Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to David Bowen of my office during the pendency of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will take a few moments on another subject, the issue of our Patients' Bill of Rights. A short while ago, we had an opportunity to vote on the issues on a Patients' Bill of Rights. This was basically as a result of the fact that the conference in which we are involved had reached a dead end and was going nowhere. It wasn't only my assessment of that development, but the conclusion of a great number of the conferees as well, not just the Democrats, but also those who had supported an effective Patients' Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives, Dr. Norwood and Dr. Ganske. We offered an amendment on the floor, and we failed by one vote. Now we understand the Republicans have decided that effectively they are not going to participate with the Democrats at all. They are writing their own bill. We had indicated we were still willing to participate. We wanted to get a bill. It is interesting that the 300 organizations that represent the doctors, the patients, the nurses, the health delivery community, have all been in support of our position. They have not had a single medical organization that has supported the position taken by the Republican leadership in the Senate. When we talk about bipartisanship, I think we ought to do what the medical professions, the patient organizations, and common sense tell us to do--to listen to doctors and nurses who have had training and follow their recommendations, rather than accountants for HMOs. That is what this bill is basically about. In the Patients' Bill of Rights, we have outlined the various areas where we think patients need protection. We have asked those who have not been supportive of our position to spell out which protections they don't wish to provide for the American people. One, for example, is to make sure all patients are going to be covered. That is a rather basic and fundamental issue. It shouldn't take a long time to debate and discuss that. The House bill provided for comprehensive coverage for all of the patients and holds plans accountable. That seems to be common sense. Again, that was in the bipartisan bill in the House of Representatives. In the category of access for specialists, we see a situation where a child has cancer; we want to make sure the child will see a pediatric oncologist. They ought to be able to get the specialist. We certainly have that opportunity for Members of the Senate. We ought to be able to understand that. We should guarantee the specialists. Access to clinical trials. We are in a period of great opportunities for breakthroughs in research. The only way that breakthroughs get from the laboratory to the patient is through clinical trials. We ought to guarantee it. We don't need to study the question of clinical trials. Access to OB/GYNs. That is common sense. Prohibition on gag rules. We are going to take the gag off our doctors who have been trained to provide the best in medicine. They shouldn't be gagged by accountants for HMOs. Emergency room access, another area of importance. These are some of the points that are guaranteed. Perhaps some of these are protections that our Republican friends don't want to guarantee. We wish they would state which ones. Why do we have to do it behind closed doors? Why not come out here and say which ones they don't want to guarantee, have some votes in the Senate, and then get legislation passed? However, we have been buried in the darkness of our offices. We ought to have an opportunity to have matters decided or stated. These protections should be available to every American. Those Members representing our side of the aisle are committed to that. Republicans and Democrats alike in the House of Representatives were in support of it. A third of the Republicans voted for that and a few courageous Republicans in this body supported that position as well. We should get about the business of closing this legislation down. Every day it delays people are being hurt. It is wrong. We ought to get about doing the people's business and pass a strong Patients' Bill of Rights. To reiterate, the American people have waited more than 3 years for Congress to send the President a Patient's Bill of Rights that protects all patients and holds HMOs and other health plans accountable for their actions. Every day that the conference on the Patient's Bill of Rights fails to produce agreement on meaningful patient protections, 60,000 more patients endure added pain and suffering. More than 40,000 patients report a worsening of their condition as a result of health plan abuses. By all accounts, Republicans are working amongst themselves on the Patients' Bill of Rights. They are working in the middle of the night, behind closed doors, to produce a partisan bill that will surely fail the test of true reform. The crocodile tears were flowing form the eyes of the Senate Republican leadership on June 8 when we took the bipartisan, House-passed Managed Care Consensus Act to the floor for its first Senate vote. That legislation, which passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support last year, is a sensible compromise that extends meaningful protections to all patients and guarantees that health plans re held accountable when their abuses result in injury or death. Democratic conferees sent a letter to Senator Nickles on June 13. In that letter, we reiterated that we remained ready to negotiate on serious proposals that provide a basis for achieving strong, effective protections. But the assistant majority leader has not responded. The silence is deafening. We have been forewarned of what to expect from a partisan bill. The American people won't stand for a sham bill, and we won't either. Make no mistake. We want a bill that can be signed into law this year. There is not much time left. We need to act now. The Republican leadership continues to refuse to guarantee meaningful protections to all Americans. They continue to delay and deny action on this critical issue. This debate is about real people. It's about women, children, and families. The gap between the Senate Republican plan and the bipartisan legislation enacted by the House in the Norwood-Dingell bill is wide. And the intransigence of the Republican conferees is preventing adequate progress. Republican conferees steadfastly refuse to cover all Americans. Their flawed approach leaves out two-thirds of those with private health insurance--more than 120 million Americans. The Senate Republican leadership says no to farmers, truck drivers, police officers, teachers, home day care providers, fire fighters, and countless others who buy insurance on their own or work for state or local governments. The bipartisan legislation that we support and which we voted on in the Senate on June 8 covers everyone. But the Republican leadership said no. The protections in the House-passed bill are urgently needed by patients across the country. Yet, the Republican leadership is adopting the practice of delay and denial that HMOs so often use themselves to delay and deny patients the care they need. It's just as wrong for Congress to delay and deny these needed reforms, as it is for HMOs to delay and deny needed care. Congress can pass bipartisan legislation that provides meaningful protections for all patients and guarantees accountability when health plan abuse results in injury or death. The question is, will we? The American people are waiting for an answer.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, tomorrow we are going to be addressing the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. In that legislation, we will have allocations of resources to fund the Federal participation in education. The federal government provides only 7 cents out of every dollar spent on education at the local level. But those are important funds for many different communities. I regret very much that we are taking up this appropriations bill for education, before we have completed action on the authorizing bill, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It seems to me that we are putting the cart before the horse. We should have had a good debate and resolved the issues on education policy before funding them. Instead, we are now addressing appropriations before we even have the authorizations in hand. There are important policy issues and questions that ought to be resolved. At the outset, I thank our friends on the Appropriations Committee for the resources they provided in a number of different programs. But I believe some programs were underfunded in the allocation of resources. The budget is established by the majority. In this case, it was decided by the Republican majority. The Republican Budget Resolution shortchanged education programs in order to pay for unwise tax cuts for the wealthy. In the Resolution, the Republican majority imposed cuts of more than 6%--more than $100 billion over the next five years--in discretionary spending, including education programs. As a result of this resolution, the allocation for education is too low. Because of that inadequate allocation, the Senate Appropriations Committee was forced to make unwise cuts in key education and other discretionary programs. This $100 billion in order to afford a tax cut for wealthy individuals is the wrong priority. That is what a good deal of the debate is going to be about--about whether we think we ought to have further tax cuts for wealthy individuals or whether we ought to invest in the education of the children of this country. I believe we ought to invest in the children of this country. We didn't get the kind of allocation in the Appropriations Committee that we should have, and we are going to find, once this is approved, that it will go to the House, which has had a very significant reduction in terms of allocating resources. We are going to find further cuts in education. That troubles me. If you look over the past years, we will see what has happened in the history of cutting education funding in appropriations bills. We have seen, going back to 1995 when the Republicans took control of the Senate, that we had a rescission. We had money already appropriated. But then we had a rescission of $1.7 billion below what was actually enacted in 1995. In 1996, the House bill was $3.9 billion below 1995. In 1997, the Senate bill was $3.1 billion below what the President requested. In 1998, the House and Senate bill was $200 million below the President's request. In 1999, the House bill was $2 billion below the President's request. In 2000, the House bill was $2.8 billion below the President's request. In fiscal year 2001, it is $2.9 billion below the President's request. We have all of the statements being made by the Republican leadership about how important education is in terms of national priorities. We have our Republican Majority Leader, going back to January 1999, saying, ``Education is going to be a central issue this year. . . . For starters, we must reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That is important.'' That was the bill which was set aside in May of this year. Some six weeks later, we still haven't had it back in order to be able to debate it. In remarks to the Conference of Mayors, the majority leader said: ``But education is going to have a lot of attention, and it's not going to be just words. . . .'' June 22, 1999: ``Education is number one on the agenda for Republicans in the Congress this year. . .'' Then remarks to the Chamber of Commerce on February 1, 2000: ``We're going to work very hard on education. I have emphasized that every year I have been majority leader. . . . And Republicans are committed to doing that.'' National Conference on State Legislatures, February 3: ``We must reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. . . . Education will be a high priority.'' April 20, the Congress Daily: ``Lott said last week his top priorities in May include an agriculture sanctions bill, Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization, and passage of four appropriations bills.'' May of this year: ``This is very important legislation. I hope we can debate it seriously and have amendments in the education area. Let's talk education.'' Then, on May 2, on elementary and secondary education: ``Have you scheduled a cloture vote on that?'' Senator Lott: ``No, I haven't scheduled a cloture vote. . . . But education is number one on the minds of the American people all across this country and every State, including my own state. For us to have a good, healthy and even a protracted debate on amendments on education, I think is the way to go.'' This is the record. We still don't have that debate. That was 6 weeks ago. We had 6 days of debate, and 2 days of the debate were without any votes at all. We had eight amendments, and three of those we were glad to accept. We have effectively not had the debate on education. Here we are on Monday afternoon before the Fourth of July recess, and we have the appropriations bills up with a wide variety of appropriations to support the agencies in areas of health and of education. I believe we are giving education policy short shrift. You can't draw any other conclusion--short shrift. We were prepared to spend 15 days on bankruptcy reform but only 6 days on education--and for 2 days we couldn't vote. 15 days on bankruptcy and 53 amendments; 4 days where we had amendments on elementary and secondary education and only 8 amendments. That is an indication of priorities. I take strong exception. I think the American people do as well. Money in and of itself doesn't solve all of our problems, but it sure is an indication of where our national priorities are. If I look over this chart, the Federal share of education funding has declined. Look at what has happened in higher education: 15.4 percent in 1980 has declined to 10.7 percent in 1999. Take elementary and secondary education. In 1980, it was 11.9 percent on elementary and secondary education. In 1999, it was only 7.7 percent. We have seen a decline in elementary and secondary education. We don't even spend 1 percent of our budget in support of elementary and secondary education. That is amazing. Think of any of us going into any hall across this country in any part of our Nation. Ask about the priorities of people in that hall. They would say: We need national security, national defense. We have to deal with that. Certainly we do. Save Social Security and Medicare-- absolutely. Deal with Medicaid--absolutely. But among their four or five priorities would be education. I think Americans will be absolutely startled to find out that we are spending less than one penny out of every dollar on elementary and secondary education. This is what has been happening. In the area of elementary and secondary education, K through 12, we have now gone from 1990 with 46.4 million students up to 53.4 million in 2000. 