The crisis that senior citizens face today will only worsen if we refuse to act, because insurance coverage continues to go down, and drug costs continue to go up. Twelve million senior citizens--one third of the total--have no prescription drug coverage at all. Surveys indicate that only half of all senior citizens--20 million--have any prescription drug coverage throughout the year. Insurance through employer retirement plans is plummeting. Medicare HMOs are drastically cutting back. Medigap plans are priced out of reach of most elderly Americans. The only senior citizens who have stable, reliable, affordable drug coverage are the very poor on Medicaid. Prescription drug costs are out of control. Since 1996, costs have grown at double-digit rates every year. Last year, the increase was an unacceptable 16 percent, at a time when the increase in the CPI was only 2.7 percent. Access to affordable prescription drugs has become a crisis for many elderly Americans In the face of this declining coverage and soaring cost, more and more senior citizens are being hurt. 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. Fifty-seven percent of senior citizens have incomes below $15,000 a year, and 78 percent have incomes below $25,000. Only 7 percent have annual incomes in excess of $50,000. 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. Their current situation on prescription drugs is intolerable. Senior citizens and their families are asking for help and they deserve it. The Senate has an obligation to respond. 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 and doctor care. President Clinton called for prescription drug coverage under Medicare in his 1999 State of the Union Message more than 18 months ago but the Senate still has failed to act. The legislation passed by the Republican majority in the House can't pass the truth in advertising test. It is not a true Medicare benefit--and it won't give senior citizens the stable, affordable, adequate prescription drug benefit they deserve. The Senate Finance Committee is discussing a new prescription drug proposal but it requires senior citizens to give up their current benefits and accept greater out-of-pocket costs that they cannot afford as the price for gaining prescription drug coverage. The amendment we are proposing is a clear statement of priorities. It says that prescription drug coverage for the Nation's senior citizens is as important as new tax breaks. Let's get our priorities straight. Let's meet this pressing need. Let's give senior citizens a real prescription drug benefit under Medicare. Let's put the Senate on record in support of mending Medicare's broken promise, and telling America's senior citizens that they are as important as working families and others who would benefit from this tax bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Frist and our other colleagues in introducing the Children's Public Health Act of 2000. This bipartisan legislation will help millions of children in the years ahead. It takes needed action to improve children's health by expanding pediatric research and calling for specific steps to deal with a wide range of childhood illness, disorders, and injuries. Coordinated action in these areas can lead to significant benefits for all children. Senator Frist and I have worked closely with many of our Democratic and Republican colleagues on this legislation. We have talked with experts and advocates in the children's health community. We believe this legislation will lead to significant progress in addressing some of today's most pressing pediatric public health problems. The legislation includes a variety of new and reauthorized children's health provisions that are organized under four broad categories-- injury prevention, maternal and infant health promotion, public health promotion, and research. Traumatic brain injury is the leading cause of death and disability in young Americans. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated that 5.3 million Americans are living with long-term, severe disability as a result of brain injuries, and each year 50,000 people die as a result of such injuries. The Children's Public Health Act revises and extends the authorization for the important programs enacted in 1996 to deal with these injuries. This reauthorization will assure continued progress toward our understanding, treating and preventing them. Improving and protecting the safety of child care environments should also be a high priority for Congress. This legislation creates a new program to improve the safety of children in child care settings, and to encourage child care providers to take steps to prevent illness and injuries and protect the health of the children they serve. In addition, this legislation includes programs to improve the health of pregnant women and prenatal outcomes, including prevention of birth defects and low birth weight. It establishes a new Center for Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in order to focus the nation's activities more effectively in these important areas. The new center will be especially helpful for children and families affected by these conditions. The bill also takes a number of steps to address other prevalent childhood conditions. Asthma is the most common chronic childhood illness, affecting more than seven percent of all American children. The death rate for children with asthma increased by 78 percent between 1980 and 1993, and asthma-related costs total nearly $2 billion annually in direct health care for children. The nation is handicapped by a lack of basic information on where and how asthma strikes, what triggers it, and how effectively our current health care system is responding to those who suffer from this chronic disease. Our bill will provide greater asthma services to children, including mobile clinics, and patent and family education, and it will help to reduce allergens in housing and public facilities. Poor nutrition and lack of physical activity are also hurting many American children and contributing to lifelong health problems. The nation spends $39 billion a year--equal to six percent of overall U.S. health care expenditures--on direct health care related to obesity. Twenty percent of American children--one in five--are overweight. Unhealthy eating habits and physical inactivity in childhood can lead to heart disease, cancer and other serious illnesses decades later. Children and adolescents who suffer from eating disorders, such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia, can have wide-ranging physical and mental health impairments. Our legislation establishes new grant programs to reduce childhood obesity and earing disorders, promote better nutritional habits among children, and encourage an appropriate level of physical activity for children and adolescents. Last May, the Surgeon General published a landmark report on oral health in America, emphasizing the need to consider oral health as an essential part of total health. There is no question that oral and dental health care should be included in our primary care. Tooth decay is the most common childhood infectious disease, and it can lead to devastating consequences, including problems with eating, learning and speech. Twenty-five percent of children in the United States suffer 80 percent of the tooth decay, with significant racial and age disparities. The number of dentists in the country has been declining since 1990, and is projected to continue to decline through the year 2020. According to a 1995 report by the Inspector General, only one in five Medicaid-eligible children receive dental services annually, and the shortage of dentists exacerbates the problem of unmet needs. Yet tooth decay is largely preventable. More effective efforts to educate parents and children about the causes of tooth decay, and initiatives to prevent and treat it can lead to lasting public health improvements. Our legislation includes a variety of approaches to deal with this silent epidemic. Research has long shown that childhood lead poisoning can have devastating effects on children, causing reduced IQ and attention span, stunted growth, behavior problems, and reading and learning disabilities. Yet too children remain unscreened and untreated, and adequate services often are not available for children with elevated levels of lead in their blood. There is no excuse for not taking greater steps to eliminate childhood lead poisoning. Our bill includes screening for early detection and treatment, professional education and training programs, and outreach and education activities for at-risk children. Pediatic research discoveries promote and maintain health throughout a child's life span, and also contribute significantly to new insights that aid in the prevention and treatment of illnesses and conditions among adults. A growing body of evidence shows that risk factors for conditions such as coronary artery disease and stroke begin in childhood and persist through adulthood. Congress has a strong history of promoting basis and clinical research, and the steps taken in this legislation continue that priority. The legislation establishes a pediatric research initiative, authorized at $50 million annually, that will increase support for pediatric biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health, including an increase in collaborative efforts among multidisciplinary fields in areas that are promising for children. The legislation also requires coordination with the Food and Drug Administration to increase the number of