Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it has been more than a year since the Columbine tragedy, but still this Republican Congress refuses to act on sensible gun legislation. Since Columbine, thousands of Americans have been killed by gunfire. Until we act, Democrats in the Senate will read some of the names of those who lost their lives to gun violence in the past year, and we will continue to do so every day that the Senate is session. In the name of those who died, we will continue this fight. Following are the names of some of the people who were killed by gunfire one year ago today. July 13, 1999: Debbie Ahl, 39, Nashville, TN; Desiree Battle, Detroit, MI; Antonio Darias, 49, Miami-Dade County, FL; Leonardo Duran, 18, Houston, TX; Doug Harris, 31, Cincinnati, OH; Stefanie Harris, 29, Cincinnati, OH; Romero Jones, 19, St. Louis, MO; Sigmund Linberger, 34, Akron, OH; Michael McKinnon, 18, Nashville, TN; Rodolfo Recendez, 32, Fort Worth, TX; Dylan Sertich, 22, Toledo, OH; Unidentified male, 16, Long Beach, CA; Unidentified male, 35, Nashville, TN. One of the victims of gun violence I mentioned, 19-year-old Romero Jones from Missouri, grew up in tough circumstances and turned his life around after a troublesome childhood. Romero worked with his city's ``Cease Fire Program'' to reach out to young people to encourage them to give up their involvement with gangs and pursue job training and careers. Romero sat on the stage with President Clinton during the President's 1995 visit to St. Louis to discuss the city's successes in addressing crime. Romero was shot and killed in what police say was a case of mistaken identity--no drugs or money were found in Romero's home following his tragic death. We cannot sit back and allow such senseless gun violence to continue. The time has come to enact sensible gun legislation. Our country cannot afford to lose more of its promising young leaders like Romero Jones. His death is a reminder to all of us that we need to act now.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join in commending my friend from Utah on this proposal. We are moving into the life science century with absolutely extraordinary breakthroughs in so many areas. We want to see a continuation of the R&D from the private sector, with an element of the public sector, as well. I think this Congress has wisely doubled the NIH budget, for example, and also seen an expanded research in other areas of the agencies that we have witnessed in recent times. That has not always been the case in recent times where we have a combination of the opportunity for creativity and expansion in terms of our economy in many fields, particularly the areas of health, are virtually unlimited. This will make an enormous difference. I congratulate the Senator from Utah. Seeing my friend and colleague, the ranking minority member, I am mindful of the fact during the height of the Japanese recession, when they were hard pressed in terms of their economic future, what did the Japanese Government do? They tripled the R&D budget. We have seen similar examples in Europe. As a result of these incentives in trying to bring more research and development, we have seen the restoration of important economies of the world. We have a strong economy and we want to keep it this way. Having this permanent will be a very important contribution in ensuring that. I congratulate the Senator. I ask unanimous consent to be a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support this amendment to permanently extend the R&D tax credit. I presented a similar amendment last year, and I commend Senator Hatch's leadership on this important issue. Many have called this the century of life sciences. We are witnessing extraordinary breakthroughs which are both transforming our quality of life and fueling our economy. The R&D tax credit is a proven effective means to generate increased research and development in the life sciences, and it is a key ingredient in the continued success and growth of the nation's economy. Much of America's technological leadership today and in the past has been stimulated by federal support for private investment in R&D. The Congress has wisely decided to double the NIH budget. We need to continue to strengthen these investments as a top national priority. A main virtue of the credit is that it encourages investments in the kind of research that ensures long-term competitiveness. Often, private sector research focuses on closer horizons, and the credit is important in encouraging a longer-term focus as well. Research and development now generate about 5,000 new jobs a year, and significant amounts in taxes for the federal treasury. Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan has cited increased productivity as the source of our current record breaking economy. It accounts for 70% of our economic growth. This record-breaking economy provides an unprecedented opportunity for increased creativity and expansion. Particularly in the health field, our ability to increase our R&D investment will make an enormous difference in our fight against disease and in our efforts to improve the quality of life for so many. Making the R&D tax credit permanent is essential for encouraging continued investment by private industry. Without a permanent credit, industry lacks the certainty needed to make decisions about continuing investments. A permanent R&D credit will do more to encourage investment in the long-term research projects needed to keep our companies--and our nation--at the cutting edge of competition in the world economy. In the last session of Congress we were able to extend the credit temporarily again. I am hopeful that this year, with bipartisan support, we can make the credit permanent. The credit has been extended 10 times since 1981. But this on-again off-again pattern makes the credit less reliable, and diminishes the important incentives that the credit can provide. I am mindful that at the height of the Japanese recession, Japan has managed to triple its R&D budget. European countries are increasing their budgets as well. Congress should do all it can to give R&D the top priority it deserves. Stable and substantial federal funding is essential for fundamental scientific research. We must also support private investment in fundamental research across a wide spectrum of disciplines. In failing to do so, we run the risk of slowing the nation's economic engines. I am proud of the leadership of Massachusetts on these issues. According to a study by the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, the state received $3.45 billion in federal research and development funds in 1997, amounting to 37% of total research and development spending in the state and received the sixth-largest share of federal R&D funding in the nation. A large number of Massachusetts firms have joined in a letter emphasizing the importance of the R&D credit and I ask unanimous consent that the letter may be printed in the record at the conclusion of my remarks. The Joint Economic Committee, in two sets of Congressional hearings this year and last year, focused on the important role of science and technology in our society and our economy. Witness after witness testified about the importance of making this credit permanent. I look forward to continuing work with all of my colleagues to see that R&D receives the top priority it deserves. The current partnership between the government, the academic world, and the private sector is affected, and it deserves to be strengthened. I congratulate my colleague on this important amendment, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it. Our economic future deserves no less. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President I yield myself 5 minutes. Earlier today, we had an excellent presentation made by the two Senators from North Dakota about the Democratic alternative. In those presentations, they pointed out that the arguments made on the other side about the importance of changing the estate tax so it addressed the needs of family farms and small businesses would be addressed in the Democratic alternative. The basic Republican position is to hold those small family farmers hostage until they get what is the ``big apple,'' which will provide some $700 billion to the wealthiest individuals in this country; 2,400 taxpayers will get $300 billion in tax relief. The Forbes 400 families will get, effectively, $250 billion. As the Senator from New Mexico has pointed out, this is an issue of our priorities. What his amendment says is that we can address the particular needs of the family farms and small businesses, and rather than use all the other kinds of revenues, out of the difference between the $64 billion and the $104 billion of the Republicans, we can take $11 billion of that this year and use those scarce funds in order to try to meet the educational needs of the children of this country. That is what this is about. As was pointed out by the Senator from New Mexico, this is really a choice about priorities. Are we interested in providing tax breaks for the wealthiest individuals in our society, or are we interested in investing in the children of our country? We will have an opportunity to address that in just a few moments. What we have seen in the past decade is an explosion in the number of children who are attending grades K through 12--going from 46.4 million in 1990 all the way up to 53.4 million in the year 2000. At the same time, we have seen a rather dramatic reduction in Federal support for elementary and secondary education from the 1980s; in 1980, 11.9 percent out of every dollar spent came from the Federal Government, and this was down to 7.7 percent in fiscal year 1999. We have also seen this lowering in higher education. We addressed this issue in the Schumer amendment earlier--unsuccessfully. But we had a debate on it. This measure addresses this differential in elementary and secondary education. It is fair enough to ask whether the substance of this amendment will make very much of a difference to the children in this country. Once again, we have the most recent reports and the most recent studies that have been done by the Congressional Research Service that point out, as of the very end of June of this year, their evaluation of what has happened with smaller class sizes in California. California's class size reduction shows that reducing class size improves student achievement. A study of the first 3 years of class size reduction in California shows that smaller classes have boosted student achievement in communities across the State for the second year in a row. It says the evaluation shows that though students in the most disadvantaged schools were more likely to be in larger classes and have less qualified teachers, students in smaller classes still outperform their peers in larger classes, even with less-qualified teachers. These students could be performing even better if all the children in those schools have fully qualified teachers and smaller class sizes. That is exactly what this amendment does. I don't know how often we have to bring in the latest evidence. Here is the latest evidence, which shows students will perform better with smaller class sizes and better trained teachers. This amendment also provides afterschool programs with tutorial, tough accountability standards, dropout prevention programs, a billion dollars for special needs in IDEA, and a modest program to try to address the $112 billion necessary for school construction--you make a difference when you invest in the children of this country. We are here to say that we believe one of the priorities of American families ought to be in using this money to invest in the children and not to provide a windfall tax break for 2,400 of the wealthiest individuals in this country. That is what this vote is about. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this past year, the men and women of the Armed Forces proved, once again, the value of a strong and ready military. Since the end of the Cold War, our Armed Forces have been busier, and have conducted a greater variety of missions around the world, than at any other time during our nation's history, short of war. Our forces ended Serb aggression in Kosovo, brought peace to East Timor, and aided earthquake victims in Turkey. At this moment, American service men and women are monitoring the demilitarized zone in Korea, enforcing the no-fly zones over Iraq, patrolling the Arabian Gulf for oil smugglers, and assisting in the battle against drugs in Central and South America. These activities are in addition to the daily operations they conduct at home and with our allies overseas to maintain the readiness of our forces. Our National Guard and Reserve members continue as equal partners in carrying out our national security and national military strategies. Last May, in the span of only one week, C-5 transport aircraft from the 439th Airlift Wing at Westover Air Reserve Base in Massachusetts carried helicopters and equipment to Trinidad-Tobago to aid in the war against drugs, flew the Navy's new mini-submarine to Hawaii, an unprecedented accomplishment and a tribute to their ingenuity and resourcefulness, airlifted Marines to Greece, carried supplies to Europe, and continued their very important training at home. Last week, over a hundred citizen-soldiers from Bravo Company of the 368th Engineer Combat Battalion left their homes in Attleboro, Massachusetts for duty in Kosovo. These are just a few examples of what Guard and Reserve members from every state, do for us each day around the world. We ask the men and women of our Armed Forces to prepare for and respond to every contingency, from supporting humanitarian relief efforts, peacekeeping, and enforcing United Nations sanctions, to fighting a full-scale Major Theater War. A quarter million of our service members are deployed around the world to deter aggression, keep the peace, promote democracy, and foster goodwill and cooperation with our allies, and even with our potential adversaries. All of our men and women in uniform put our nation's interests above their own. When called upon, they risk their lives for our freedom. As a nation, we often take this sacrifice for granted, until we are reminded of it again by tragic events such as the April training accident in Arizona, where 19 Marines lost their lives in the line of duty. These Marines paid the ultimate sacrifice for their country, and it was fitting for the Senate to honor them with a resolution. I commend my colleague Senator Snowe for her leadership on that resolution. More recently, this week, two Arizona Army Guardsmen lost their lives when their Apache helicopter crashed in a night training exercise. Two Navy pilots were killed in a training accident in Maryland. The cost of