7 million additional students at a time when our participation is going down in favor of tax cuts instead of investing in the children of this country. That is what is happening. As we start off on this debate, I think it is important to understand that. I think most parents across this country believe there ought to be a partnership, at the local level, the State level, and the Federal level in terms of participation. However, we are not meeting our responsibilities. We get a lot of statements, a lot of quotes, a lot of press releases, but when the time comes in terms of the Budget Committee--which is controlled by that side of the aisle--allocating resources on education, they are not doing it. They are not walking the walk. They are talking the talk, but they are not walking the walk. That is one of the important issues dividing our political parties, unfortunately. I think the American people ought to understand that. Tomorrow, we are going to have several education amendments. One which I will offer will be to try to strengthen the recruitment, training, and mentoring for teachers in this country. We need 2 million teachers. Last year, we hired--``we,'' meaning the States across this country--50,000 teachers who did not have certification in the courses they are teaching. We believe we ought to guarantee to the families in this country that within 4 years every teacher in every public school will be certified. We are committed to that. We are going to offer an amendment on that. We think that is one of the better ways of going with education. When we look at the results, better prepared teachers stay longer. The earlier intervention occurs for teachers, the longer they will stay. If we give them continued help and assistance that is school based, they will remain longer. Providing professional training and mentoring for the teachers is enormously helpful. If we have experienced teachers working with younger teachers in the classroom, they stay longer. This is enormously important. We ought to be debating and discussing these issues. Hopefully, tomorrow, we will. Amendments to be offered by our colleagues include after school programs, accountability, and the digital divide. We are going to have a series of amendments regarding helping, assisting, and modernizing our schools. All these amendments are for worthwhile programs. We need to have this debate. We need to have this expression. We need to call the roll to find out where our colleagues are going to stand on the issues involving education in this country. We will, of course, have the opportunity to debate smaller class size with the Murray amendment. We have had bipartisan support for that in the past. I will not take the time tomorrow to place again in the Record all of the press releases we had from Newt Gingrich and Mr. Armey celebrating the fact that we would go to smaller class size. We had strong bipartisan support, but they have emasculated the program in the appropriations legislation. We will have an opportunity, hopefully, to debate that, as well. The bill before the Senate includes $2.7 billion for title VI block grants but eliminates the Federal commitment to reducing class size and does nothing to guarantee the funds for communities to address the urgent need for school repair and modernization. Under the Class Size Reduction Program, the funds are distributed to school districts based on a formula that is targeted 80 percent by poverty and 20 percent by population. Under title VI, block grant funding is distributed based solely on population. It includes no provisions to target the funds to high poverty districts. It is basically a blank check--whatever the Governor wants to do with those funds--without the accountability which is so important and necessary. I think people across this country want scarce resources utilized in an effective way, on proven, tested, effective programs that will enhance academic achievement and accomplishment. That is provided in the amendments we are going to offer tomorrow. Better schools, a better education for all children, and making college more affordable are top priorities for the Nation's families and communities. I regret very much that we are taking up this appropriations bill for education, before we have completed action on the authorizing bill, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In many ways, we are putting the cart before the horse again. We have an opportunity this year to do our part to help local communities improve their schools by strengthening the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. And, to Democrats, this is must-pass legislation. The Republican majority has paid great lip service to the importance of education, but the reality is far different. We considered only eight amendments to that legislation over 6 days--and during 2 of these days, we were allowed to debate only, not vote. On May 9, the Republican leadership suddenly abandoned the debate, moved to other legislation, and haven't returned to it since then. I hope that our Republican friends have just temporarily suspended the bill, and not expelled it. We owe it to the Nation's schools, students, parents, and communities to complete action on this priority legislation. The Senate education appropriations bill now before us also has problems. It is a much better step towards funding education than the House bill, but it's not enough. The Republican budget resolution shortchanged education programs in order to pay for unwise tax cuts for the wealthy. Because of the Republican budget resolution, the allocation for education is too low. Because of that inadequate allocation, the Senate Appropriations Committee was forced to make unwise cuts in key education and other discretionary programs because of the unreasonably low funding level set for domestic discretionary programs in the budget resolution. In the resolution, the Republican majority imposed cuts of more than 6 percent--more than $100 billion over the next 5 years--in discretionary spending. These cuts are far from necessary to curb uncontrolled federal spending. The opposite is true. We are already spending less on domestic discretionary programs as a percentage of GNP than we ever have. Republicans are seeking to impose these drastic cuts for one reason only--to fund the massive tax breaks for the wealthy. This is not the time for cuts in education. We need to increase our investment in education to ensure a brighter future for the nation's children. Unfortunately, the bill approved by the House of Representatives is a major retreat from all of these priorities. It slashed funding for education by $2.9 billion below the President's request. The House bill zeroes out critical funding to help states turn around failing schools. It slashes funding for the 21st Century Learning Centers program by $400 million below the President's request, denying 900 communities the opportunity to provide 1.6 million children with after-school activities to keep them off the streets, away from drugs, and out of trouble, and to help them with their studies. It eliminates the bipartisan commitment to help communities across the country reduce class size in the early grades. It cuts funding for title I by $166 million below the President's request, reducing or eliminating services to 260,000 educationally disadvantaged children to help them master the basics and meet high standards of achievement. It reduces funding for the Reading Excellence Act by $26 million below the President's request, denying services to help 100,000 children become successful readers by the end of the 3rd grade. It slashes funding for safe and drug free schools by $51 million below the President's request, denying communities extra help to keep their students safe, healthy, and drug-free. It does nothing to help communities meet their most urgent repair and modernization needs. Those needs are especially urgent in 5,000 schools across the country. It slashes funding for GEAR UP by $125 million below the President's request, denying more than 644,000 low-income middle and high school students the support they need for early college preparation and awareness activities. It does nothing to increase funding for the teacher quality enhancement grants, so that more communities can recruit and train better qualified teachers. It slashes funding for Head Start by $600 million below the President's budget, denying 50,000 low-income children critical preschool services. It slashes funding for dislocated workers by $181 million below the President's request, denying over 100,000 dislocated workers much- needed training, job search, and re-employment services. It reduces funding for adult job training by $93 million below the President's request, denying 37,200 adults job training this year. It cuts youth opportunities grants by $200 million below the President's request, eliminating the proposed expansion to 20 new communities, reducing the current program by $75 million, and denying 40,000 disadvantaged youth a bridge to skills and opportunities of our strong economy and alternatives to welfare and crime. It slashed summers jobs and year-round youth training by $21 million below the President's request, reducing the estimated number of low- income youth to be served over 12,000. The Senate bill does take some positive steps towards better funding for education. It increases the maximum Pell grant by $350 to $3,650. It increases funding for IDEA by $1.3 billion. Although these are important increases, they are not enough. In too many other vital aspects of education, too many children and too many families are shortchanged by this bill. Once again, the Republican leadership has put block grants ahead of targeted funding for education reforms. Block grants are the wrong approach. They prevent the allocation of scarce resources to the highest education priorities. They eliminate critical accountability provisions that ensure better results for all children. The block grant approach abandons the national commitment to improve education by encouraging proven effective reforms of public schools. Block grants are the wrong direction for education and the wrong direction for the nation. They do nothing to encourage change in public schools. The bill includes $2.7 billion more for the title VI block grant, but it eliminates the federal commitment to reducing class size. It does nothing to guarantee funds for communities to address their urgent school repair and modernization needs. It is unconscionable to block grant critical funds that are targeted to the neediest communities to reduce class size. Under the Class Size Reduction program that has received bipartisan support for the past two years, funds are distributed based on a formula that is targeted to school districts 80 percent by poverty and 20 percent by population. But under the title VI block grant, funding is distributed based solely on population--it includes no provisions to target the funds to high poverty districts. This is unacceptable, when it is often the neediest students that are in the largest classes. The national class size average is just over 22 students per class. But, in many communities--especially in urban and rural communities-- class sizes are much higher than the national average. In 1998, the publication Education Week found that half of the elementary teachers in urban areas and 44 percent of the teachers in nonurban areas had classes with 25 or more students. A 1999 study found that 56 percent of the students in Portland, OR, in grades K through 3 were in classes with more than 25 students. In fact, nationwide, K through 3 classrooms with 18 or fewer children are hard to find. For example, in 22 northern and northeastern counties in Kentucky, and in 5 districts in Mercer County, New Jersey, less than 15 percent of the children are in classes of 18 or less. Class size in New York City is an average of 28 students per class. The federal Class Size Reduction program is making a difference. For example, in Columbus Ohio, class sizes in grades 1 through 3 have been reduced from 25 students per class to 15 students per class. We need to invest more in this program, so that communities can continue to reduce class sizes. We should not block grant the program. If we do, it will no longer be targeted to the neediest communities, and parents will no longer be guaranteed that their children will be learning in smaller classes. In addition, it is wrong to put the $1.3 billion that the President requested for repairing and modernizing schools into the title VI block grant. We need to target school modernization funds to the neediest communities, and the title VI block grant will not do that. Parents need a guarantee that they will get the support they need to help their children to school in buildings that are modern and safe, and are not overcrowded. The bill also falls short in other areas. It fails to increase the national investment in improving teacher quality. It provides only level funding for the teacher quality enhancement grants that are helping colleges and communities recruit and train prospective teachers more effectively It cuts funding for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers by $400 million below the President's request, denying 1.6 million children access to after-school programs. It slashes funding for GEAR UP by $100 million below the President's request. That reduction will deny 407,000 low-income middle and high school students the help they need to go to college and succeed in college. It slashes the title I Accountability program by $250 million below the President's request, eliminating critical funding for states to turn around failing schools. It slashes funding for dislocated workers by $181 million below the President's request. As a result, 100,000 American workers who lost their jobs because of down-sizing or business relocation will go without the important services that they need to find adequate employment in their communities. It also slashes funding for youth opportunity grants by $125 million below the President's request, denying 27,000 youth in high-poverty communities access to vital education, training, and employment assistance, and eliminating the proposed expansion of the program to up to 15 new communities. We should be doing more, not less, to improve public schools, to help make college affordable and accessible to every qualified student, and to increase training opportunities for the Nation's workers. School and communities are already stretching their budgets to meet rising needs. Nearly one third of all public schools are more than 50 years old. Fourteen million children in a third of the Nation's schools are learning in substandard buildings. Half of all