pediatric clinical trails, and to provide greater information on safer and more effective use of prescription drugs in children. Children have unique health care needs. They are not simply small adults. Nothing is more important to the future health of America's children than maintaining a steady supply of pediatricians, pediatric specialists and pediatric-focused scientists. Our legislation takes two important steps to improve the growth and development of a pediatric-focused medical community. First, it enhances support by the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development expressly for training and career development activities of pediatric researchers, and it establishes a loan repayment program for pediatricians who conduct research. Second, it extends the authorization of a new program that supports graduate medical education activities at independent children's hospitals. These hospitals train half of all pediatric specialists, and 30 percent of all pediatricians. However, because GME activities have historically been supported by Medicare and because these hospitals serve very few Medicare patients, they receive very little financial support for this important and costly activity. As a result, children's hospitals are struggling to maintain the important training, pediatric research, and primary and specialty care services that they provide. Children's hospitals should be treated like all other teaching hospitals when it comes to support for their GME activities. I have sponsored another legislative proposal to guarantee full funding each year, without being subject to the appropriations process. That proposal is awaiting consideration in the Finance Committee. Until it is enacted, we owe it to America's children to invest in their future health care by improving our support for pediatric GME activities. The bill also authorizes a new study to monitor and evaluate development of children through adulthood. The kind of information that will be obtained by this study is long-overdue. Children are more vulnerable to physical, chemical, biological, and other risks than adults, and we must make a major commitment to learning more about the influences and effects of the environment. Finally, this legislation also includes a program to address the unique needs of children with autism and related disorders. I look forward to working with Chairman Frist, members of the Committee and others to assure that the needs of children with Fragile X are met in the final legislation. This legislation deserves to be a major public health priority for the nation. Congress should send the President a strong bill on these issues before the end of this year.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Religious freedom is a bedrock principle in our nation. The bill we are introducing today 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 to strike down the broader Religious Freedom Restoration Act that 97 Senators joined in passing in 1993. In striking down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act on constitutional grounds, the Court clearly made the task of passing effective legislation to protect religious liberties more difficult. But too often in our society today, thoughtless and insensitive actions by governments at every level interferes with individual religious freedoms, even though no valid public purpose is served by the governmental action. Our goal in proposing 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 being introduced today 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 the Constitutional right to worship, free from unnecessary government interference. After numerous Congressional hearings on religious liberties, the evidence is clear that local land use laws often have the discriminatory effect of burdening the free exercise of religion. It is also clear that institutionalized persons are often unreasonably denied the opportunity to practice their religion, even when their observance would not undermine discipline, order, or safety in the facilities. Relying upon the findings from Congressional hearings, we have developed a bill--based upon well-established constitutional authority--that will protect the free exercise of religion in these two important areas. Our bill has the support of the Free Exercise Coalition, which represents over 50 diverse and respected groups, including the Family Research Council, Christian Legal Society, 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 that this bill enjoys among 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 the most obvious threats to religious liberty and by leaving open the question of what future Congressional action, if any, will be needed to protect religious freedom in America. The land use provision covers regulations defined as ``zoning and landmarking'' laws. Under this provision, if a zoning or landmarking law substantially burdens a person's free exercise of religion, the government involved must demonstrate that the particular law is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. This provision is based upon the constitutional authority of Congress under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, as well as the Commerce and Spending powers of Congress. The institutionalized persons section applies the strict scrutiny standard to cases in which the free exercise rights of such persons are substantially burdened. This provision is based upon Congress's constitutional authority under the Spending and Commerce powers. Applying a strict scrutiny standard to prison regulations would not lead, as some have suggested, to a flood of frivolous lawsuits by prisoners, and it will not undermine safety, order, or discipline in correctional facilities. Arguments opposing this provision have been made in the past, but they were based on speculation. Now, the arguments can be proven demonstrably false by the facts. Since the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was enacted in 1993, strict scrutiny has been the applicable standard in religious liberties case brought by inmates in federal prisons. Yet, according to the Department of Justice, among the 96 federally run facilities, housing over 140,000 inmates, less than 75 cases have ever been brought under the Act--most of which have never gone to trial. On average, over seven years, that's less than 1 case in each federal facility. It's hardly a flood of litigation or a reason to deny this protection to prisoners. Following the enactment of the 1993 Act, Congress also passed the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which includes a number of procedural rules to limit frivolous prisoner litigation. Those procedural rules will apply in cases brought under the bill we are introducing today. Based upon these protections and the data on prison litigation, it is clear that this provision in our bill will not lead to a flood of frivolous lawsuits or threaten the safety, order, or discipline in correctional facilities. Sincere faith and worship can be an indispensable part of rehabilitation, and these protections should be an important part of that process. In sum, our bill 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. examples of land use restrictions on religious liberty In February 2000, a city official in Portland, Oregon ordered a local United Methodist Church to limit attendance at its services to 70 worshipers and shut down a meals program for the homeless and the working poor that the church had been operating for sixteen years. The church can hold up to 500 persons. The land use official announced that her job was ``quasi-judicial,'' and that ``she was not required to explain decisions.'' After a public outcry, the Portland City Council unanimously rejected the attendance cap and voted to allow church programs to continue, contingent on an agreement being reached among neighbors, neighborhood businesses and the city about the management of the church programs. (``Church ordered to limit attendance,'' Washington Times, February 18, 2000: ``Church wins on attendance,'' The Oregonian, March 2, 2000). Officials in Arapahoe County, Colorado imposed numerical limits on the number of students who could enroll in religious schools and on the size of congregations of various churches, as a way of limiting their growth. These limits directly conflicted with the mission of evangelical churches, whose fundamental goal is to attract new believers. In Douglas County, Colorado, administrative officials proposed limiting the operational hours of a church in much the same way as they limit commercial facilities. As Mark Chopko noted in his Congressional testimony, limiting a church's operational hours means that a church may not lawfully engage in certain acts of service and devotion or overnight spiritual retreats. (Testimony of Mark Chopko before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, March 26, 1998). Congregation Etz Chaim, an Orthodox Jewish congregation in Los Angeles, was meeting in a rented house, or ``shul'', in Hancock Park, a residential zone. The rabbi of the congregation, Chaim Baruch Rubin, testified that ten to fifteen men would typically visit the house for daily meetings, and forty or fifty people (many elderly and disabled) would attend on the Sabbath or holidays to engage in quiet prayer and study. Orthodox Jews must walk to services on the Sabbath and on most holidays, because their religion does not permit them to use mechanical modes of transportation on those days. When neighbors complained about the effect on property values, the congregation requested a special use permit from the City Council to remain in the residential zone. The Council unanimously rejected the request, putting the neighborhood effectively off-limits for Orthodox Jews. The same Council, however, allowed other places of assembly in Hancock Park, including schools, book clubs, recreational uses and embassy parties. Rabbi Rubin testified that 84,000 cars traveled through this part of the neighborhood daily, and yet somehow the Council deemed a prayer meeting of a few who traveled by foot as harmful to the neighborhood. Rabbi Rubin concluded his testimony by stating, what do I tell my congregants--what do I tell an 84 year old survivor of Auschwitz, a man who used to risk his life in the concentration camp whenever possible to gather together to pray? (Testimony of Rabbi Chaim Baruch Rubin before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, February 26, 1998). In the process of creating a new zoning plan covering development in the city, the City of Forest Hills, Tennessee set up an ``educational and religious zone'' called an ``ER'' for schools and churches, but limited that designation to schools and churches that already existed within the city. No other land was zoned ``ER'' under the plan, so no other property was available for the construction of a new religious building. The City also established strict requirements for changing any zone. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints determined a need for a temple in Forest Hills, and sought a zone change for property that it owned within city limits. Forest Hills rejected the church's request. The church then bought another piece of property that had previously been home to a church. Churches of other denominations were nearby. Forest Hills nevertheless rejected the church's second request citing concern about traffic, and a court upheld this determination, effectively precluding Mormons from temple worship within city limits. (Testimony of Von G. Keetch before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, March 26, 1998; Report of the House Judiciary Committee on the Religious Liberty Protection Act of 1999, 106th Congress). In 1997, the City of Richmond passed an ordinance which required places of worship wishing to feed more than thirty hungry and homeless people to apply for a conditional use permit at a cost of $1,000, plus $100 dollars per acre of affected property. The ordinance regulated only places of worship, not other institutions, and only eating by persons who are hungry and homeless. The ordinance also limited to seven days, and to the period between October 1 and April 1, the times when places of worship may feed the hungry and homeless. The City had complete discretion over the granting of conditional use permits based on its assessment of a number of subjective factors. The Rev. Patrick Wilson of Richmond, Virginia stated in his testimony: ``A $1,000 fee is beyond the means of most churches, which operate with memberships of less than 100 persons and is therefore prohibitive. Imagine that--a statutorily imposed fee for the exercise of a basic and fundamental tenet of the Christian faith! . . . Health and safety issues can be and are addressed in less odious ways.'' (Testimony of Rev. Patrick J. Wilson III before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, February 26, 1998; Preliminary and Jurisdictional Statement in Trinity Baptist Church v. City of Richmond, (E.D.Va. filed August 20, 1997.) Twenty-two of the twenty-nine zoning codes in the northern suburbs of Chicago effectively exclude churches, unless they have a special use permit. Zoning authorities hold almost wholly discretionary power over whether a house of worship may locate in these areas. John Mauck, a Chicago attorney who serves many churches in this area, handled the case of a church, His Word Ministries to All Nations, interested in buying property after it outgrew its space in the basement of a home. When it sought a special use permit in 1992, an alderman delayed the request three times, resulting in months of delay in the purchase of the building. After the third postponement of the hearing, the alderman had the church's property re-zoned as a manufacturing district. Because churches cannot locate in a manufacturing district, the church was forced to withdraw its application for special use after paying filing, attorney and appraiser fees. The church spent approximately $5,000 and wasted an entire year seeking the special use permit. (Testimony of John Mauck before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, March 26, 1998; Affidavit of Virginia Kantor in Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v. City of Chicago (N.D. Ill. 1994); Testimony of Douglas Laycock before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, July 14, 1998). In his testimony, Marc Stern stated that orthodox synagogues are often required to have a specific number of parking spaces, based on the number of seats in the sanctuary--even though the sanctuary will be filled with worshipers who do not drive. (Testimony of Marc Stern before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, March 26, 1998). Chicago attorney John Mauck testified about several cases of racially motivated opposition to black churches, and about a case in which the mayor told his city manager that they didn't want Hispanics in the town. He also testified about other statements of bigotry. Marc Stern testified about a case in which a small congregation sought permission to convert a private home into a small synagogue. One council member considering the converted use ``warned that if the application was granted, this nearly all white suburb would begin to resemble an adjoining city which was largely minority and full of storefront churches.'' (Testimony of John Mauck before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, March 26, 1998; Testimony of Douglas Laycock before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, July 14, 1998; Testimony of Marc Stern before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, March 26, 1998).

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Frist and our other colleagues in introducing the Children's Public Health Act of 2000. This bipartisan legislation will help millions of children in the years ahead. It takes needed action to improve children's health by expanding pediatric research and calling for specific steps to deal with a wide range of childhood illness, disorders, and injuries. Coordinated action in these areas can lead to significant benefits for all children. Senator Frist and I have worked closely with many of our Democratic and Republican colleagues on this legislation. We have talked with experts and advocates in the children's health community. We believe this legislation will lead to significant progress in addressing some of today's most pressing pediatric public health problems. The legislation includes a variety of new and reauthorized children's health provisions that are organized under four broad categories-- injury prevention, maternal and infant health promotion, public health promotion, and research. Traumatic brain injury is the leading cause of death and disability in young Americans. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated that 5.3 million Americans are living with long-term, severe disability as a result of brain injuries, and each year 50,000 people die as a result of such injuries. The Children's Public Health Act revises and extends the authorization for the important programs enacted in 1996 to deal with these injuries. This reauthorization will assure continued progress toward our understanding, treating and preventing them. Improving and protecting the safety of child care environments should also be a high priority for Congress. This legislation creates a new program to improve the safety of children in child care settings, and to encourage child care providers to take steps to prevent illness and injuries and protect the health of the children they serve. In addition, this legislation includes programs to improve the health of pregnant women and prenatal outcomes, including prevention of birth defects and low birth weight. It establishes a new Center for Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in order to focus the nation's activities more effectively in these important areas. The new center will be especially helpful for children and families affected by these conditions. The bill also takes a number of steps to address other prevalent childhood conditions. Asthma is the most common chronic childhood illness, affecting more than seven percent of all American children. The death rate for children with asthma increased by 78 percent between 1980 and 1993, and asthma-related costs total nearly $2 billion annually in direct health care for children. The nation is handicapped by a lack of basic information on where and how asthma strikes, what triggers it, and how effectively our current health care system is responding to those who suffer from this chronic disease. Our bill will provide greater asthma services to children, including mobile clinics, and patent and family education, and it will help to reduce allergens in housing and public facilities. Poor nutrition and lack of physical activity are also hurting many American children and contributing to lifelong health problems. The nation spends $39 billion a year--equal to six percent of overall U.S. health care expenditures--on direct health care related to obesity. Twenty percent of American