training in the name of peace and security is high. One of Congress' most important duties is to make sure that our Armed Forces are able to meet the many challenges of an increasingly unstable international environment. Both the Director of Central Intelligence and the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that, more than at any other time in the nation's history, we are at risk of ``substantial surprise'' by adversaries. Their views are supported by the worldwide expansion of information technology, the proliferation of dual-use technology, and the fact that the expertise to develop weapons of mass destruction is available and for hire on the open market. The growing resentment by potential adversaries of our status as the last superpower makes us susceptible to hostile acts ranging from computer attacks to chemical or biological terrorism. Our military must be equipped to deter this aggression and, if necessary, counter it. The FY 2001 National Defense Authorization Bill takes a positive step toward doing so. The many activities which our forces have undertaken and maintained in the past decade, in spite of reduced resources, has taken a toll on our people, their equipment, and readiness. This bill continues the increases in defense spending needed to reverse this trend that the President and Congress began last year. At $310 billion, this bill represents real growth, and a necessary investment in the future of the nation's security. At the heart of our armed forces are the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who took the oath of office to support and defend the Constitution against all of our enemies, foreign and domestic. Clearly, without them, we could not preserve our freedom. Attracting young men and women to serve, and retaining them in an all-volunteer force, is more challenging than ever. Last year, Congress authorized the largest pay raise in nearly two decades, reformed the pay table, and restored the 50% retirement benefit. This year, we continue these efforts to support our service members and their families, by granting a 3.7 percent pay raise, which is one-half percent above inflation. We also provide for the gradual reduction to zero--over five years --of out-of-pocket housing expenses for service members living off base, and we provide better military health care for family members. The bill also directs the implementation of the Thrift Savings Plan that Congress authorized last year. The welfare of the men and women of our armed forces is rightly at the center of this year's Defense Authorization Bill. The bill also takes a bold and necessary step to honoring the promise of lifetime health care for military retirees. The Armed Services Committee heeded the needs of our military retirees, and addressed their number one priority--the cost of prescription drugs. The Defense Authorization Bill expands the Base Realignment and Closure pharmacy benefit--already available to 450,000 retirees--to the entire 1.4 million Medicare-eligible military retiree community. This benefit lets all men and women in uniform know that we care about their service, and that a career in the military is honorable and worth pursuing. It also lets all military retirees know that Congress is listening, cares, and is willing to act on their behalf. The bill also continues and expands health care demonstration programs to evaluate how we can best address the health care needs of these retirees. We must complete the evaluation of these programs and move to answer their needs. I am hopeful that soon, we will be able to do more. The bill also enhances efforts to prepare for and respond to other threats. It authorizes five additional Civil Support Teams to a total of 32 by the end of FY 2001. The teams will be specially trained and equipped to respond to the suspected use of weapons of mass destruction on American soil. While we hope they will never be needed, we must be prepared for any emergency. The bill adds $74 million for programs to protect against chemical and biological agents, and it funds the research and development for a second generation, single-shot anthrax vaccine. The men and women of our Armed Forces need this support now. Each service has taken steps to protect the environment, but too little has been done to detect and deal with the effects of unexploded ordnance. On the Massachusetts Military Reservation, unexploded ordnance may be contaminating the soil and groundwater in the area. This situation is unacceptable. If it is not addressed now, it could cause irreparable harm to the environment and the people who live there. Unexploded ordnance is a problem in every active and formerly-used live-fire training facility. The bill includes $10 million to develop and test new technologies to detect unexploded ordnance and analyze and map the presence of their contaminants, so that they can be more easily cleaned up. For too many years, this issue has been ignored. The time has come for the Department of Defense to take on the task of removing UXO. This step is essential to ensure the continued operation of training ranges, which are vital to the continued readiness of our forces and the safe reuse of facilities that have been closed. Last May, the country felt the effect of a simple computer virus that disabled e-mail systems throughout the world, and cost industry billions of dollars. The ``Love Bug'' virus also reportedly infected classified e-mail systems within the Department of Defense. Last year, more than 22,000 cyber-attacks took place on DOD computer systems--a 300 percent increase over the previous year. The cyber threat to national security will become more complex and more disruptive in the future. Our armed forces must be better prepared to deal with this threat and to protect these information systems. The bill adds $77 million to address this serious and growing threat. In the Seapower Subcommittee, under the leadership of our distinguished chair, Senator Snowe, we heard testimony and continued concern about the Navy's force structure, the shipbuilding rate, and the overall readiness of the fleet. I support the Secretary of the Navy's decision to increase R&D spending for the new land-attack destroyer, DD-21, but I am concerned about the delay in the program, the effect of this delay on fire support requirements of the Marine Corps, and its effect on our shipbuilding industrial base. The bill includes $550 million for DD-21 research and development. It also asks the Navy to report to Congress on the feasibility of starting DD-21 construction in FY 2004, as originally scheduled, for delivery by 2009, and the effects of the current delay on the destroyer shipbuilding industrial base. To ease the strain on the shipbuilding industrial base, the bill authorizes the extension of the DDG-51 multi-year procurement, approved by Congress in 1997, to include procurements through fiscal year 2005. This increase will bring greater near-term health to our destroyer shipyards. It could raise the Navy's overall shipbuilding rate to an acceptable level of 9 ships for each of those years, and it could save almost $600 million for these ships by avoiding the additional unit cost of building them at a smaller rate. This increase benefits the Navy, the shipyards, and the shipyard workers, and it is fiscally responsible. I am particularly concerned about one section of the bill that closes the School of the Americas and