schools have at least one unsatisfactory environmental condition. The problems with crumbling school buildings aren't just the problems of the inner city. They exist in almost every community--urban, rural, and suburban. In addition to modernizing and renovating dilapidated schools, many communities need to build new schools, in order to keep pace with rising enrollments and to reduce class sizes. Elementary and secondary school enrollment has reached an all-time high again this year of 53 million students. Enrollment will continue to rise over the next ten years. The number will increase by 324,000 in 2000, by 282,000 in 2001, and by 250,000 in 2002--and it will continue on an upward trend in each of the following years. To meet this urgent need, the Nation faces the challenge of hiring more than 2 million new teachers over the next ten years. According to the Urban Teacher Challenge Report, released by Recruiting New Teachers last January, almost 100 percent of the 40 urban school districts surveyed have an urgent need for teachers in at least one subject area. Ninety-five percent of urban districts report a critical need for math teachers. Ninety-eight percent report a need in science. Ninety-seven percent report a need for special education teachers. Unfortunately, the need for new teachers in 1998 was met by admitting 50,000 unqualified teachers to the classroom. And nearly 50 percent of those who do enter teaching, leave the profession within 5 years. Parents, schools, and communities also need special help in providing after-school activities. Each day, 5 million children, many as young as 8 or 9 years old, are left home alone after school. Juvenile delinquent crime peaks in the hours between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. We know that children left unsupervised are more likely to be involved in anti- social activities and destructive patterns of behavior. The Nation's schools need more help to meet all of these challenges. In addition, many families across the Nation are struggling to put their children through college. The burden of education debt is rising. Eight million seven hundred thousand students borrowed $32 billion in 1999 alone. Only 53 percent of students with a family income below $25,000 go on to higher education, and only 26 percent--1 in 4--go on to 4-year colleges. But 90 percent of students with family income above $74,000 attend college. The opportunity for a college education should not be determined by the level of family income. Any student who has the ability, who works hard, and who wants to attend college should have the opportunity to do so. We need to do more to fund programs such as GEAR UP that help make college a reality for more young people. We also need to do more to help American workers who have lost their jobs because of down-sizing or business relocation to find other good jobs in their communities. Companies are doing more hiring and firing simultaneously than ever before. Workers need a new set of skills, and globalization is driving more work abroad. Greater services for dislocated workers will guarantee that workers have the skills they need as we move full speed into the information-based economy. It will also help us respond to employer needs during the current labor shortage by having an efficient labor exchange system and retraining programs. We must also do more to emphasize keeping young people in school, increasing their enrollment in college, and preparing and placing these young people in good jobs. Only 42 percent of dropouts participate in the labor force, compared to 65 percent of those with a high school education and 80 percent of those with a college degree. Next week, when we have the opportunity to address education in the pending Senate appropriations bill, Democrats will offer amendments to address as many of these critical needs as possible. I intend to offer an amendment to increase funding for title II of the Higher Education Act, to help communities recruit and train prospective teachers and put a qualified teacher in every classroom. In addition, I will offer an amendment to increase funding for skills training programs by $792 million to ensure that the Nation's workers get the support they need in today's workplace. Senator Murray will offer an amendment to continue the bipartisan commitment we have made over the last two years to help communities reduce class size in the early grades. Senator Harkin and Senator Robb will offer an amendment to ensure that communities get the help they need to meet their most urgent repair and modernization problems. Senator Dodd will offer an amendment to increase funding for the 21st Century Learning Centers program, so that more children will have the opportunity to attend after-school activities. Senator Bingaman will offer an amendment to help states turn around failing schools. Senator Reed will offer an amendment to increase funding for the GEAR UP program, so that more children will be able to attend college. Other colleagues will offer additional amendments to increase the Nation's investment in education. The time is now to invest more in education. The Nation's children and families deserve no less.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend my friend from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, and also Senator Frist, for the introduction of the amendment. I welcome the opportunity to join with them in the hope that the Senate will accept that amendment because this amendment is focused on one of the very significant and important public health challenges that we face as a Nation, and that is antimicrobial resistance. Microbes resistant to antibiotics are a major health threat. The World Health Organization reports that antibiotic-resistant infections acquired in hospitals kill over 14,000 people in the United States every year--that's almost two persons every hour, every day, every year. Unless we take action, drug-resistant infectious diseases will become even more widespread in the United States and kill even larger numbers of patients. Infections resistant to antibiotics are extremely expensive to treat. It is a hundred times more expensive to treat a patient with drug- resistant TB than to treat a patient with drug-sensitive TB. The National Foundation for Infectious Diseases has estimated that the total cost of drug-resistant infections in this country is $4 billion a year--and this cost will rise as resistant microbes become more common. The amendment takes an important step to address this health crisis by giving the nation more tools to win the battle against antimicrobial resistance. Overuse of existing antibiotics contributes heavily to the problem of antimicrobial resistance. Patients often demand antibiotics and doctors often prescribe them for conditions in which they are clearly ineffective. We need to educate patients and medical professionals in the more appropriate use of antibiotics. The nation's public health agencies are under-equipped to monitor and combat resistant infections. Many public health agencies lack even such basic equipment as a fax machine, and cannot even conduct simple laboratory tests to diagnose resistant infections. We need to strengthen the capacity of public health agencies to diagnose, monitor, and deal effectively with outbreaks of resistant infections. Many patients acquire resistant infections in hospitals. Children, the elderly and persons with reduced immune systems are particularly at risk. We can do more to prevent the spread of resistant infections by strengthening infectious disease control programs in hospitals and clinics. We are in a race against time to find new antibiotics before microbes become resistant to those already in use. We need to increase research on how microbes become resistant to antibiotics and on new ways to fight resistant infections. If we slow the rate at which existing antibiotics are losing their effectiveness and accelerate the pace of discovery, we can win the race against antimicrobial resistance. The measures we take against microbes resistant to antibiotics will also allow the nation to respond more effectively to terrorist attacks using biological weapons. America is a nation at risk from bioterrorism. A deadly disease plague released into a crowded airport, shopping mall or sports stadium could kill thousands. A contagious disease like smallpox released in an American city could kill millions. To fight such attacks effectively, we must strengthen the nation's ability to recognize, diagnose and contain outbreaks of infectious disease. The additional funds that the Cochran-Frist-Kennedy amendment provides to state and local public health agencies will improve their ability to combat any disease outbreak, whether caused by microbes resistant to antibiotics, new diseases like West Nile fever, or deliberate attacks using biological weapons. The need is urgent to begin to arm ourselves for the fight against infectious disease, bioterrorism, and microbes resistant to antibiotics. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand it, when we set aside the underlying legislation, before the Senate was the Cochran antimicrobial resistance amendment; am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, is there a time limitation in morning business?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to be a sponsor of this important amendment to increase funding for community health centers. Each year, these centers provide quality health care to 11 million Americans in 3,000 rural and inner-city communities in all 50 states, including 4.5 million people who are uninsured. As the number of uninsured Americans across the country continues to grow, the need for the services is especially great. Community health centers recently touched Juan Ramon Centeno's life in Worcester, Massachusetts. Mr. Centeno was 54 years old when a bilingual nurse working with Great Brook Valley Health Center arrived at the public housing project where he lived to conduct health screenings. Mr. Centeno felt ill, but because he did not have insurance or resources for medical care, he had not sought care. The nurse found that his blood pressure was high, he had risk factors for diabetes, and had not received preventive health care for many years. Health center physicians promptly examined Mr. Centeno and found him at high risk for a cardiovascular accident. This timely intervention enabled Mr. Centeno to receive good health care and to be placed on medication through the health center pharmacy, which enables patients to obtain prescription drugs at the reduced prices available under Medicaid. Day in and day out, community health centers are providing life- saving services like these. Yet too often, the centers are struggling to obtain the resources they need. In Massachusetts, over a dozen community health centers currently face severe financial difficulties. Congress cut Medicare reimbursement rates for the centers in 1997, in spite of the fact that the number of people eligible for their services continues to rise. The result for many health centers has been bankruptcy, low morale among the health care professionals who are dedicated to serving the poor, and great concern in the communities that this needed access to health care will be lost. It is unacceptable for Congress to permit health centers that have proved so effective for so many years to suffer such severe financial difficulties, particularly in this time of prosperity. The Senate made a wise commitment to double the funding over the next five years for medical research at the National Institutes of Health, and it has kept that commitment. By making a similar commitment to double the funding for community health centers--ten percent of the cost of the commitment we made to medical research--we can ensure that the benefits of modern medicine will remain available to millions of low-income working families. The Senate is at its best when it approves amendments like this one on a bipartisan basis. I intend to do all I can to see that this year's final appropriations bill, and future appropriations bills, maintain our commitment to the extraordinary work of the nation's community health centers.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, before addressing the Senate on the matters before us in terms of education and the HHS appropriations bill, I commend my good friend from Iowa for a splendid presentation on energy policy as well as on prescription drugs. He talked with great knowledge and understanding about some of these advanced technologies which can make an enormous difference in terms of our region of the country, the Northeast. With the kinds of research he has supported and which the administration has tried to achieve with their budgets being denied by the other side, I am very hopeful that we can follow a number of those recommendations that he has made. I think they are sensible and responsible, and they can make an enormous difference on energy policy. As always, he has summarized very completely the challenge that is before the American people on the question of prescription drugs. We had a brief debate last evening. We have been waiting some 17, 18 months to get action. We still have not had the action by the respective committees. Given the fact that so many of our senior citizens are suffering, we want to move this process forward. I join with the Senator from Iowa and our other colleagues, the Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham, Senator Robb, and our leader, Senator Daschle, who has done so much to advance this issue for us in the Senate, hoping that we can in the remaining days fashion and shape legislation that will have the support of this body. I think, as was evident last night, we still have a long way to go. I regret very much that we are taking up the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill for education, before we have completed action on the authorizing bill, the Elementary and Secondary Education At. I am distressed by this fact because we know that education is a national priority. We have an opportunity this year to do our part to help local communities improve their schools by strengthening the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. And, to Democrats, this is must-pass legislation. We have tried to make this a priority in the Senate. Six weeks ago we were debating education policy. That legislation was pulled. We did receive assurances that we would get back to the debate on education policy, but we have not had that opportunity to do so. I regret it. Parents regret it and students and teachers and those involved in the education of the children of this country should regret it. We now have before us the funding mechanisms for education. We are really putting the cart before the horse. We are talking about the funding without having the debate on