children--one in five--are overweight. Unhealthy eating habits and physical inactivity in childhood can lead to heart disease, cancer and other serious illnesses decades later. Children and adolescents who suffer from eating disorders, such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia, can have wide-ranging physical and mental health impairments. Our legislation establishes new grant programs to reduce childhood obesity and earing disorders, promote better nutritional habits among children, and encourage an appropriate level of physical activity for children and adolescents. Last May, the Surgeon General published a landmark report on oral health in America, emphasizing the need to consider oral health as an essential part of total health. There is no question that oral and dental health care should be included in our primary care. Tooth decay is the most common childhood infectious disease, and it can lead to devastating consequences, including problems with eating, learning and speech. Twenty-five percent of children in the United States suffer 80 percent of the tooth decay, with significant racial and age disparities. The number of dentists in the country has been declining since 1990, and is projected to continue to decline through the year 2020. According to a 1995 report by the Inspector General, only one in five Medicaid-eligible children receive dental services annually, and the shortage of dentists exacerbates the problem of unmet needs. Yet tooth decay is largely preventable. More effective efforts to educate parents and children about the causes of tooth decay, and initiatives to prevent and treat it can lead to lasting public health improvements. Our legislation includes a variety of approaches to deal with this silent epidemic. Research has long shown that childhood lead poisoning can have devastating effects on children, causing reduced IQ and attention span, stunted growth, behavior problems, and reading and learning disabilities. Yet too children remain unscreened and untreated, and adequate services often are not available for children with elevated levels of lead in their blood. There is no excuse for not taking greater steps to eliminate childhood lead poisoning. Our bill includes screening for early detection and treatment, professional education and training programs, and outreach and education activities for at-risk children. Pediatic research discoveries promote and maintain health throughout a child's life span, and also contribute significantly to new insights that aid in the prevention and treatment of illnesses and conditions among adults. A growing body of evidence shows that risk factors for conditions such as coronary artery disease and stroke begin in childhood and persist through adulthood. Congress has a strong history of promoting basis and clinical research, and the steps taken in this legislation continue that priority. The legislation establishes a pediatric research initiative, authorized at $50 million annually, that will increase support for pediatric biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health, including an increase in collaborative efforts among multidisciplinary fields in areas that are promising for children. The legislation also requires coordination with the Food and Drug Administration to increase the number of pediatric clinical trails, and to provide greater information on safer and more effective use of prescription drugs in children. Children have unique health care needs. They are not simply small adults. Nothing is more important to the future health of America's children than maintaining a steady supply of pediatricians, pediatric specialists and pediatric-focused scientists. Our legislation takes two important steps to improve the growth and development of a pediatric-focused medical community. First, it enhances support by the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development expressly for training and career development activities of pediatric researchers, and it establishes a loan repayment program for pediatricians who conduct research. Second, it extends the authorization of a new program that supports graduate medical education activities at independent children's hospitals. These hospitals train half of all pediatric specialists, and 30 percent of all pediatricians. However, because GME activities have historically been supported by Medicare and because these hospitals serve very few Medicare patients, they receive very little financial support for this important and costly activity. As a result, children's hospitals are struggling to maintain the important training, pediatric research, and primary and specialty care services that they provide. Children's hospitals should be treated like all other teaching hospitals when it comes to support for their GME activities. I have sponsored another legislative proposal to guarantee full funding each year, without being subject to the appropriations process. That proposal is awaiting consideration in the Finance Committee. Until it is enacted, we owe it to America's children to invest in their future health care by improving our support for pediatric GME activities. The bill also authorizes a new study to monitor and evaluate development of children through adulthood. The kind of information that will be obtained by this study is long-overdue. Children are more vulnerable to physical, chemical, biological, and other risks than adults, and we must make a major commitment to learning more about the influences and effects of the environment. Finally, this legislation also includes a program to address the unique needs of children with autism and related disorders. I look forward to working with Chairman Frist, members of the Committee and others to assure that the needs of children with Fragile X are met in the final legislation. This legislation deserves to be a major public health priority for the nation. Congress should send the President a strong bill on these issues before the end of this year.

Mr. KENNEDY. Religious freedom is a bedrock principle in our nation. The bill we are introducing today 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 to strike down the broader Religious Freedom Restoration Act that 97 Senators joined in passing in 1993. In striking down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act on constitutional grounds, the Court clearly made the task of passing effective legislation to protect religious liberties more difficult. But too often in our society today, thoughtless and insensitive actions by governments at every level interferes with individual religious freedoms, even though no valid public purpose is served by the governmental action. Our goal in proposing 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 being introduced today 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 the Constitutional right to worship, free from unnecessary government interference. After numerous Congressional hearings on religious liberties, the evidence is clear that local land use laws often have the discriminatory effect of burdening the free exercise of religion. It is also clear that institutionalized persons are often unreasonably denied the opportunity to practice their religion, even when their observance would not undermine discipline, order, or safety in the facilities. Relying upon the findings from Congressional hearings, we have developed a bill--based upon well-established constitutional authority--that will protect the free exercise of religion in these two important areas. Our bill has the support of the Free Exercise Coalition, which represents over 50 diverse and respected groups, including the Family Research Council, Christian Legal Society, 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 that this bill enjoys among 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 the most obvious threats to religious liberty and by leaving open the question of what future Congressional action, if any, will be needed to protect religious freedom in America. The land use provision covers regulations defined as ``zoning and landmarking'' laws. Under this provision, if a zoning or landmarking law substantially burdens a person's free exercise of religion, the government involved must demonstrate that the particular law is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. This provision is based upon the constitutional authority of Congress under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, as well as the Commerce and Spending powers of Congress. The institutionalized persons section applies the strict scrutiny standard to cases in which the free exercise rights of such persons are substantially burdened. This provision is based upon Congress's constitutional authority under the Spending and Commerce powers. Applying a strict scrutiny standard to prison regulations would not lead, as some have suggested, to a flood of frivolous lawsuits by prisoners, and it will not undermine safety, order, or discipline in correctional facilities. Arguments opposing this provision have been made in the past, but they were based on speculation. Now, the arguments can be proven demonstrably false by the facts. Since the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was enacted in 1993, strict scrutiny has been the applicable standard in religious liberties case brought by inmates in federal prisons. Yet, according to the Department of Justice, among the 96 federally run facilities, housing over 140,000 inmates, less than 75 cases have ever been brought under the Act--most of which