then reopens it as the Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation. Despite the additional human rights curriculum, I am concerned that well-known abuses by the School's graduates have caused irreparable harm to its credibility. The School accounts for less than 10 percent of the joint education and training programs conducted by the U.S. military for Latin American forces, but it has graduated some of the most notorious human rights abusers in our hemisphere. A report of the UN Truth Commission on the School implicated former trainees, including death squad organizer Robert D'Abuisson, in atrocities committed in El Salvador. During the investigation of the 1989 murder of six Jesuit priests in El Salvador, it turned out that 19 of the 26 people implicated in this case were graduates of the School. Other graduates include Leopoldo Galtieri, the former head of the Argentine junta, Manuel Noriega, the former dictator of Panama, and Augusto Pinochet, the former dictator of Chile. In September 1996, after years of accusations that the School teaches soldiers how to torture and commit other human rights violations, the Department of Defense acknowledged that instructors at the School had taught such techniques. I welcome the Army's recognition that human rights and civil-military relations must be a top priority in our programs with Latin America. The provision in this bill, will close the School and immediately reopen it with a new name at the same location, with the same students and with much of the same curriculum. But this step will not solve the problems that have plagued this institution. I commend my colleague, Representative Moakley, for his leadership on this issue and his proposal to create a Task Force to assess the type of education and training appropriate for the Department of Defense to provide to military personnel of Latin American nations. These issues demand our attention, and we must address them more effectively. In summary, I commend my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee for their leadership in dealing with the many challenges facing our nation on national defense. This bill keeps the faith with the 2.2 million men and women who make up our active duty, guard, and reserve forces. It is vital to our nation's security, and I urge the Senate to approve it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. In response to the Senator, one of the amendments is to try to make sure that in the future there is going to be adequate training so we are not going to have to offer these jobs necessarily to immigrants, but they would be available to Americans who do not have those skills. To make an argument on the floor of the Senate that we are going to deny American workers the kind of training to get these high-paying jobs and participate in the expanding economy is just preposterous. That evidently is what the Senator from New Hampshire is doing. That is one of the key amendments that has been objected to by the Republicans. This is what we are trying to do, to have training programs that are basically structured or organized, or education in the computer sciences through the National Science Foundation, through existing training programs so that we are not duplicating other training programs. It has been objected to. I commend our leader. These are common sense amendments to an issue which can mean a great deal in an expanding economy and can make a great difference to American workers. I cannot understand--I do understand because I think the Senator has been correct--why our Republican friends are constantly objecting to common sense measures which are absolutely relevant and absolutely essential in terms of the H-1B issue.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. Just for a question. As I understand it, the majority leader is going to propound a unanimous consent request to consider the Defense authorization bill. I will not object to that. But I hope the leader would consider moving back to the consideration of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act at an evening session following the disposition. I do not want to object to moving to this particular proposal, but I expect to object to going to other proposals if we are not given at least some assurance that we are going to revisit the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I commend the leader for having the night sessions. I think this is challenging all of us. I think we ought to be responsive to that. I certainly welcome the leader's determination to move the process forward in the Senate, but I hope at least the leader could work out, with our leadership, some opportunity for an early return to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I will not object on this particular request this evening, but I do want to indicate, as that debate is going on for tonight and tomorrow evening, I hope we will have the opportunity for the leader to speak with Senator Daschle and work out a process. If we are not going to do that, then I will be constrained to object in the future, until we have some opportunity, with certainty, of revisiting the elementary and secondary education legislation, which is so basic and fundamentally important to families in this country. I thank the leader for yielding.

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator can yield for a very brief observation?

Mr. KENNEDY. I think that is a very reasonable request, with the understanding that school safety and security is also of fundamental importance to families and to schools. I think we have had good debates on class size, on afterschool programs, on well-trained teachers, new technologies, on accountability, measures about training programs and other programs. We can debate all of those matters. If we do not have safety in the schools as well, those matters will have much less relevance than they otherwise might. I guess we still have some differences with the majority leader on the issue of school safety. I think most parents in the country believe that is a relevant amendment. Under the particular procedures of the Senate, it might be declared not to be, but certainly I think, for most Members of the Senate, it would be. I, for one, would be willing to let that decision be made by the Senate, if we could have a vote up or down on that issue, about whether it is relevant or not relevant. I have not mentioned it or talked it over with the sponsors of the amendment or the leader, but I would think we could have a judgment made on that by the Senate itself in a very quick order and have that resolved and then move to the other amendments, if it is agreeable with the majority leader.

Mr. KENNEDY. Let the Senate work its will. He indicated he would. After he objects, our Democratic leader will ask to go to that, will move to go to H-1B, put it before the Senate, and let's go ahead and consider it.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator be willing to go to H-1B tonight, ask consent to go without the restrictions? I certainly urge our Democratic leadership to go to it. If he wants to go to it, let's go to H-1B.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the leader.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I understood we are in morning business at this time. Are we moving toward the Defense authorization bill? If we are moving on the Defense authorization bill, I will withhold.