what the education policy should be. That is not the way to deal with the Federal involvement and participation in sound education policy. We have differences about how to do what we ought to fund. We have a limited role, granted. Only 7 cents out of every dollar that is expended at the local level is actually provided by the Federal Government, but this is not an unimportant funding stream. Historically, what we have tried to do is debate these issues, resolve these questions, develop a policy, and then fund that policy. But we have not had that opportunity. This is in spite of the fact that we have had a lot of bold statements about the importance of education. We had our majority leader in January of this year saying: Education is going to be a central issue this year. For starters, we must reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That is important. That is what I wish we had the opportunity to do. However, it has been 6 weeks since we had that legislation. We had it before the Senate 6 days, and 2 days we had debate only. We had eight amendments, and three of those were unanimously accepted. There were only 5 amendments that would not have been universally accepted by roll call votes. We have our leader talking about the importance of education as a matter of national priority in January. At the Mayors Conference on January 29, he said: But education is going to have a lot of attention, and it's not going to just be words. . . . Education is number one on the agenda for Republicans in the Congress this year. . . . That was in 1999. On February 1, 2000: We're going to work very hard on education. I have emphasized that every year I've been majority leader. . . . And Republicans are committed to doing that. Then he said on February 3, 2000: We must reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. . . . Education will be a high priority in this Congress. Congress Daily, April 20, 2000: . . . Lott said last week his top priorities in May include an agriculture sanctions bill, Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization, and passage of four appropriations bills. And we still haven't had the reauthorization. On May 2, the majority leader was asked: Senator, on ESEA, have you scheduled a cloture vote on that? Senator Lott. No, I haven't scheduled a cloture vote. . . . But education is number one in the minds of the American people all across this country and every state, including my own state. We are still waiting for that. We had 55 different amendments on the bankruptcy bill. Why aren't we saying that education is important? Why aren't we debating it today, or this afternoon, or next Monday, and having votes on it? We are not doing that and we ought to be doing that--It is the Nation's business. So this is an important matter for policy makers and parents. When they hear the leaders of the Senate saying it is a priority and it is important, that we ought to do it, we have to do it, we are committed to doing it, yet we never do it, they have to ask are we serious about this issue. I think these are very serious questions: Are we going to find the time to debate what is on the minds of most families in this country? How their children are going to get the best possible education? What are we going to do at the local level, State level, and Federal level to try to be able to achieve it? This is a matter of very considerable concern. Secondly, I remind our colleagues that education is only 2.3 percent of the Federal fiscal year 2000 budget. Defense is 15 percent. Interest on the debt is 12.3 percent. Entitlements are 12.6 percent. Medicare is 6.5 percent. Medicare is 11.1 percent. Social Security is 22.5 percent. Nondefense discretionary is 17.1 percent. I don't think that is what American families think is a priority. This institution is about prioritizing for the American people. How do we reflect their principal concerns in prioritizing and allocating resources in the budget? I daresay that American families want more than 2.3 percent of our Federal budget supporting education. Now, there are those on the other side of the isle who do not want to see that. They say they don't want any Federal participation. Some on that side have advocated the abolition of the Department of Education. They have wanted to rescind money that we have appropriated. That has been their position, and I don't agree with it. When you see that education is only 2.3 percent of the Federal budget--if you took any part of America and brought together a group of Americans and asked them how they wanted to allocate the Federal dollars, they will talk about national security, certainly, and that is an important priority, and Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security; those are obviously matters of priority. But they would also want to make sure we were going to do more in the area of education--more than 2.3 percent. If you take what we are doing at the K-through-12 level, it is below 1 percent. The remainder of the 2.3 percent includes higher education initiatives including Pell grants and Stafford loans. If you look at what we are doing for the 53 million American children going to school every day, we are at less than 1 percent--less than 1 percent of our budget. I think we are talking about what most families want. They want a partnership between the Federal, State, and local governments to try to find out what programs are effective and what will enhance academic achievement and accomplishment for their children. Let's invest in those programs and let's have tough accountability measures to make sure we are going to get results. That is what this side of the aisle wants to do. This chart is reflective of what has been happening. The Federal share of education funding has declined. This shows in 1980, elementary and secondary education--it was 11.9 percent in 1980, and it was down to 7.7 percent in 1999. The second part is higher education, 15.4 percent in 1980, and down to 10.7 percent in 1999. These indicators are going down when they ought to be going up. That is basically the issue of choice. If you look at what is happening in terms of allocation of priorities in the elementary and secondary education, we are seeing the collapse of the national commitment in terms of educating children in this country. This is wrong. We are talking about priorities, and I think this is an issue that will have to be a matter before the country in this national election. We have seen in the eighties and coming into the nineties a gradual decline in Congress assisting local communities, at a time when there has been an exploding population in K-12. There are scarcer resources going to assist local communities, as we have been able to acquire an increasing knowledge and awareness about efforts that are actually working and enhancing academic achievement. That is the dilemma. That is the dilemma with the budget resolution. The Republican budget resolution allocated a certain amount of resources for the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. I admire the work that has been done by my colleagues, Senator Harkin from Iowa and Senator Specter from Pennsylvania. In spite of their best efforts, because there has been a reduced allocation for their budget, there is going to be a cutback in many of the programs which make a vital difference in educating the children of this country. It does not have to be that way. Included in this budget is a tax cut of some $718 billion over 10 years. When there is an allocation for a tax cut of $718 billion, there is going to be a short shrift of some programs, and in this instance it is education. The American people ought to understand that. I believe it is a higher priority to invest in children and in programs that work rather than having tax breaks for wealthy individuals and corporations of this country. This ought to be an issue during the course of this election because if we are not going to see any departure or change in the leadership in the House or the Senate, we will continue to see this decline in assisting in education. That is irrefutable. I am going to review for the Senate what has happened to some programs that have focused on the enhancement of education. There are cutbacks by the Republican leadership in allocating resources to the Senate appropriations subcommittee because they want a large tax break over a period of years. Democrats have some tax breaks, about a third of what the Republicans want. We have about a third of the cut, but we enhance the programs that are working. That is the major difference. This is not a time for cuts in education. We need to increase our investment in education to ensure a brighter future for the Nation's children. Unfortunately, the bill approved by the House of Representatives is a major retreat from these priorities. It slashed funding for education by $2.9 billion below the President's request. The House bill is even worse than the bill that is before the Senate. Unless we are going to enhance some of these programs during the debate next week, then we cannot expect, when the House and Senate meet, that there is going to be a compromise that is not going to have a further diminution of our commitment than what is before the Senate at this time. The House bill zeros out critical funds to help States turn around failing schools. It slashes funding for 21st century learning center programs by $400 million below the President's request, denying 900 communities the opportunity to provide $1.6 million for after-school activities to keep children off the streets, away from drugs and out of trouble, and help them with their studies. Of all the requests for resources for programs by local communities, perhaps the highest number of requests is for after-school programs. They are working, they are effective, and they are keeping children out of trouble and enhancing academic achievement. These programs are being cut. It eliminates the bipartisan commitment to help communities across the country reduce class size in the early grades. The federal Class Size Reduction program is making a difference. For example, in Columbus Ohio, class sizes in grades 1-3 have been reduced from 25 students per class to 15 students per class. We need to invest more in this program, so that communities can continue to reduce class sizes. It cuts funding for Title I by $166 million below the President's request, reducing or eliminating services to 260,000 educationally disadvantaged children to help them master the basics and meet high standards of achievement--260,000 fewer children will be able to benefit from that program. It reduces the funding for the Reading Excellence Act by $26 million below the President's request, denying services to help 100,000 children become successful readers by the end of the third grade. What sense does that make? We ought to be enhancing our effort to ensure literacy among children in our country. We know what works. Instead, they are cutting back on that effort which has been very successful. It slashes funding for Safe and Drug Free Schools by $51 million below the President's request, denying communities extra help to keep their students safe, healthy, and drug-free, with the development of conflict resolution programs to help schools and school teachers have more orderly, disciplined classrooms and schools. This program is used in schools all over this country. It is not going to resolve all the problems of school violence and school discipline, but it is enormously helpful and useful in trying to help teachers, parents, and officials in local communities to make schools safer and drug-free. This bill does nothing to help communities meet the most urgent repair and modernization needs. These needs are especially urgent in 5,000 schools across the country. We have the GAO study that says it will cost $112 billion to repair and modernize schools so that children go to school in buildings that are modern and safe, and not overcrowded. The administration has come up with a very modest program to help schools in this effort. This effectively turns its back on that effort. It slashes funding for GEAR UP by $125 million below the President's request, denying more than 644,000 low-income middle and high school students the support they need for early college preparation and awareness activities. It does nothing to increase the funding for Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants, so that more communities can recruit and retain better qualified teachers. It slashes funding for Head Start by $600 million below the President's budget, denying 50,000 low-income children critical preschool services. It slashes funding for dislocated workers by $181 million below the President's request, denying over 100,000 dislocated workers much- needed training, job search, and re-employment services. It reduces funding for Adult Job Training by $93 million below the President's request, denying 37,2 and the second part is higher education 00 adults job training this year. If this program goes through, in terms of trade with China, we know there are going to be sectors of our economy that are going to do very well, but there are others that are going to be adversely impacted. Rather than cutting back and slashing training programs for workers who are going to be dislocated, we ought to be strengthening those programs, if we are going to be fair and have a fair and balanced policy on the issues of trade. We are going in the wrong direction. It cuts youth opportunities grants by $200 million below the President's request, eliminating the proposed expansion to 20 new communities, reducing the current program by $75 million, and denying 40,000 of some of the most disadvantaged youth a bridge to the skills and opportunities of our strong economy and alternatives to welfare and crime. It slashes Summer Jobs and Year-Round Youth Training by $21 million below the President's request, reducing the estimated number of low- income youth to be served by over 12,000. What do you expect these young people are going to be involved in? You don't think they are going to look for other routes? And then we are going to have complaints about the problems in terms of an increase in violence and dangerous behavior when we are basically underserving and failing in terms of meeting these requirements--all because we are trying to save money for a tax break for wealthy individuals. That is the alternative. The Senate bill does take some positive steps towards better funding for higher education. It does increase the Pell grant by $350 to $3,650. This is enormously important. The average income for those families is $9,000. If you take children with similar academic test results--not that test results are the only indicator; but let's take those--that makes it even more extraordinary because these children who are coming from low-income