have never gone to trial. On average, over seven years, that's less than 1 case in each federal facility. It's hardly a flood of litigation or a reason to deny this protection to prisoners. Following the enactment of the 1993 Act, Congress also passed the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which includes a number of procedural rules to limit frivolous prisoner litigation. Those procedural rules will apply in cases brought under the bill we are introducing today. Based upon these protections and the data on prison litigation, it is clear that this provision in our bill will not lead to a flood of frivolous lawsuits or threaten the safety, order, or discipline in correctional facilities. Sincere faith and worship can be an indispensable part of rehabilitation, and these protections should be an important part of that process. In sum, our bill 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. examples of land use restrictions on religious liberty In February 2000, a city official in Portland, Oregon ordered a local United Methodist Church to limit attendance at its services to 70 worshipers and shut down a meals program for the homeless and the working poor that the church had been operating for sixteen years. The church can hold up to 500 persons. The land use official announced that her job was ``quasi-judicial,'' and that ``she was not required to explain decisions.'' After a public outcry, the Portland City Council unanimously rejected the attendance cap and voted to allow church programs to continue, contingent on an agreement being reached among neighbors, neighborhood businesses and the city about the management of the church programs. (``Church ordered to limit attendance,'' Washington Times, February 18, 2000: ``Church wins on attendance,'' The Oregonian, March 2, 2000). Officials in Arapahoe County, Colorado imposed numerical limits on the number of students who could enroll in religious schools and on the size of congregations of various churches, as a way of limiting their growth. These limits directly conflicted with the mission of evangelical churches, whose fundamental goal is to attract new believers. In Douglas County, Colorado, administrative officials proposed limiting the operational hours of a church in much the same way as they limit commercial facilities. As Mark Chopko noted in his Congressional testimony, limiting a church's operational hours means that a church may not lawfully engage in certain acts of service and devotion or overnight spiritual retreats. (Testimony of Mark Chopko before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, March 26, 1998). Congregation Etz Chaim, an Orthodox Jewish congregation in Los Angeles, was meeting in a rented house, or ``shul'', in Hancock Park, a residential zone. The rabbi of the congregation, Chaim Baruch Rubin, testified that ten to fifteen men would typically visit the house for daily meetings, and forty or fifty people (many elderly and disabled) would attend on the Sabbath or holidays to engage in quiet prayer and study. Orthodox Jews must walk to services on the Sabbath and on most holidays, because their religion does not permit them to use mechanical modes of transportation on those days. When neighbors complained about the effect on property values, the congregation requested a special use permit from the City Council to remain in the residential zone. The Council unanimously rejected the request, putting the neighborhood effectively off-limits for Orthodox Jews. The same Council, however, allowed other places of assembly in Hancock Park, including schools, book clubs, recreational uses and embassy parties. Rabbi Rubin testified that 84,000 cars traveled through this part of the neighborhood daily, and yet somehow the Council deemed a prayer meeting of a few who traveled by foot as harmful to the neighborhood. Rabbi Rubin concluded his testimony by stating, what do I tell my congregants--what do I tell an 84 year old survivor of Auschwitz, a man who used to risk his life in the concentration camp whenever possible to gather together to pray? (Testimony of Rabbi Chaim Baruch Rubin before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, February 26, 1998). In the process of creating a new zoning plan covering development in the city, the City of Forest Hills, Tennessee set up an ``educational and religious zone'' called an ``ER'' for schools and churches, but limited that designation to schools and churches that already existed within the city. No other land was zoned ``ER'' under the plan, so no other property was available for the construction of a new religious building. The City also established strict requirements for changing any zone. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints determined a need for a temple in Forest Hills, and sought a zone change for property that it owned within city limits. Forest Hills rejected the church's request. The church then bought another piece of property that had previously been home to a church. Churches of other denominations were nearby. Forest Hills nevertheless rejected the church's second request citing concern about traffic, and a court upheld this determination, effectively precluding Mormons from temple worship within city limits. (Testimony of Von G. Keetch before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, March 26, 1998; Report of the House Judiciary Committee on the Religious Liberty Protection Act of 1999, 106th Congress). In 1997, the City of Richmond passed an ordinance which required places of worship wishing to feed more than thirty hungry and homeless people to apply for a conditional use permit at a cost of $1,000, plus $100 dollars per acre of affected property. The ordinance regulated only places of worship, not other institutions, and only eating by persons who are hungry and homeless. The ordinance also limited to seven days, and to the period between October 1 and April 1, the times when places of worship may feed the hungry and homeless. The City had complete discretion over the granting of conditional use permits based on its assessment of a number of subjective factors. The Rev. Patrick Wilson of Richmond, Virginia stated in his testimony: ``A $1,000 fee is beyond the means of most churches, which operate with memberships of less than 100 persons and is therefore prohibitive. Imagine that--a statutorily imposed fee for the exercise of a basic and fundamental tenet of the Christian faith! . . . Health and safety issues can be and are addressed in less odious ways.'' (Testimony of Rev. Patrick J. Wilson III before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, February 26, 1998; Preliminary and Jurisdictional Statement in Trinity Baptist Church v. City of Richmond, (E.D.Va. filed August 20, 1997.) Twenty-two of the twenty-nine zoning codes in the northern suburbs of Chicago effectively exclude churches, unless they have a special use permit. Zoning authorities hold almost wholly discretionary power over whether a house of worship may locate in these areas. John Mauck, a Chicago attorney who serves many churches in this area, handled the case of a church, His Word Ministries to All Nations, interested in buying property after it outgrew its space in the basement of a home. When it sought a special use permit in 1992, an alderman delayed the request three times, resulting in months of delay in the purchase of the building. After the third postponement of the hearing, the alderman had the church's property re-zoned as a manufacturing district. Because churches cannot locate in a manufacturing district, the church was forced to withdraw its application for special use after paying filing, attorney and appraiser fees. The church spent approximately $5,000 and wasted an entire year seeking the special use permit. (Testimony of John Mauck before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, March 26, 1998; Affidavit of Virginia Kantor in Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v. City of Chicago (N.D. Ill. 1994); Testimony of Douglas Laycock before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, July 14, 1998). In his testimony, Marc Stern stated that orthodox synagogues are often required to have a specific number of parking spaces, based on the number of seats in the sanctuary--even though the sanctuary will be filled with worshipers who do not drive. (Testimony of Marc Stern before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, March 26, 1998). Chicago attorney John Mauck testified about several cases of racially motivated opposition to black churches, and about a case in which the mayor told his city manager that they didn't want Hispanics in the town. He also testified about other statements of bigotry. Marc Stern testified about a case in which a small congregation sought permission to convert a private home into a small synagogue. One council member considering the converted use ``warned that if the application was granted, this nearly all white suburb would begin to resemble an adjoining city which was largely minority and full of storefront churches.'' (Testimony of John Mauck before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, March 26, 1998; Testimony of Douglas Laycock before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, July 14, 1998; Testimony of Marc Stern before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, March 26, 1998).