Mr. KENNEDY. I see my friends from Michigan and Virginia. Anytime they are prepared to request the floor, I will yield time.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, each year the American Immigration Law Foundation and the American Immigration Lawyers Association sponsor a national writing contest on immigration. Thousands of fifth grade students across the country participate in the competition, answering the question, ``Why I'm Glad America is a Nation of Immigrants.'' In fact, ``A Nation of Immigrants'' was the title of a book that President Kennedy wrote in 1958, when he was a Senator. In this book, and throughout his life, he celebrated America's great heritage and history of immigration as a principal source of the nation's progress and achievements. As one of the judges of this year's contest, I was impressed by the quality of writing that was presented and the great pride of these students in America's immigrant heritage. Many of these essays told the story of their own family's immigration to the United States. The winner of this year's contest is Kaitlin Young, a fifth grader at St. Anne Elementary School in Warren, Michigan. She wrote about her diverse immigrant background and how this diversity enriches her life. Other students honored for their creative essays were Shayna Walton of Arizona, John Klaasen of Washington, Allison Paige Sigmon of North Carolina, and Christa Conway of Connecticut. I believe that these award winning essays from the ``Celebrate America'' contest will be of interest to all of us in the Senate, and I ask that they may be printed in the Record. The essays are as follow. Immigration & Me (By Kaitlin Young, Warren, MI, grand prize winner) If it weren't for immigration, the diversity in me I might be a Who-not on my family tree. English, Irish, Dutch, American Indian too Italian ancestry in the mix, a family tree in bloom. America welcomed my ancestors-a promise to be free Ellis Island & the Statue of Liberty are symbols dear to me. Our country's promise, the freedom to worship here Practice our family customs and belief we hold dear. The promise of America rings throughout me The Torch of Freedom helped shape my family tree. My Grandmas and Grandpas are from here and there So when Mom married Dad, I came from everywhere. I eat different foods from across the world Irish stew, potatoes and pasta that is curled. Salmon steak, pot roast, and Dutch Apple pie Egg rolls, pizza, a menu diversified. Soccer, Bocce Ball, and Cricket too. Without immigration, you might not play the sports you do. Without immigration what would you hear? The same old sounds filling your ear. If it were not for immigration, what would we see? All the leaves the same on my family tree. That is why I am so happy for diversity, Because of Immigration--I am me!

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I just want to take a moment of the Senate's time to speak about the two issues that have been talked about recently. One is the H-1B visa issue, to which the majority leader referred, as did Senator Reid and Senator Dorgan, which will lift the caps so that we can have available to American industry some of the able, gifted, and talented individuals who have come to this country and who can continue to make a difference in terms of our economy. We are in the process--at least I thought so, as a member of the Immigration Subcommittee--of working with Senator Abraham from the State of Michigan, in working that process through to try to respond to the concerns that the leadership have; and that is that we debate that issue in a timely way, with a limited number of amendments, and that we reach a final conclusion in a relatively short period of time. I had believed that those negotiations, at least from our side, were very much on track. During the negotiations, we had talked to the White House as well as with the House Judiciary Committee members, all of whom have an obvious interest. So it did come as kind of a surprise--not that we are not prepared to move ahead. I would be prepared to move ahead even this evening. I do not know where the Senator from Michigan, who has the prime responsibility for that legislation, is this evening. He is not on the floor. But he has been conscientious in addressing that question. One of the fundamental concerns--as we move toward permitting a number of individuals who have special skills to come in and fill in with the special slots that are crying out for need in our economy--is a recognition that, within our society, these are jobs that eventually should be available to American workers. There is nothing magical about these particular jobs--that if Americans have the opportunity for training, for additional kinds of education, they would be well qualified to hold these jobs. Many of us have believed, as we have addressed the immediate need for the increase, that we also ought to address additional kinds of training programs, so that in the future we will have these kinds of high-paying jobs which offer enormous hope and opportunity to individuals, as well as the companies for whom they work, being made available to Americans. We discussed and debated those issues with the Judiciary Committee. We made pretty good progress on those issues. So I think there is a broad degree of support in terms of trying to address that issue. But there are also some particular matters that cry out for justice as well. When you look back on the immigration issues, there were probably 350,000, perhaps 400,000 individuals who qualified for an amnesty program that was part of the law. As a result of a court holding that was actually overturned, all of these individuals' lives have been put at risk and, without any degree of certainty, subject to instances of deportation. So we wanted to try to address this issue. It seems to me that could be done in a relatively short period of time. It is a question of fundamental decency and fundamental justice. We treat individuals who come from Central American countries differently, depending upon which country they come from. Therefore, there was some desire we would have a common position with regard to individuals. Senator Moynihan had introduced legislation to that effect. That is basically a question of equity. There are really no surprises. It is not a new subject to Members of the Senate. It is something about which many of us have heard, on different occasions, when we have been back to see our constituencies. These are some of the items that I think we could reach, if there were differences, a reasonable time agreement. But they are fundamental in terms of justice and fairness to individuals and their families. If we are going to consider one aspect of change in the immigration law, it is not unreasonable to say if we are going to address that now, we ought to at least have the Senate vote in a responsible way on these other matters in a relatively short period of time so the Senate can be meeting its responsibilities in these other areas. So I look forward to the early consideration of this bill. This isn't the first time we have dealt with the H-1B issue. We made some changes a few years ago. We were able to work it out in a bipartisan way. There is no reason that American industry should have concern that we are not going to take action. We will take action. Hopefully, we will do it in the next 3 weeks. There is no reason we should not. The other issue is the question of elementary and secondary education. I certainly understand the responsibilities we have in completing Defense authorization, which is enormously important legislation. I am heartened by what the majority leader has said with regard to the follow-on in terms of elementary and secondary education. That is a priority for all American families. We ought to debate it. The principal fact is that we have debated it for 6 days and we have had seven amendments. Three of them