and lower-middle income families don't have the advantages that many other children have in taking these prep courses for the SATs and other college aptitude tests. But if you take children with the same academic test results, the chance for children in the lower quarter percentile to continue in higher education is 25 percent of what it would be if they were in the top third of income. Mr. President, 82 percent of children in the top third income bracket continue in higher education. And for just the children who are eligible, 25 percent of them continue in higher education from the lower income bracket. We are finding the disparity in education increasing. We made the efforts years ago, starting in the 1960s, with Republican and bipartisan support, to try to see that there was not going to be enormous disparity in the area of education. That is increasing now. The danger we are facing is whether we are going to see it further increase in the areas of technology. There has been a funding increase of $1.3 billion in IDEA, which I strongly support. I remember offering the amendment last year when we had the tax bill. It was $780 billion over 5 years, to fully fund the IDEA. That would have taken a fifth of the tax bill. And it went down in a resounding defeat. It was a pretty clear indication that the Republican leadership won't fully fund IDEA for a tax cut, but will try to fund the IDEA even if it means cutting back in some of these very important programs that reach out to the neediest children. Once again, the Republican leadership has put block grants ahead of targeted funding for education reforms. Block grants are the wrong approach. They prevent the allocation of scarce resources to the highest education priorities. They eliminate critical accountability provisions that ensure better results for all children. The block grant approach abandons the national commitment to improve education by encouraging proven effective reforms of public schools. Block grants are the wrong direction for education and the wrong direction for the Nation. They do nothing to encourage change in public schools. The bill includes $2.7 billion more for the title VI block grant, but it eliminates the Federal commitment to reducing class size. It does nothing to guarantee funds for communities to address their urgent school repair and modernization needs. It is unconscionable to block grant critical funds that are targeted to the neediest communities to reduce class size. Under the bipartisan Class Size Reduction Program that has received bipartisan support for the past 2 years, funds are distributed based on a formula that is targeted to school districts 80 percent by poverty and 20 percent by population. But under the title VI block grant, funding is distributed based solely on population--it includes no provisions to target the funds to high poverty districts. This is unacceptable, when it is often the neediest students that are in the largest classes. The national class size average is just over 22 students per class. But, in many communities--especially in urban and rural communities-- class sizes are much higher than the national average. In 1998, the publication Education Week found that half of the elementary teachers in urban areas and 44 percent of the teachers in nonurban areas had classes with 25 or more students. Next week, we will have the opportunity to address education in this pending Senate appropriations bill. Democrats will offer amendments to address as many of these critical needs as possible. I intend to offer an amendment to increase funding for Title II of the Higher Education Act, to help communities recruit and train prospective teachers and put a qualified teacher in every classroom. In addition, I will offer an amendment to increase funding for skills training by $792 million to ensure the Nation's workers get the support they need in today's workplace. Senator Murray will offer an amendment to continue the bipartisan commitment we have made over the last two years to help communities reduce class size in the early grades. Senator Harkin and Senator Robb will offer an amendment to ensure that communities get the help they need to meet the most urgent repair and modernization programs. Senator Dodd will offer an amendment to increase funding for the 21st Century Learning Centers Program, so more children will have the opportunity to attend after-school activities. Senator Bingaman will offer an amendment to help States turn around failing schools. Senator Reed will offer an amendment to increase funding for the GEAR UP programs, so more children will be able to attend college. Other colleagues will offer additional amendments to increase the Nation's investment in education. The time is now to invest more in education. The Nation's children and families deserve no less. Mr. President, I want to just take a moment of the Senate's time to speak on where we are on the Patients' Bill of Rights. The American people have waited more than 3 years for Congress to send the President a Patients' Bill of Rights that protects all patients and holds HMOs and other health plans accountable for their actions. Every day the conference on the Patients' Bill of Rights fails to produce agreement on meaningful patient protections, 60,000 more patients endure added pain and suffering. More than 40,000 patients report a worsening of their condition as a result of health plan abuses. This is happening every single day we fail to take action. By all accounts, Republicans are working amongst themselves on the Patients' Bill of Rights. They are working in the middle of the night, behind closed doors, to produce a partisan bill that will surely fail the test of true reform. The crocodile tears were flowing from the eyes of the Senate Republican leadership on June 8 when we took the bipartisan, House-passed Managed Care Consensus Act to the floor for its first Senate vote. That legislation, which passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support last year, is a sensible compromise that extends meaningful protections to all patients and guarantees that health plans are held accountable when their abuses result in injury or death. Democratic Conferees sent a letter to Senator Nickles on June 13. In that letter, we reiterated that we remained ready to negotiate on serious proposals that provide a basis for achieving strong, effective protections. But the Assistant Majority Leader has not responded. The silence is deafening. The gap between the Senate Republican plan and the bipartisan legislation enacted by the House in the Norwood-Dingell bill is wide. And the intransigence of the Republican conferees is preventing adequate progress. Make no mistake. We want a bill that can be signed into law this year. There is not much time left. We need to act now. The Republican leadership continues to refuse to guarantee meaningful protections to all Americans. They continue to delay and deny action on this critical issue. This debate is about real people. It is about women, children, and families. This issue is a very basic and fundamental issue. It is whether doctors, nurses, and families are going to make the medical decisions for patients free of the decisions of the accountants for the HMOs. That is what this bill is really all about. That is why over 300 organizations support our particular proposal: patients organizations, every women's organization, every child's advocate, every cancer prevention and treatment organization is for us, every medical organization--including strong support from the American Medical Association. None of these organizations support the Senate Republican program or the lack of progress in the conference. A third of all the Republicans in the House of Representatives supported the Dingell-Norwood bill. Now we have effectively 49 Members of the Senate who are supporting the Dingell-Norwood legislation. To just get a majority, one would think the changes that would have to be made in this would be extremely easy. I don't think they are that complex. But we still have the Republican leadership denying us the chance to do it. I am always interested in the silence on the other side. I asked: In this Patients' Bill of Rights, which we have basically supported on our side, which one of these guarantees do you not want to provide for your families and for your constituents? The first one is to protect all patients with private insurance. This is the difference. Under the Democratic proposal, there are 161 million Americans who are covered. Under the Senate Republican program, there are only 48 million. Under the bipartisan House of Representatives program, it is 161 million. We ought to be able to decide that pretty easily. Do we want to cover everyone, which is 161 million, or are we going to cover only 48 million? If you put people together in a room, they have to be able to come out with some number. The Republican bill leaves out millions of Americans. I find it absolutely extraordinary to think that we wouldn't provide protections for all Americans. Do we want to leave out the 23 to 25 million State and local employees--teachers, firefighters, police officers, public health nurses, doctors, garbage collectors, et cetera? Do we want to leave them out? They were left out of the Senate bill sponsored by the Republicans. We included them. Do you want to leave out those who are the self-employed--farmers, child care providers, cab drivers, people who work for companies that don't provide insurance, contract workers, workers who are between jobs and unemployed? We cover them, 12 to 15 million people. The Republican bill does not cover them. The bipartisan legislation that we support and which we voted on in the Senate on June 8 covers everyone. But the Senate Republican leadership says ``no'' to farmers, truck drivers, police officers, teachers, home day care providers, fire fighters, and countless others who buy insurance on their own or work for state or local governments. Republican conferees steadfastly refuse to cover all Americans. Their flawed approach leaves out two-thirds of those with private health insurance--more than 120 million Americans. The protections in the House-passed bill are urgently needed by patients across the country. Yet, the Republican leadership is adopting the practice of delay and denial that HMOs so often use themselves to delay and deny patients the care they need. It's just as wrong for Congress to delay and deny these needed reforms, as it is for HMOs to delay and deny needed care. We have listened to statements on the other side that, ``This is all politics. This is all politics.'' We are asking: What is politics, to try to include everyone? What is politics is not including them and being in the debt of the HMOs and the industry. That is the politics. So we ask, what is it that we don't want to provide--which one of over twenty different protections? Are we going to deny access to specialists? Are we not going to permit clinical trials? Are we going to refuse women access to OB/GYNs? What about prescription drugs that doctors give; are we not going to guarantee that? Or are we going to prohibit the gag rule so doctors can give the most accurate information on various treatments? I hope. Are we going to ensure external and internal appeals as well as accountability? Are we going to ensure emergency room access? I would think so. Which of these protections do the Republicans not want to guarantee to the American people? That is the question we are asking. The American people are entitled to an answer. Three hundred organizations that represent the American people say they are entitled to it. We ought to be doing something about it. Every day, we find out that Americans are being harmed. We were able to get bipartisan legislation through the House of Representatives. At the dead end of our conference, the courageous Congressmen, Mr. Norwood and Mr. Ganske, came over and indicated that they believe we are not making progress. They support our efforts in the Senate. Two prominent doctors who happen to be Republicans strongly support our effort in the Senate to get action. We reject the concept that this is just a political ploy. It is interesting to me, having been here for some time, that whenever you agree with the other side, it is wonderful and you are a statesman. If you differ, you are a politician; it is done for political purposes. We have listened to that all the time. We heard it last night on prescription drugs. We heard it on hate crimes. We heard it with regard to the Patients' Bill of Rights. The American people understand the importance of this legislation. We want to give assurances to the American people, we are not letting up on this issue. We are going to press this issue on the Patients' Bill of Rights. We are going to press it, and press it, and press it until we get the job done. We are going to do the same with prescription drugs, so our friends on the other side ought to get familiar with it. Just as we are going to come back to the issue of minimum wage, we are going to come back to it, and back to it, and back to it, if you want to dust off your speeches already and say that that is politics. The idea of guaranteeing someone who works 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year, that they are not going to live in poverty is a fairness issue which the American people understand. We ought to guarantee that minimum wage for work in America. You can name it or call it anything you want, as long as we vote on it and get it and make sure they get the fair increase they deserve. I thought we would have the chance to get into the debate and discussion on a number of these issues, but we are not having that opportunity today. I look forward to debating the issues the first of the week. Mr. President, Congress can pass bipartisan legislation that provides meaningful protections for all patients and guarantees accountability when health plan abuse results in injury or death. The question is ``will we''? The American people are waiting for an answer.