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, our bipartisan goal in introducing The Early Learning Opportunities Act is to provide greater support for parents across the country in preparing their children for a lifetime of learning, beginning at the earliest age. I commend Senators Stevens, Jeffords, Dodd, Domenici, and Kerry for their support and leadership in developing this legislation and in seeing to it that children's voices are heard and their needs are a priority in this Congress. Senator Kerry and I have worked together to improve early learning opportunities in Massachusetts, and this national initiative is based in part on successful models in our state. Senator Dodd has been an outstanding leader on children's issues for many years. Senator Jeffords, the chairman of our Senate committee, has shown great skill and determination in shaping this legislation, and in keeping our committee focused on the important issue of early learning. Senator Domenici has been an essential ally throughout the development of this bill, as has the senior Senator from Alaska. Senator Stevens and I introduced the Early Learning Trust Fund Act as a predecessor to this legislation, and he was a leader in obtaining approval of $8.5 billion for early learning in this year's Senate budget resolution. Clearly, the need for this legislation is urgent. Today's families are legitimately worried about the quality of care provided to their infants and toddlers while the parents are at work. Of mothers with children aged zero to five, a record 64 percent worked outside the home in 1999. The average cost of care for each of these children is four to ten thousand dollars a year. This is their highest expense besides food and shelter, consuming a quarter to half of their wages. Too often, even this level of sacrifice isn't enough. Many families simply cannot find quality care for their children. Facilities are dangerous, crowded, or closed at the non-traditional times that many mothers work. Low wages attract the least skilled care givers, over a third of whom quit each year. Enforcement of quality standards is rare. Elementary and Secondary education fully deserve to be a priority for the nation, but so does early learning--and it is needed at a time when many young families are least able to bear the full cost. In Massachusetts, the Community Partnerships for Children Program currently provides quality full-day early learning for 15,300 young children from low-income families. Yet today, over 14,000 additional eligible children in the state are waiting for the early learning services they need--and some have been on the waiting list for 18 months. A 1999 report by the Congressional General Accounting Office on early learning services for low-income families was unequivocal-- ``infant toddler care [is] still difficult to obtain.'' Even as the need to provide early learning opportunities increases, it is clear that many current facilities are unsafe. The average early learning provider is paid under seven dollars an hour--less than the average parking lot attendant or pet sitter. These low wages result in high turnover, poor quality of care, and little trust and bonding with the children. The Nation's military faced these same problems in the 1980's, and because of the threat that the poor quality of care posed to children, to morale, and to retention of personnel, the armed forces worked long and well to create a model program. The Defense Department now provides quality care to 200,000 children. Many European nations have followed the same path as the U.S. military, building a broad array of quality early learning models that prepare children to reach their full potential. Head Start is one example of the kind of quality program that has already proved effective throughout the United States. A recent survey found that more parents are satisfied with Head Start than any other federal program. But only two in five eligible 3- and 4-year-olds are enrolled in Head Start--and only one in 100 eligible infants and toddlers are enrolled in Early Head Start. As a result, literally millions of young children never have the chance to reach their full potential. We must do better, and we can do better. It is time to act to make early learning a top education priority for the nation, just as governors urged us to do a full decade ago. All preschool children should have access to the kind of care and brain stimulation necessary to enable them to enter school ready to learn. We cannot rest until all children have the opportunity to develop to their full potential. Academic studies have confirmed what parents have long understood-- education occurs over a continuum that begins at birth and extends throughout life. Study after study proves that positive brain stimulation very early in life significantly improves a child's later ability to learn, to interact successfully with teachers and peers, and to develop crucial skills like curiosity, trust, and perseverance. Two years ago, the Rand Corporation reported that ``after critically reviewing the literature and discounting claims that are not rigorously demonstrated, we conclude that these [early learning] programs can provide significant benefits.'' Governors, state legislatures, local governments, and educators have all supported these studies and called for increased investments in early learning as the most effective way to promote healthy and constructive behavior. The goal of this legislation is to enable all children to enter school ready to learn, and to maximize the impact of federal, state, and local investments in education. We must do more to ensure that children have access to the experiences they need during the five or six years before they walk through their first schoolhouse door. Education begins at birth. It is not a process that occurs only in a school building during a school day. When our policies respond to this reality, we will reduce delinquency, improve productivity, and become a stronger and better nation. Early learning programs are good for children, good for parents and good for society as a whole. The Committee for Economic Development reports that the nation can save over five dollars in the future for every dollar invested in early learning today. The investment significantly reduces the number of families on welfare, the number of children in special education, and the number of children in the juvenile justice system. Investment in early learning is not only morally right--it is economically right. Two months ago, Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, a bipartisan coalition including hundreds of police chiefs, sheriffs, and crime victims, released another convincing report. It finds that children who receive quality early learning are half as likely to commit crimes and be arrested later in life. Our greatest opportunity to reach at-risk children is in their youngest years. It is especially important for low-income parents who accept the responsibility of work under welfare reform to have access to quality early learning opportunities for their children. The central idea of welfare reform is that families caught in a cycle of dependence can be shown that work pays. But children's development must not be sacrificed as families move from welfare to work. We must expand access to Head Start and Early Head Start. We must make parenting assistance available to all who want it. We must support model state efforts that have already proved successful, such as Community Partnerships for Children in Massachusetts and Smart Start in North Carolina, which rely on local councils to identify early learning needs in each community and allocate new resources to meet them. We must give higher priority to early childhood literacy. In ways such as these, we can take bolder action to strengthen early learning opportunities in communities across the nation. The legislation that we introduce today will move us closer to all of these goals. It includes $3.25 billion over the next three years to enable local communities to fill the gaps that limit current early learning efforts. Local councils will direct the funds to the most urgent needs in each community. These needs include parenting support and education--improving child care quality through professional development and retention initiatives--expanding the times and the days that parents can obtain these services--enhancing childhood literacy-- and greater early learning opportunities for children with special needs. These priorities are designed to strengthen early learning programs in all communities across the country, and give each community the opportunity to invest the funds in ways that will meet its most urgent needs. Much more needs to be done to improve early learning throughout America. But we know from our experience in improving the military's early learning program that with small steps, over time we can go a long way. I urge the Senate to approve this important bill, and I look forward to its enactment and to the significant differences it will make.