were virtually unanimous. We didn't have to have any rollcall votes. On 2 of the 6 days, we were restricted because we were forbidden to offer amendments and have votes. We haven't had a very busy time with that as compared to the bankruptcy legislation, where we had 15 days and more than 55 amendments. In allocating time, we are asking for fairness to the American families on education. If the Senate is going to take 15 days and have 55 amendments on bankruptcy legislation, we can take a short period of time--2 or 3 days--and have good debate on the question of elementary and secondary education, which is so important to families across the country. With all respect to the majority leader, the issue of school safety is out there. We need to ensure that we will do everything we possibly can to make sure we are not only going to have small class sizes, well- trained teachers, afterschool programs, efforts to try to help to respond to the needed repairs that are so necessary to so many schools across this country, and strong accountability provisions but make sure that, even if we are able to get those, the schools are going to be safe. We have measures we believe the Senate should address to make them safe. If the majority is going to continue to, in a real way, filibuster, effectively, the consideration of elementary and secondary education by never bringing the matter before the Senate, they bear the responsibility of doing so. It is their responsibility. Every family in this country ought to understand that because they have the power, the authority, and the responsibility to put that before the Senate. If there is a question in terms of the relevancy or nonrelevancy of a particular amendment, the Senate can make that decision. But when we are denying families in this country the opportunity to address that and respond to it, we do a disservice to the families and to the children in this country, and, I believe, to the Senate itself. This issue isn't going to go away. It will not go away. We may have only 3 more weeks, but we are going to continue to press it. We are going to press it all during July and all during September as well. It will not go away. Elementary and secondary education needs to be addressed. We have to take action. We owe it to the American families, and we have every intention of pursuing it. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know that Senators Specter and Harkin worked diligently to craft a bill that could gain broad support. But during the floor debate, Republicans weakened this bill in critical ways that shortchange children in their education, subject hundreds of thousands of American workers to ergonomic injuries, and promote a sham patients' bill of rights. I urge the Senate to reject this bill, and I urge the President to veto it if it reaches his desk. America's schoolchildren, workers, seniors, and everyone with health needs deserve a much better bill. Republicans' very first order of business in debating this bill was to delay the Department of Labor's proposed protections against ergonomic injuries. Hundreds of thousands of American workers will continue to suffer these injuries if this bill is enacted. The companies that Republicans are helping in this bill have had years to study and respond to the overwhelming evidence that ergonomic standards improve worker safety. Yet these special interests continue to oppose these protections. This is unacceptable, and it alone warrants a veto of this bill. Debate on many other parts of this bill fell into a regrettable pattern. Time and again Democrats came to the floor with proposals to improve schools, improve health care, or improve conditions in the workplace. Republicans rejected the amendments, because the amendments didn't allow room for the massive tax breaks they want, and the amendments were defeated. Republicans think they've already done enough for the health and education of the American people. Democrats insist that more can be done and should be done. That is a fundamental difference between the two parties. The amendments that Democrats proposed to this bill highlight the obvious needs that the nation should be meeting. The health of senior citizens is needlessly at risk, because they don't have affordable and dependable prescription drug coverage under Medicare. Public schools across the country are literally falling apart. They need help in repairing their crumbling facilities and modernizing their classrooms. One of every five children in the nation still lives in poverty. They lack educational opportunities at every step of the way from birth through college. They deserve a fair chance to do well in school--to go to college--to have a productive life and career. The high-technology training needed to prepare the nation's workforce for the future economy is out of reach for millions of Americans. Democrats want to do more to solve these problems. But again and again, our Republican colleagues refuse to act. Their refusal raises a fundamental question of priorities that the American people will decide in November if this impasse continues. We have a budget surplus of $1.9 trillion over the next ten years. We can afford more than token efforts to improve education, health care, and working conditions for the nation's families. We need major improvements in current law--and we can afford them. They should be a high priority. How long will we ignore the 20 percent of the nation's children who live in poverty? How long will we ignore the third of senior citizens who have no prescription drug coverage? How long will we send children to crumbling schools? How long will we refuse to address the hundreds of thousands of ergonomic injuries suffered by workers each year? Now is the time to deal with these festering problems. In fiscal year 2001 alone, a $49 billion surplus is now projected. All of the priorities I have described can be accommodated for a small fraction of this amount--and they should be accommodated. If we are ever going to make serious investments in the education of the nation's children, now is the time. The record prosperity we are now enjoying also gives us an opportunity to save many more lives through better access to health care. It gives us an opportunity to modernize Medicare by adding a life-saving prescription drug benefit for senior citizens. It gives us an opportunity to provide many more children with a decent education and enable them to become full participants in the new economy. It gives us an opportunity to make every workplace safer, and to provide millions of workers with the skills they need in this rapidly growing high tech economy. We can do all this, and also provide responsible tax relief for the vast majority of our citizens. Democrats support targeted tax relief for the nation's families, not the excessive and irresponsible tax breaks for the wealthy that our Republican colleagues insist on. The Republican estate tax relief bill alone would cost $105 billion in the first ten years, and $50 billion a year after that. It's the ultimate tax break for the wealthy. Its relief goes to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans--those who have prospered most in our record- breaking economy--those who have no trouble affording education for their children, health care for their families, or the prescription drugs they need. Other Republican tax breaks now pending in the Senate would cost a total of $711 billion over the next ten years, exploding to even higher costs in the following years. George W. Bush has proposed tax cuts that would consume the entire $1.9 trillion budget surplus projected over the next ten years. If Republicans are willing to give even slightly less to those who already have the most, we will have more than enough resources to dramatically improve education and health care for all Americans. The American people should be very clear on this issue. The