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a special honor for me today to pay tribute to the forty-seven outstanding individuals who have received this year's ``Heroes Among Us'' Award from the Boston Celtics. These honorees are men and women of all ages who have chosen different career paths. What they all have in common is the extraordinary contributions they have made to our community. They are role models for us all. They demonstrate the fundamental importance of the individual in our society, by proving that each person can truly make a difference. All of these heroes saw a need to achieve change or take other action in order to improve the lives of others. This past season was the third season in a row that the Boston Celtics have honored one or more these heroes at home games for the special contributions they have made to our society. In those three seasons, the Celtics have honored 114 men and women with the ``Heroes Among Us'' Award, which is one of many programs that the Boston Celtics Charitable Foundation has initiated. The Foundation is dedicated to improving the lives of the youths of New England through innovative outreach initiatives. The Boston Celtic players actively participate in these programs in many ways--from washing cars, to raising funds for books for the Boston Public Schools, to cleaning up sites for the development of homes for low and middle income families in Boston. I commend the Celtics for their commitment to improving the quality of life for the members of our community, and I commend all of these ``Heroes Among Us'' for their dedication and their inspiring leadership. I ask unanimous consent that the names of this year's 47 ``Heroes Among Us'' may be printed in the Congressional Record. Recipients of the 1999-2000 Boston Celtics' ``Heroes Among Us'' Award 1. Charles McAfee. 2. Andre John. 3. Eric Dawson. 4. Stephen DeMasco. 5. Anthony ``Rags'' LaCava. 6. Scott L. Pomeroy. 7. Dr. Thomas Treadwell. 8. Robert McKcan. 9. Nancy Schwoyer. 10. Dr. Louis Kunkel. 11. Robert Watson. 12. Robert Arnold. 13. Dr. Stephen Price. 14. John Kennedy. 15. Rachel Sparkowich. 16. Kathleen Brennan. 17. Jeannie Lindheim. 18. Kristen Finn. 19. Padraic Forry. 20. Jennifer Noonan. 21. Marjorie Kittredge. 22. Kelly Dolan. 23. Lindsay Amper. 24. Michael Bonadio, Sr. 25. John Pearson. 26. Thomas Forest. 27. Patrick Walker. 28. The Families of the Fallen Worcester Firefighters. 29. Billy Ryan. 30. Robert Prince. 31. Reverend Joseph Washington. 32. Nahid Moussavi. 33. Jeraldine Martinson. 34. John Paul Sullivan. 35. Ned Rimer. 36. Eric Schwarz. 37. Ann Forts. 38. Marti Wilson-Taylor. 39. Claudio Martinez. 40. Reverend Hammond. 41. Laurie and Doug Flutie. 42. Stacey Kabat. 43. Detective Tom Chace. 44. Sister Louise Kearns. 45. Sister Jean Sullivan. 46. Ellen Olmstead. 47. Ryan Belanger.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this resolution, S. Res. 303, which I introduced with Senator Grams and Senator Leahy on May 4, expresses our deep concern about the continuing plight of the Russian journalist Andrei Babitsky. The resolution was approved unanimously by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 7. Mr. Babitsky, an accomplished journalist working for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, still faces serious charges in Russia after being held captive by Russian authorities, beaten, and detained in a ``filtration camp'' for suspected Chechen collaborators. The resolution asks the Russian Government to drop its trumped-up charges against Mr. Babitsky, and provide a full accounting of his detention. In addition, the resolution states that the Senate condemns harassment and intimidation of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and other news organizations. It calls upon the Russian Government to adhere fully to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which calls for freedom of expression worldwide. For 10 years, Mr. Babitsky has helped fulfill the mission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty to provide Russian listeners with objective and uncensored reporting. But Russian authorities, displeased with Mr. Babitsky's courageous reporting on the war in Chechnya, accused him of assisting the Chechen forces and ordered him arrested in the battle zone last January. After six weeks in captivity, Mr. Babitsky was released, and then jailed again by Russian officials for carrying false identity papers. He says the papers were forced upon him. After an international outcry arose over his case, he was again released. But he still is not allowed to leave Moscow, and he still faces charges for carrying false papers and aiding the Chechens. In addition, Russian authorities have continued to condemn Radio Liberty's coverage of the Chechen conflict, and have suggested that Radio Liberty should be forced to abandon its facilities in Moscow and throughout Russia. The authorities have taken steps to censor Radio Liberty and to intimidate its correspondents and others. The United States should respond vigorously to this harassment and intimidation. The Russian government should drop its trumped-up charges against Mr. Babitsky. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 1 more minute. That is what this vote is all about. For whom are we going to stand? This is the vote on prescription drugs. This is a program that is tied to the Medicare system. Our elderly people understand Medicare. They believe in Medicare. They know the need for prescription drugs. It is as simple and fundamental as that. It is comprehensive, it is all inclusive, it is affordable, and it will meet the needs of our senior citizens. That is the vote we are going to have in the Senate, and we should meet our commitments to our senior citizens. We know what their needs are. We should meet them. We have that opportunity tonight. Let us not fail them. I withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 2 more minutes. Now it is 20 to 30 percent, as the Senator from Florida has pointed out. We now know this is absolutely an essential need for our seniors. How much more does it have to be studied? With all due respect to the Finance Committee, they had a whole set of hearings last year. We did not have any legislation reported out from the Finance Committee. We have not had any legislation reported in the final weeks of this Congress. We have no commitment that the chairman of the Finance Committee or the Finance Committee members will say: We will have a prescription drug bill on the floor of the Senate for you in July--absolutely not. We have a well-thought-out program that can make the difference for our senior citizens. When Medicare was passed, it was a fundamental commitment by the Federal Government to senior citizens: Work hard, play by the rules, and your health care needs will be attended to. That was the commitment in 1964 and 1965. Every day we fail to pass a prescription drug benefit, we are violating that commitment. Every single day, we find our seniors are in pain and agony and suffering irreparable damage, in many cases because they cannot afford a prescription drug program. That is a fact. That promise is being broken every day because Medicare does not cover prescription drugs. This is wrong. This is fundamentally wrong. Every Member of the Senate knows it in their hearts. Every family in America knows it is wrong. Certainly, every senior citizen knows it is wrong. We have a chance to do something right. We have a chance to put the health care of our senior citizens ahead of the profits of the private special interests.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will sum up where we are on these two extremely important issues, one involving safety in the workplace. The whole issue of ergonomics addresses the most important worker safety issue in the workplace. Now we have an amendment of the Senator from Wyoming, my dear friend, who wants to undermine what has been a 10-year review and a study about how we can provide protection for workers in the workplace who are affected by ergonomics. As has been pointed out, this whole issue was raised by Secretary Dole in the Bush administration who called ergonomic injuries one of the Nation's most debilitating across-the-board worker safety and health issues. Since that time, there have been over 2,000 studies on ergonomics carried out. In 1997, NIOSH, the principal agency of Government that studies these issues, reviewed 600 of the most important of these studies. They made recommendations. In 1998, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed the studies again and again, and they came to the same conclusion. The fact is, the science is clear. The question is whether we will have the will and the determination to take steps to protect our workers. We know what needs to be done. The subject has been studied. Now we have the chance to take a step to protect American workers. These are the facts: 35 percent of the most harmful injuries in the workplace are ergonomic injuries. That is what is happening today. More than 600,000 workers are affected. When you look at who are disproportionately harmed by ergonomic hazards, in lost time, 67 percent who lost working time from repetitive motion injuries were women, and those who lost work time for carpal tunnel injuries were women again, 77 percent. This is a woman's issue; this is a worker's issue. The science is overwhelming. The fact is, historically we have been prepared to take actions to make the workplace safe. We had the great development of our mining systems, and we passed mine safety legislation. Now we need to pass legislation to protect American workers in this area. It has been studied, restudied, and studied again. Once again, we are being asked to discard the various studies and reviews and put the profits of the private sector ahead of the interests of the workers. That is wrong. That is the issue: Are we going to stand for workers or are we going to stand for the profits of the industries in this country? On the second issue, Medicare, I was there, like most of the Members of the Senate, when the President of the United States, in his State of the Union Address, asked the Congress of the United States to pass a prescription drug program based upon Medicare that would deal with the incredible hardship of so many of our seniors. I was also here in 1964 and 1965 when the Senate eventually passed the Medicare program. This issue was discussed during that period of time: Were we going to pass a prescription drug program. The judgment at that time was: Let's pass in Medicare what they are doing in the private sector. A great majority of the private sector, over 90 percent, did not include a prescription drug program, so we did not pass one in the Medicare program. At that time, less than 3 percent of every dollar expended was used for prescription drugs.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains, Mr. President?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly oppose this amendment to prohibit OSHA from moving forward with its ergonomics standard. OSHA has been attempting to implement an ergonomics standard for the past 10 years. But each year, Congress has delayed the standard. As long ago as 1990, the Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole in the Bush Administration called ergonomic injuries ``one of the nation's most debilitating across-the-board worker safety and health illnesses.'' Since that time, over 2,000 scientific studies have examined the issue, including a comprehensive review by the National Academy of Sciences. All of these studies tell us the same thing--it's long past time to enact an ergonomics standard to protect the health of American workers and prevent these debilitating injuries in the workplace. Each year, over 1.7 million workers suffer from ergonomic injuries and nearly 600,000 workers lose a day or more of work because of ergonomic injuries suffered on the job. Ergonomic injuries account for over one-third of all serious job-related injuries. These injuries are painful and often crippling. They range from carpal tunnel syndrome, to severe back injuries, to disorders of the muscles and nerves. Carpal tunnel syndrome keeps workers off the job longer than any other workplace injury. This injury alone causes workers to lose an average of more than 25 days, compared to 17 days for fractures and 20 days for amputations. Ergonomics is also a women's issue, because women workers are disproportionately affected by these injuries. Women make up 46 percent of the overall workforce--but in 1998 they accounted for 64 percent of repetitive motion injuries and 71 percent of carpal tunnel cases. The good news is that these injuries are preventable. The National Academy of Sciences and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health have both found that obvious adjustments in the workplace can prevent workers from suffering ergonomic injuries and illnesses. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that the nation's worker protection laws keep pace with changes in the workforce. Early in this century, the industrial age created deadly new conditions for large numbers of the Nation's workers. When miners were killed or maimed in explosion after explosion, we enacted the Federal Coal Mine Safety and Health Act. As workplace hazards became more subtle, but no less dangerous, we responded by passing the Occupational Safety and Health Act to address hazards such as asbestos and cotton dust. Now, as the workplace moves from the industrial to the information age, our laws must evolve again to address the emerging dangers to American workers. Ergonomic injuries are one of the principal hazards of the modern American workplace--and we owe it to the 600,000 workers who suffer serious ergonomic injuries each year to address this problem now. Ergonomic injuries affect the lives of working men and women across the country. They injure nurses who regularly lift and move patients, and construction workers who lift heavy objects. They harm assembly line workers whose task consists of constant repetitive motions. They injure data entry workers who type on computer keyboards all day long. Even if we are not doing these jobs ourselves, we all know people who do. They are mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, and neighbors--and they deserve our help. We need to help workers like Beth Piknick from Massachusetts, who was an intensive care nurse for 21 years before a preventable back injury required her to undergo a spinal fusion operation and spend two years in rehabilitation. Although she wants to work, she can no longer do so. In her own words, ``The loss of my ability to take care of patients led to a clinical depression. * * * My ability to take care of patients-- the reason I became a nurse--is gone. My injury--and all the losses it has entailed--were preventable.'' We need to help workers like Elly Leary, an auto assembler at the now-closed General Motors Assembly plant in Framingham, Massachusetts. Like many, many of her co-workers, she received a series of ergonomic injuries--including carpal tunnel syndrome and tendinitis. Like others, she tried switching hands to do her job. She tried varying the sequence of the routine. She even bid on other jobs. But nothing helped. Today, years after her injury, when she wakes up in the morning, her hands are in a claw-like shape. To get them to open, she has to run hot water on them. We need to help workers like Charley Richardson, a shipfitter at General Dynamics in Quincy, Massachusetts in the mid-1980's. He suffered a career-ending back injury when he was told to install a 75 pound piece of steel to reinforce a deck. Although