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand, I have 8 minutes; is that correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Kerry's proposal to create a housing trust fund. In this period of strong economic growth and record expansion, the lack of affordable housing is an increasingly serious problem for millions of families across the country, especially low income families struggling to lift themselves out of poverty. Our national prosperity means less if firefighers, teachers, police officers, nurses, and many other hard- working Americans cannot afford to live in the communities where they work. As long ago as 1949, the nation pledged safe, clean, decent housing for all Americans. As we begin a new century, this promise is still unfulfilled. Even worse we are not making even modest progress to achieve this goal. The rising cost of housing is one of the most difficult challenges for many families. It is particularly serious for the elderly, many of whom also face the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs as well. In a period of economic prosperity such as the one we now enjoy, it is wrong that we have one of the lowest housing production levels in history. Affordable housing must be a higher priority for the Congress. Over the past five years, more than $20 billion has either been rescinded or diverted by Congress from federal housing programs for other uses, while the number of Americans who cannot afford a decent place to live continues to rise. The problem is particularly acute in Massachusetts. The average time on waiting lists for public housing and housing vouchers is over 3 years, and more than 13,000 families are on those waiting lists. In the Greater Boston area, affordable housing is not only a problem for many families, it is becoming a problem for businesses. Many of the most successful companies report difficulties in their efforts to attract and retain employees because of the high cost of housing. Without an ability to retain a strong workforce, unaffordable housing threatens to undermine prosperity at every level, federal, state, and local. The costs of new construction and rehabilitation of existing housing are very high. The price of owning a home is increasing faster in Massachusetts than in any other state in the country. I support the Clinton's Administration's budget request of $32.5 billion for the Department of Housing and Urban Development for FY 2001, a 25 percent increase over FY 2000. By contrast, the budget adopted by the Republican Congress in April proposed a $400 million reduction in the HUD budget. The Trust Fund proposed by this amendment is an important start to ending this period of disinvestment. Senator Kerry's amendment will provide funds for new units and for the renovation of existing units, along with increases in ownership. It channels money through local and state governments, primarily to already established programs with a track record of success. The majority of Trust Fund assistance will be used for the neediest families, including the working poor. As we debate the misguided priority of massive tax relief for the wealthiest 2 percent of estates, I urge my colleagues instead to consider the needs of millions of families who are working hard, but who find it increasingly difficult to afford housing for their families. I urge the Senate to support this amendment. Housing must be a higher priority for Congress. The time to act is now.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. President, with all due respect to the Senator from Oklahoma, I think the two Senators from North Dakota spelled out very clearly and convincingly the differences between the position taken by the Republican majority, and the alternative proposed by Democrats. The Democratic proposal basically and fairly addresses legitimate concerns in the estate tax by essentially removing the estate tax from small farms and businesses. That presentation has been made effectively by the Democrats. I don't think anything that has been said in the recent moments undermines the credibility of the Democratic position. I think the Democratic alternative proposal reflects the views of the overwhelming majority of the Democrats on this issue. I am somewhat amazed as we come into the final days of this period of the Congress that we are talking about how we are going to reduce the taxes for the wealthiest 2,400 Americans. These people pay half of all current estate taxes. In the outer years, the second decade after a repeal, the 400 wealthiest families in this country would save $250 billion in taxes under the Republican plan. That explains why some of our colleagues on the other side insist that we spend the Senate's limited time addressing only the concerns of the wealthy. The fact is, we have 10 million Americans today who would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage. We know the minimum wage has fallen substantially behind in its purchasing power. Why isn't the Senate of the United States debating what we will do for the 10 million hard-working Americans, working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year, in some of the most challenging jobs in our society? What is it about the priorities of the Republicans trying to protect the interests of the very wealthiest individuals in our society, rather than trying to deal with the hard-working Americans who are at lower levels of the economic ladder--in this case, hard-working Americans making minimum wage? Many of these workers are women, including women who have children; and a significant number are men and women of color. This is a family issue. It is a children's issue. It is basically a fairness issue. No, the Republicans with this issue want to reduce taxes on the wealthiest individuals, $250 billion additional for the 400 wealthiest families in this country. Should that surprise Members? No. I look back to the debate from the mid-1990s. Perhaps some Members remember the famous tax loophole called the Benedict Arnold tax loophole that permits Americans to accumulate billions and billions of dollars in this great land. And then what does a citizen do? He basically renounces his citizenship and takes those billions of dollars out of the country, tax free. It is the Benedict Arnold tax loophole. I went over the various votes we had to end this deplorable practice. We voted at least seven times on that. Every time we had a sense-of- the-Senate resolution that was non-binding, our Republican friends voted with us to eliminate this Billionaire tax loophole, but when had substantive votes to actually do something about it, they voted against us. Just about a month ago, in May the Wall Street Journal reported that the loopholes enabling the super-rich to renounce their citizenship and avoid tax remain. The loopholes in the expatriate tax law are so big that you could fly a jumbo jet through them. The basic Benedict Arnold loophole remains alive and well--costing the Treasury billions and billions of dollars. President Clinton has joined Democrats in repeatedly proposing to end all of the loopholes. His February 2000 budget includes repeal. But we see no action from the Republicans. We only see them wanting to add more escape hatches for the super-rich. Why is it that the Republicans are so prepared to protect the financial interests of the wealthiest individuals? We ought to be taking these resources and investing them in our schools. We need significant investments in education so that our children can attend modern schools, schools that are worthwhile for their attendance, schools with small class sizes, and schools with trained teachers. Many Republicans talk about these needs, but when it comes to action, they want to focus on adding to the riches of the rich. The nation deserves much better than this estate tax repeal plan. We ought to be debating here this afternoon the interest in a prescription drug program that will look after 40 million Americans, instead of 2,400. It is very clear what the priorities are. The other side, the Republicans, are looking after the financial interests of the wealthiest individuals in this country, and many of us believe that we, at this time, ought to be debating what we are going to do to protect the hard-working Americans who are making the minimum wage, those senior citizens who need a prescription drug coverage, or the children of this country who need new, modern schools. That is what the issue ought to be.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. As the Joint Tax Committee pointed out, as printed in the New York Times today, according to the data, 95 percent of the roughly 6,000 farmers who paid estate taxes that year would have been exempted under the terms of the Democratic plan, as would 88 percent of the roughly 10,000 small business owners who paid the tax. That responds to my good friends from Texas and Arkansas. I understand they want to protect any tax loophole that is in there. We have a billionaire tax loophole that has permitted billionaires to leave the country, renounce their citizenship, and pay no tax at all. They have defended that in the past. The fact is, the wealthiest individuals are still going to get $150 billion in tax breaks. All we are saying is that it is more valuable to invest in the education of the children of this country than to give the 400 richest families in this country $250 billion. That is what this amendment does. The 400 richest families, according to Forbes magazine, get $250 billion; 2,400 families get $300 billion. We are saying, $150 billion for them. We need to get to what is essential to our national interest, and that is children. It is a matter of priorities. They want to protect the billionaires' tax loophole; they want to protect the 400 wealthiest families in this country. We want to be debating the minimum wage this afternoon. We want to debate education and education funding. This chart shows where the Republican Party has been in the last 7 years on education. I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. It shows they have effectively cut education every single year in either the House appropriations committee or in the Senate. The only one who has saved the education budget is President Clinton. Do you hear that? President Clinton. Respond to these facts. We ought to be debating the elementary and secondary education bill this afternoon. That is what Senator Bingaman wants to do. That is what I want to do. But, no; Republicans want to debate a $250 billion cut for 400 of the wealthiest families. That is what we are spending time doing. These are the wrong priorities for America. If we want to get back to the right priorities that are in the Bingaman amendment, Senators will vote with him when the time comes.