Republican tax breaks are too extreme. They are keeping the nation from meeting its high priority needs in education, heath care, the workplace and other vital areas. These needs can be met, if Congress has the will to meet them. As we head into the final weeks of this year's session, I urge my colleagues to do a better job of meeting these all-important priorities. The anti-labor rider that Republicans attached to this bill on ergonomics, combined with the failure to fund education priorities in class size and school construction, would be enough alone for me to vote against this bill. But yesterday, Republicans added yet another offensive provision--a sham patients' bill of rights. Republicans went on record in favor of weak health care protections for Americans. And even those weak protections cover only a small fraction of the number of people who need protection. The Republican plan contains ineffective appeal procedures. These defects are the reason why the GOP plan is strongly opposed by all medical and nursing organizations and hundreds of patient groups and consumer groups across the country. Only the insurance industry supports the Republican plan, because it's a plan that only an HMO could love. This flawed bill should be defeated. The American people deserve far better than this.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support advanced appropriations for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Senator Wellstone's amendment continues the funding practice that has existed for years in this program. It enables states to plan ahead for the energy assistance they provide to needy families. The bill as now written unfortunately ends this current practice. It introduces needless uncertainty into the funding outlook for the future. At this time of high energy prices and budget surpluses, we should strengthen the protection we provide low-income families, not weaken it. A third of Massachusetts families rely on home heating oil, which nearly doubled in price last winter because inventories were too low to meet the sudden surge in need for heating oil when unseasonably cold weather suddenly arrived. Many families could not deal with this expense. But because heat is a basic necessity for families in New England, they had no choice but to make room in their limited budgets for the soaring cost of heat. This year, all indications are that once again, heating oil inventories are dangerously low throughout the Northeast. The coming winter may bring price spikes that are even higher than last winter. Natural gas prices are unusually high this year as well, which may well increase demand for heating oil. We should do more to ensure that adequate inventories of heating oil are maintained in the Northeast. Early in this year, I introduced legislation to do so. But the Energy Committee has not acted on this proposal, and the industry steadfastly refuses regulation as a means of protecting families that rely on oil heat. So we need to focus on other ways to address the problem. The best defense for families that need reliable, economical heat to survive is to plan ahead to meet their needs. Secretary Richardson has urged consumers to fill their heating oil tanks this summer, while prices are stable, and I join him in strongly recommending this action. State governments which distribute LIHEAP funds also need to plan ahead, but they need an entire fiscal year to properly plan. They need to plan to set eligibility limits and to distribute benefits. They need to know what level of federal assistance will be available, so they can budget their state assistance accordingly. They also need advance notice so that they can do what most companies do when they buy commodities that are subject to volatile prices--hedge against price surges by purchasing options contracts. The decision to include advanced appropriations in LIHEAP was made years ago and has been faithfully followed. The current uncertainty in energy markets is the wrong time to inject further uncertainty in LIHEAP funding. That is why I join my colleagues from both sides of the aisle in calling for advance appropriations for this program. The support made available by this program is literally a matter of life and death for millions of families in Massachusetts and New England. Congress should do everything possible to encourage planning that avoids the supply and price problems that left so many families in the cold last winter, and that threaten our region's economic health.

Mr. KENNEDY. I commend my colleagues, Senator Specter and Senator Cochran, for their leadership in having reached agreement on this important issue. The resources provided under this agreement are an important first step in addressing the critical problem of antimicrobial resistance. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on this important issue as the Senate considers the legislation on infectious diseases, antimicrobial resistance and bioterrorism that I have introduced with my colleague, Senator Frist. least toxic pesticides policies

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the bill before us provides over $1 billion in assistance to Colombia and represents a major increase in our political and financial commitment to the Colombian Government and the Colombian Armed Forces. Many of us have been deeply concerned about the potential impact of this substantial increase in U.S. military assistance on human rights in Colombia. We have worked with the Senate Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee to include human rights conditions on the aid. I commend Senators McConnell and Leahy for their leadership on this issue and for preserving the human rights conditions in the final version of the bill. The conditions are fully consistent with the laws and stated policies of the Colombian Government. They are also vital to ensuring that U.S. military aid does not contribute to human rights abuses in Colombia. We look forward to working with the Administration to achieve the Colombian Government's compliance with them. The first condition requires that armed forces personnel alleged to have committed gross violations of human rights be suspended from duty and brought to justice in the civilian courts, in accordance with the 1997 ruling of Colombia's Constitutional Court. The Colombian Ministry of National Defense has stated that, ``the Commander General of the Military Forces will separate from active service, by discretionary decision, members of the various Military Forces for inefficiency or for unsatisfactory performance in the fight against illegal armed groups.'' Unfortunately, this policy has not been implemented, and there is no automatic process for suspending a member of the Colombian Armed Forces alleged to have violated human rights. The Colombian Ministry of National Defense has expressed its support for the 1997 ruling of the Constitutional Court. In its March 2000 publication entitled ``Public Force and Human Rights in Colombia,'' the Colombian Ministry of National Defense stated that, ``Colombia has taken very important steps in limiting the jurisdiction of the military justice system. In effect, in 1997 the Constitutional Court concluded that crimes against humanity do not fall under its jurisdiction because it does not relate to the service provided by the Public Force. Such crimes constitute a serious violation of human rights and transgress the duties of armed services. Consequently, the Constitutional Court decided that such crimes be heard by the Ordinary Criminal Courts.'' Unfortunately, the Colombian Armed Forces have grossly misrepresented their record of compliance with this Constitutional Court ruling. They have claimed that 576 human rights cases involving Armed Forces personnel were transferred to civilian courts when, in fact, only 39 cases of human rights violations were transferred--and those cases involved low level