he continued to try to work, he found that on many days, he could not endure the lifting and the use of heavy tools. For years afterwards, his injury prevented him from participating in basic activities. But the loss that hurt the most was having to tell his children that they couldn't sit on his lap for more than a few minutes, because it was too painful. To this day, he cannot sit for long without pain. We need to protect workers like Wendy Scheinfeld of Brighton, Massachusetts, a model employee in the insurance industry. Colleagues say she often put in extra hours at work to ``get the job done.'' She developed carpal tunnel syndrome from using the computer at work. As a result, Wendy has lost the use of her hands, and is now permanently unable to do her job, drive a car, play the cello, or shop for groceries. Even though it may be too late to help Beth, Elly, Charley and Wendy, workers just like them deserve an ergonomics standard to protect them from such debilitating injuries. Some in Congress argue that OSHA is rushing the process too much. But let's review the record. OSHA's rulemaking effort began ten years ago in the Bush Administration under Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole. Years of study and development have laid the groundwork for this proposed standard. OSHA held nine stakeholder meetings following its Advance Notice of Public Rulemaking in 1992. OSHA also held 11 best- practices conferences between 1997 and the end of 1999. Since November, 1999, there has been a 100-day pre-hearing comment period and nine weeks of public hearings. The Agency is currently in the midst of a 30-day comment period on an economic analysis and a 60-day post-hearing comment period on the proposed standard. There will be another public hearing on July 7. All told, the public will have had over 8 months of opportunity for public comment since the publication of the proposed standard last November. After 10 years of attempting to address this serious problem, this amendment would delay OSHA's standard yet again. Last fall, when we considered the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, opponents of an ergonomics standard wanted us to wait for the National Academy of Sciences to complete a further study before OSHA establishes a standard. But it was just another delaying tactic. As we said then, over 2,000 studies on ergonomics have already been carried out. In 1997, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health reviewed 600 of the most important of those studies. In 1998, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed the studies again. Congress even asked the General Accounting Office to conduct its own study. The National Academy of Sciences found that work clearly causes ergonomic injuries. They concluded that ``the positive relationship between the occurrence of musculoskeletal disorders and the conduct of work is clear.'' The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health agreed. They found ``strong evidence of an association between MSDs and certain work-related physical factors.'' The Academy also found that ergonomics programs are effective. As the Academy found, ``Research clearly demonstrates that specific interventions can reduce the reported rate of musculoskeltal disorders for workers who perform high-risk tasks.'' Finally, the GAO concluded that ergonomics is good business. Its report declared, ``Officials at all the facilities we visited believed their ergonomics programs yielded benefits, including reductions in workers' compensation costs.'' The truth is that the Labor Department's ergonomics rule is based on sound science. In addition to the National Academy of Sciences and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, medical and scientific groups have expressed widespread support for moving forward with an ergonomics rule. The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, representing over 7,000 physicians, has stated that ``there is * * * no reason for OSHA to delay the rule-making process while the NAS panel conducts its review.'' The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, representing 16,000 surgeons, the American Association of Occupational Health Nurses, representing 13,000 nurses, and the American Public Health Association, representing 50,000 members, all agree that an ergonomics rule is necessary and based on sound science. Many members of the business community support ergonomics protections, because good ergononics is good business. Currently, businesses pay out $15 to 20 billion each year in workers' compensation costs related to these disorders. Ergonomic injuries account for one dollar in every three dollars spent for workers' compensation. If businesses reduce these injuries, they will reap the benefits of lower costs, greater productivity, and decreased absenteeism. That's certainly true for Tom Albin of Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, who said, ``Our experience has shown that incorporating good ergonomics into our manufacturing and administrative processes can be effective in reducing the number and severity of work-related musculoskeletal disorders, which not only benefits our employees, but also makes good business sense.'' Similarly, Peter Meyer of Sequins International Quality Braid has said, ``We have reduced our compensation claims for carpal tunnel syndrome through an effective ergonomics program. Our productivity has increased dramatically, and our absenteeism has decreased drastically.'' This ergonomics rule is necessary, because only one-third of employers currently have effective ergonomics programs. Further delay is unacceptable, because it leaves workers unprotected and open to career-ending injuries. Since OSHA began working on this standard in 1990, more than 6.1 million workers have suffered serious injuries from workplace ergonomic hazards. It is time to stop these injuries--and stop all the misinformation too. This year's attack on OSHA's ergonomics standard is just the latest in a long series of attacks against this important worker protection measure. American employees deserve greater protection, not further delay. It's time to stop breaking the promise made to workers, and start supporting this long overdue ergonomics standard now.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a lover of music and an institution on Boston radio who recently passed away at age 68. In his long and brilliant career, Robert J. Lurtsema touched vast numbers of people in the Boston area with his ``deep organ voice'' and his love of classical music. For twenty-nine years, he was host and producer of ``Morning Pro Musica'' for radio station WGBH in our city, and he was widely loved and admired. A native of Cambridge, Massachusetts, Robert J., as he was known to many, graduated from Boston University School of Journalism. He joined WGBH in 1971 as a weekend host, and after four months became the host and producer of ``Morning Pro Musica.'' In addition to the renown he won through his dedicated listeners, he has composed chamber music, the music for an award-winning documentary film, and the music used in Julia Child's cooking program on PBS. Robert J.'s passion and devotion to classical music extended well beyond his broadcast responsibilities. He served with distinction as a board member for many New England musical organizations. He will be deeply missed for his dedication to the arts, and long remembered for his extraordinary service to the people of New England.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to speak about one of the most important parts of the proposed aid package for Colombia, the human rights conditions. Narcotics traffickers, rebel forces, and paramilitary groups present a clear threat to democracy and economic development in Colombia. The bill before us provides $934 million to help the Colombian Government meet this threat. About 75 percent of this aid is for military equipment, training, and logistical support. The Colombian Government says it needs this military assistance--especially the helicopters--to enable its armed forces to retake the southern part of the country from the narcotraffickers and the rebel forces who protect and profit from their activities. Like my colleagues, I am interested in ensuring that this aid does not contribute to human rights abuses. While allegations of human rights violations by military personnel have decreased in the past several years, the State Department's 1999 Country Report on Human Rights Practices concluded that the Colombian Government's human rights record ``remained poor'' and that ``armed forces and the police committed numerous, serious violations of human rights throughout the year.'' The Colombian Armed Forces are consistently and credibly linked to illegal paramilitary groups, which are now responsible for the majority of serious human rights abuses in Colombia, including an estimated 153 massacres in 1999 which claimed 889 lives. These paramilitary groups have stepped up their own illegal narcotics operations, which, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration, include drug trafficking abroad. When I met with President Pastrana last December, he emphasized his commitment to improving the human rights performance of the Colombian Armed Forces, which have a long history of human rights violations. The bill before us makes this commitment the basis for new military assistance to Colombia. The bill requires the Secretary of State to certify that the Colombian Government has met or is meeting four conditions before new military aid can be provided. The first condition requires the Secretary of State to certify that the President of Colombia has directed in writing that Colombian Armed Forces personnel who are credibly alleged to have committed gross violations of human rights will be brought to justice in Colombia's civilian courts, in accordance with the 1997 ruling of Colombia's Constitutional Court. Currently, the military justice system does not aggressively or consistently pursue cases against high-ranking military personnel accused of human rights abuses. The 1999 State Department Human Rights Report states that ``authorities rarely brought officers of the security forces and the police charged with human rights offenses to justice, and impunity remains a problem.'' It concludes that the ``workings of the military judiciary lack transparency and accountability, contributing to a generalized lack of confidence in the system's ability to bring human rights abusers to justice.'' To rectify this problem, in August 1997, Colombia's Constitutional Court ruled that ``crimes against humanity'' could never be considered acts of military service and that military personnel alleged to have committed such crimes must be prosecuted in civilian courts. However, the military has consistently challenged civilian court jurisdiction. The military has retained jurisdiction by threatening government investigators and by arguing that alleged violations of human rights, such as collusion with paramilitary groups, are simply acts of omission. Acts of omission are considered acts of military service, as if they were simple dereliction of duty. Most importantly, the military continues to retain jurisdiction in human rights by relying on the support of a pro-military block within the Superior Judicial Council, the body responsible for determining the jurisdiction of individual cases. The U.S. Government has said that these practices undercut the intent of the Constitutional Court ruling. According to the 1999 State Department Human Rights Report, the Superior Judicial Council ``regularly employed an extremely broad definition of acts of service, thus ensuring that uniformed defendants of any rank, particularly the most senior, were tried in military tribunals.'' In the 8 years the Superior Judicial Council has existed, it has never sent a case of a general accused of a human rights violation to a civilian court. As a result of these practices, the military has retained jurisdiction even in cases of the most egregious atrocities. For example, dozens of civilians were killed, and thousands were forced to flee for their lives, in the town of Mapiripan in July 1997. The Superior Judicial Council ruled that the case involved an act of omission by General Jaime Uscategui. Therefore, as an act of military service, it belonged before a military court. The General was eventually forced to resign, but he has yet to be prosecuted for his crimes. The Colombian Armed Forces have claimed that they are abiding by the Constitutional Court ruling and accepting civilian court jurisdiction in human rights cases. However, a careful analysis of the military's own statistics demonstrates the opposite. In a recent publication on human rights, Colombia's Defense Ministry asserts that, pursuant to the 1997 Constitutional Court ruling, the Colombian Armed Forces had turned over 576 cases of possible human rights violations to civilian courts for investigation and possible prosecution. For 3 months my office has tried to obtain a breakdown of this number in order to determine the nature of the crimes committed, the number of these cases that were actually prosecuted, and the rank of the personnel involved. To date, the Colombian Defense Ministry has only documented 103 of the 576 cases. Of these 103 cases, only 39 actually involved human rights violations by members of the Armed Forces. The highest ranking officials were two lieutenant colonels. The remaining 64 cases involved abuses by members of the Colombian National Police or common crimes. In other words, the Colombian Defense Ministry grossly misrepresented its record. In fact, the Colombian Armed Forces have transferred only 39 cases of human rights violations, committed by low level officials, to civilian courts in the past 2 years--not the 576 cases that the Colombian Defense Ministry claimed. Colombian lawyers have analyzed this matter. The highly respected Colombian Commission of Jurists concluded that the requirement in the amendment that the President issue a written directive requiring the military to accept civilian jurisdiction in human rights cases is consistent with President Pastrana's role as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. In fact, the Commission recently filed a petition with President Pastrana requesting that, as Commander-in-Chief, he order the military to cease disputing jurisdiction in cases involving credible allegations of human rights abuse. This requirement does not compromise the integrity of Colombia's separation of powers or the independence of the executive and judiciary. To the contrary, it would uphold the judiciary's power by obligating the military to abide by civilian rule and the law. The second condition contained in this bill requires the Secretary of State to certify that the Commander General of the