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, our bipartisan goal in introducing The Early Learning Opportunities Act is to provide greater support for parents across the country in preparing their children for a lifetime of learning, beginning at the earliest age. I commend Senators Stevens, Jeffords, Dodd, Domenici, and Kerry for their support and leadership in developing this legislation and in seeing to it that children's voices are heard and their needs are a priority in this Congress. Senator Kerry and I have worked together to improve early learning opportunities in Massachusetts, and this national initiative is based in part on successful models in our state. Senator Dodd has been an outstanding leader on children's issues for many years. Senator Jeffords, the chairman of our Senate committee, has shown great skill and determination in shaping this legislation, and in keeping our committee focused on the important issue of early learning. Senator Domenici has been an essential ally throughout the development of this bill, as has the senior Senator from Alaska. Senator Stevens and I introduced the Early Learning Trust Fund Act as a predecessor to this legislation, and he was a leader in obtaining approval of $8.5 billion for early learning in this year's Senate budget resolution. Clearly, the need for this legislation is urgent. Today's families are legitimately worried about the quality of care provided to their infants and toddlers while the parents are at work. Of mothers with children aged zero to five, a record 64 percent worked outside the home in 1999. The average cost of care for each of these children is four to ten thousand dollars a year. This is their highest expense besides food and shelter, consuming a quarter to half of their wages. Too often, even this level of sacrifice isn't enough. Many families simply cannot find quality care for their children. Facilities are dangerous, crowded, or closed at the non-traditional times that many mothers work. Low wages attract the least skilled care givers, over a third of whom quit each year. Enforcement of quality standards is rare. Elementary and Secondary education fully deserve to be a priority for the nation, but so does early learning--and it is needed at a time when many young families are least able to bear the full cost. In Massachusetts, the Community Partnerships for Children Program currently provides quality full-day early learning for 15,300 young children from low-income families. Yet today, over 14,000 additional eligible children in the state are waiting for the early learning services they need--and some have been on the waiting list for 18 months. A 1999 report by the Congressional General Accounting Office on early learning services for low-income families was unequivocal-- ``infant toddler care [is] still difficult to obtain.'' Even as the need to provide early learning opportunities increases, it is clear that many current facilities are unsafe. The average early learning provider is paid under seven dollars an hour--less than the average parking lot attendant or pet sitter. These low wages result in high turnover, poor quality of care, and little trust and bonding with the children. The Nation's military faced these same problems in the 1980's, and because of the threat that the poor quality of care posed to children, to morale, and to retention of personnel, the armed forces worked long and well to create a model program. The Defense Department now provides quality care to 200,000 children. Many European nations have followed the same path as the U.S. military, building a broad array of quality early learning models that prepare children to reach their full potential. Head Start is one example of the kind of quality program that has already proved effective throughout the United States. A recent survey found that more parents are satisfied with Head Start than any other federal program. But only two in five eligible 3- and 4-year-olds are enrolled in Head Start--and only one in 100 eligible infants and toddlers are enrolled in Early Head Start. As a result, literally millions of young children never have the chance to reach their full potential. We must do better, and we can do better. It is time to act to make early learning a top education priority for the nation, just as governors urged us to do a full decade ago. All preschool children should have access to the kind of care and brain stimulation necessary to enable them to enter school ready to learn. We cannot rest until all children have the opportunity to develop to their full potential. Academic studies have confirmed what parents have long understood-- education occurs over a continuum that begins at birth and extends throughout life. Study after study proves that positive brain stimulation very early in life significantly improves a child's later ability to learn, to interact successfully with teachers and peers, and to develop crucial skills like curiosity, trust, and perseverance. Two years ago, the Rand Corporation reported that ``after critically reviewing the literature and discounting claims that are not rigorously demonstrated, we conclude that these [early learning] programs can provide significant benefits.'' Governors, state legislatures, local governments, and educators have all supported these studies and called for increased investments in early learning as the most effective way to promote healthy and constructive behavior. The goal of this legislation is to enable all children to enter school ready to learn, and to maximize the impact of federal, state, and local investments in education. We must do more to ensure that children have access to the experiences they need during the five or six years before they walk through their first schoolhouse door. Education begins at birth. It is not a process that occurs only in a school building during a school day. When our policies respond to this reality, we will reduce delinquency, improve productivity, and become a stronger and better nation. Early learning programs are good for children, good for parents and good for society as a whole. The Committee for Economic Development reports that the nation can save over five dollars in the future for every dollar invested in early learning today. The investment significantly reduces the number of families on welfare, the number of children in special education, and the number of children in the juvenile justice system. Investment in early learning is not only morally right--it is economically right. Two months ago, Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, a bipartisan coalition including hundreds of police chiefs, sheriffs, and crime victims, released another convincing report. It finds that children who receive quality early learning are half as likely to commit crimes and be arrested later in life. Our greatest opportunity to reach at-risk children is in their youngest years. It is especially important for low-income parents who accept the responsibility of work under welfare reform to have access to quality early learning opportunities for their children. The central idea of welfare reform is that families caught in a cycle of dependence can be shown that work pays. But children's development must not be sacrificed as families move from welfare to work. We must expand access to Head Start and Early Head Start. We must make parenting assistance available to all who want it. We must support model state efforts that have already proved successful, such as Community Partnerships for Children in Massachusetts and Smart Start in North Carolina, which rely on local councils to identify early learning needs in each community and allocate new resources to meet them. We must give higher priority to early childhood literacy. In ways such as these, we can take bolder action to strengthen early learning opportunities in communities across the nation. The legislation that we introduce today will move us closer to all of these goals. It includes $3.25 billion over the next three years to enable local communities to fill the gaps that limit current early learning efforts. Local councils will direct the funds to the most urgent needs in each community. These needs include parenting support and education--improving child care quality through professional development and retention initiatives--expanding the times and the days that parents can obtain these services--enhancing childhood literacy-- and greater early learning opportunities for children with special needs. These priorities are designed to strengthen early learning programs in all communities across the country, and give each community the opportunity to invest the funds in ways that will meet its most urgent needs. Much more needs to be done to improve early learning throughout America. But we know from our experience in improving the military's early learning program that with small steps, over time we can go a long way. I urge the Senate to approve this important bill, and I look forward to its enactment and to the significant differences it will make.