officials. The human rights conditions contained in the bill also require the Colombian Government to prosecute in the civilian courts the leaders and members of paramilitary groups and armed forces personnel who aid or abet them. This provision is also fully consistent with the stated policies of the Colombian Government. In its publication entitled ``Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Policies,'' the Colombian Ministry of National Defense stated that illegal self-defense groups ``are one of the main offenders of human rights and international humanitarian law.'' In its publication entitled ``Public Force and Human Rights in Colombia,'' the Ministry further stated that the Public Force confronts and combats guerrilla and illegal self- defense groups ``with the same rigor.'' President Pastrana's ``Plan Colombia'' is quite clear on this issue, stating that ``the Government will not tolerate ties of any kind between any member of the military forces or the police and any illegal armed group or force.'' Regrettably, the State Department, the United Nations, and human rights groups have documented continuing links between the Colombian Armed Forces and paramilitary groups. The State Department Human Rights Report for 1999 stated that the Armed Forces and National Police sometimes ``tacitly tolerated'' or ``aided and abetted'' the activities of paramilitary groups. According to the report, ``in some instances, individual members of the security forces actively collaborated with members of paramilitary groups by passing them through roadblocks, sharing intelligence, and providing them with ammunition. Paramilitary forces find a ready support base within the military and police.'' The report also concluded that ``security forces regularly failed to confront paramilitary groups.'' Human Rights Watch has documented links between military and paramilitary groups, not only in isolated, rural areas but in Colombia's principal cities, and these links involve half of Colombia's 18 brigade-level units. The Colombian Armed Forces have resisted investigating these links. Instead of investigating a credible allegation of military collaboration with paramilitary groups in a civilian massacre that occurred in the town of San Jose de Apartado on February 19, the Commander of the 17th Brigade filed suit against the non-governmental organization that made these allegations, charging that it had ``impugned'' the honor of the military. The human rights conditions contained in the bill reflect the Colombian Government's laws and policies and underscore the importance of human rights as a fundamental principle of U.S. foreign policy. Compliance with these conditions is essential if we are to ensure that U.S. military aid does not contribute to human rights abuses in Colombia. I am disappointed that the conference agreement permits the President to waive the conditions in the interest of national security. However, the inclusion of this waiver authority does not exempt the Administration from responsibility for seeking the Colombian Government's compliance with these human rights conditions. Nor is the waiver an excuse for the Colombian Government not to address the continuing human rights problems in Colombia. I look forward to the good faith application of these important human rights provisions in the implementation of this legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today Senators Dodd, Leahy, Mack, and I are introducing a resolution on police reform in Northern Ireland. Policing has long been a contentious issue in Northern Ireland. The deep historical divisions in Northern Ireland have, according to the April 19, 1998 Good Friday Agreement, made policing ``highly emotive, with great hurt suffered and sacrifices made by many individuals and their families.'' The Good Friday Agreement presented an historic opportunity to create a new police service that is accountable, impartial, representative, based on respect for human rights, and that works in constructive partnership with the entire community. It provided for the establishment of an Independent Commission on Policing to make recommendations for Northern Ireland, including ways to encourage widespread community support for the police. The Commission, chaired by Sir Christopher Patten, concluded its work on September 9, 1999, and issued a final report with 175 recommendations to ensure a new beginning for policing in Northern Ireland. On May 5, a joint letter by the British Prime Minister and the Irish Prime Minister stated that ``legislation to implement the Patten report will, subject to Parliament, be enacted by November 2000.'' On May 16, the British Government published its proposed legislation to implement in law the Patten report. Unfortunately, the draft bill does not live up to the letter or spirit of the Patten report. It dilutes or does not implement many of its key recommendations. Northern Ireland's main nationalist parties and representatives of the Catholic Church are deeply concerned about the proposed legislation, and they have indicated that they will not participate or encourage participation in the new policing structures unless the Patten report is fully implemented. I ask unanimous consent that documents outlining concerns with the draft legislation may be included in the Record at the end of my remarks. British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Peter Mandelson, has recognized that the bill ``will need fine tuning'' as it proceeds through the Parliament. On June 15, he said, ``I remain absolutely determined to implement the Patten recommendations and to achieve the effective and representative policing service--accepted in every part of Northern Ireland--that his report aimed to secure.'' The resolution we are introducing today expresses the Sense of the Senate that the full and speedy implementation of the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland holds the best hope of ensuring that the police service in Northern Ireland will gain the support of both nationalists and unionists and that ``policing structures and arrangements are such that the police service is fair and impartial, free from partisan political control, accountable . . . to the community it serves, representative of the society that it polices . . . [and] complies with human rights norms,'' as mandated by the Good Friday Agreement. It calls upon the British Government to fully and faithfully implement the recommendations contained in the Patten Commission report. The Patten report explicitly ``warned in the strongest terms against cherry-picking from this report or trying to implement some major elements of it in isolation from others.'' Section 405 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act (as enacted in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2000, P.L. 106-113) requires President Clinton to certify that the British and Irish governments are committed to assisting in the full implementation of the Patten recommendations before the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other federal law enforcement agency can provide training for the Royal Ulster Constabulary. It would be extremely unfortunate if the shortcomings in the policing bill prevent President Clinton from making this certification. Police reform is essential in Northern Ireland to ensure fairness and to strengthen the peace process. The Patten report has the potential to create a genuine new police service that will have and deserve the trust of all the people in Northern Ireland. It would be a tragedy if this opportunity to achieve a new beginning in policing is lost. I urge the Senate to approve this resolution. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand, it is the purpose of the Senator from Pennsylvania now to send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

Mr. KENNEDY. I could just take 2 more minutes to conclude.