Armed Forces is promptly suspending from duty any Armed Forces personnel who are credibly alleged to have committed gross violations of human rights or to have aided or abetted paramilitary groups. Currently, there is no automatic process for suspending a member of the Colombian Armed Forces alleged to have violated human rights. The case of Colombian Senator Manuel Cepeda is illustrative. Senator Cepeda was murdered in 1994. The investigation carried out by the Attorney General's Office revealed that the murder had been carried out by the military in collusion with paramilitary groups. Nevertheless, the accused officers remained on active duty for five years, from 1994 until 1999, when they were finally suspended as a result of vigorous protests by the human rights community. In contrast, General Serrano, who just recently resigned as head of the National Police, had the authority to suspend police suspected of corruption, human rights abuses, or other misconduct. To his credit, General Serrano discharged over 11,000 officers since taking command in 1994. This condition supports the recent actions of the Colombian Congress. On March 15, the Colombian Congress passed a law to restructure the Armed Forces, including granting the Armed Forces Commander the authority to suspend Armed Forces personnel suspected of misconduct. President Pastrana was given 6 months, until September, to issue the necessary implementing decrees. If he does not, the law becomes null and void. The third condition contained in the bill requires the Secretary of State to certify that the Colombian Armed Forces and its Commander General are fully complying with the provisions regarding prosecution and suspension of Armed Forces personnel credibly alleged to have committed gross violations of human rights. The Colombian Armed Forces must also cooperate fully with civilian authorities in investigating, prosecuting, and punishing in the civilian courts Colombian Armed Forces personnel who are credibly alleged to have committed such crimes. As I discussed earlier, the Colombian Armed Forces have consistently resisted the 1997 Constitutional Court's ruling that transfers jurisdiction for human rights cases from military to civilian courts. They have failed to ensure that Armed Forces personnel who are credibly alleged to have committed human rights abuses are investigated, prosecuted, and punished in the civilian courts. They have resisted suspending military personnel who are alleged to be involved in human rights violations or to have collaborated with paramilitary groups. And they have grossly misrepresented their record, claiming 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 fourth condition contained in the bill requires the Secretary of State to certify that the Government of Colombia is vigorously prosecuting in the civilian courts the leaders and members of paramilitary groups and Colombian Armed Forces personnel who are aiding or abetting these groups. According to the 1999 State Department Human Rights Report, paramilitary groups accounted for about 78 percent of human rights abuses in 1999. In a rare televised interview, notorious paramilitary leader Carlos Castano recently admitted that cocaine and heroin fund an entire unit of 3,200 paramilitary fighters. Overall, he said that 70 percent of his war chest is culled from drug trafficking. Despite President Pastrana's commitment to eliminate ties between the Colombian Armed Forces and paramilitary groups, the State Department, the United Nations, and human rights groups have documented continuing links. The 1999 State Department Human Rights Report 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.'' The fact that Carlos Castano appeared on Colombian television in March, but remains invisible to Colombian law enforcement agencies, demonstrates the impunity with which he is able to operate in Colombia. Human Rights Watch has documented links between military and paramilitary groups. These links are not only in isolated, rural areas but in Colombia's principal cities. According to evidence collected by Human Rights Watch, half of Colombia's 18 brigade-level units are linked to paramilitary activity. The Colombian military has 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, 2000, 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. If the Colombian Government is serious about severing the links between military and paramilitary groups, it must demonstrate, at all levels of government and the military, that these allegations will be investigated promptly and punished seriously. These links must be severed if the Colombian Government, with United States assistance, is to mount a successful counternarcotics campaign and stop the violence committed by illegal paramilitary groups. If these links are not severed, our Government will be complicit in the abuses. I recently met with Colombian Senator Piedad Cordoba, the chairman of the Colombian Senate's Human Rights Committee. She personally witnessed this military-paramilitary cooperation during her May 1999 kidnapping by paramilitary leader Carlos Castano. Senator Cordoba told me that the kidnappers' car passed through eight military roadblocks without being stopped or searched. She said that the helicopter that took her to the jungle camp where she was held landed at an airstrip just a few miles from a military base. She told me that Castano boasted when he showed her transcripts of her private telephone conversations, transcripts that he could have only obtained from military intelligence sources. The strong human rights conditions contained in this bill will ensure that the Colombian Government takes concrete steps to prosecute and punish military personnel alleged to have committed human rights abuses or to have collaborated with paramilitary groups. I commend Senators McConnell and Leahy for including this language in the bill. The conditions will also encourage the Colombian Government to arrest and prosecute at least some paramilitary leaders and members. During the conference on this bill, I urge the Senate conferees to insist on retaining these strong and well-considered conditions. The conditions contained in the House version of the bill, while certainly well-intentioned, are both weak and inconsistent with Colombia's Constitution. For example, the requirement to create a Judge Advocate General Corps within the Armed Forces to investigate human rights abuses is contrary to the 1997 ruling of Colombia's Constitutional Court that requires the investigation and prosecution of these abuses in the civilian justice system. The House provision regarding a Presidential waiver of the human rights conditions in case of ``extraordinary circumstances'' seriously degrades the importance of human rights as a fundamental principle of U.S. foreign policy--a principle shared on a bipartisan basis over many years. The protection of human rights should not be a ``waivable'' foreign policy objective. It should be enforced with the same vigor as our anti-drug goals. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a May 11 letter from Human Rights Watch on the House provisions be included in the Record at the end of my remarks. This letter reflects the strong opposition of the human rights community to these House provisions. Two years ago, the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial presented its annual Human Rights Award to four Colombians who are leaders of grassroots efforts to defend human rights in Colombia. These Human Rights Laureates--Jaime Prieto Mendez, Mario Humberto Calixto, Gloria Ines Florez Schneider, and Berenice Celeyta Alayon--represented groups that fight for human rights, the rights of displaced persons, and the rights of political prisoners. These courageous individuals, and thousands of others like them throughout Colombia, risk their lives every day. They need and deserve our support. The conditions included in this bill are for them. The conditions are also for us. They will guard against America's complicity in human rights violations in Colombia.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce a bill to reauthorize the Corporation for National Service, along with 25 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle. In 1993 Congress created the Corporation for National Service to enhance opportunities for all Americans to participate in contributing to their communities by actively engaging in local service programs. Community service should not be an option only for those who can afford to perform an important job without pay. It should be an opportunity for everyone. Every week, I have the privilege of reading with a third grade student in Washington, and I have seen her make very impressive progress during the last three years. I know first-hand that those who engage in community service gain as much as they give when they participate. The Corporation for National Service is expanding these opportunities for service by offering stipends and education awards to AmeriCorps members, and stipends to senior volunteers. It also offers professional development opportunities to teachers and identified leader schools, who will mentor other schools interested in beginning to pursue service learning. In the last five years, 150,000 adults have given a year of service to communities across the country as AmeriCorps members. 500,000 senior citizens each year provide service to their communities in Foster Grandparent Programs, Senior Companion Programs, and the Retired Senior Volunteer Corps. In addition, over 1 million school children each year participate in service learning programs. The national service movement has also encouraged businesses to become actively involved in improving their communities. Local business leaders have stepped up to the plate to sponsor service corps programs, to offer technical support for existing programs, and to use community service as a way to work with local schools. As Robert Kennedy said, in words that became the hallmark of his life, ``Some people see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were, and say why not?'' Because of community service, more and more citizens are asking that question every day in communities across the country. In Massachusetts, under the leadership of Maureen Curley and her talented Board of Directors, the Massachusetts Service Alliance has helped citizens to act against the injustices that they see around them. From City Year and Peace Games in Boston to Greenfield READS and the Barnstable Land Trust, they have created new opportunities to tutor, to provide useful information on health care, to fight domestic violence, to help senior citizens live independent lives, and to repair and revitalize their communities in many other ways. They have found that many citizens in their communities are eager to be involved and to stay involved, and they have been successful in creating large numbers of opportunities for that involvement. Last year, 180,000 citizens contributed 3.5 million hours of service in 140 communities across the state. Programs such as City Year, which began as a dream of Michael Brown and Alan Khazei in Boston, has a program in 13 sites across the country, engaging over 2,000 Corps members in service. We will welcome their newest site here in Washington in September. This bipartisan bill that we offer today will allow these programs to continue to grow and enable many more Americans to participate in improving their communities and building a stronger America. Our former colleague, Dan Coats, has written an eloquent article in support of AmeriCorps. The article appeared in today's edition of The Hill, and I ask unanimous consent that it be made a part of the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce a bill to reauthorize the Corporation for National Service, along with 25 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle. In 1993 Congress created the Corporation for National Service to enhance opportunities for all Americans to participate in contributing to their communities by actively engaging in local service programs. Community service should not be an option only for those who can afford to perform an important job without pay. It should be an opportunity for everyone. Every week, I have the privilege of reading with a third grade student in Washington, and I have seen her make very impressive progress during the last three years. I know first-hand that those who engage in community service gain as much as they give when they participate. The Corporation for National Service is expanding these opportunities for service by offering stipends and education awards to AmeriCorps members, and stipends to senior volunteers. It also offers professional development opportunities to teachers and identified leader schools, who will mentor other schools interested in beginning to pursue service learning. In the last five years, 150,000 adults have given a year of service to communities across the country as AmeriCorps members. 500,000 senior citizens each year provide service to their communities in Foster Grandparent Programs, Senior Companion Programs, and the Retired Senior Volunteer Corps. In addition, over 1 million school children each year participate in service learning programs. The national service movement has also encouraged businesses to become actively involved in improving their communities. Local business leaders have stepped up to the plate to sponsor service corps programs, to offer technical support for existing programs, and to use community service as a way to work with local schools. As Robert Kennedy said, in words that became the hallmark of his life, ``Some people see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were, and say why not?'' Because of community service, more and more citizens are asking that question every day in communities across the country. In Massachusetts, under the leadership of Maureen Curley and her talented Board of Directors, the Massachusetts Service Alliance has helped citizens to act against the injustices that they see around them. From City Year and Peace Games in Boston to Greenfield READS and the Barnstable Land Trust, they have created new opportunities to tutor, to provide useful information on health care, to fight domestic violence, to help senior citizens live independent lives, and to repair and revitalize their communities in many other ways. They have found that many citizens in their communities are eager to be involved and to stay involved, and they have been successful in creating large numbers of opportunities for that involvement. Last year, 180,000 citizens contributed 3.5 million hours of service in 140 communities across the state. Programs such as City Year, which began as a dream of Michael Brown and Alan Khazei in Boston, has a program in 13 sites across the country, engaging over 2,000 Corps members in service. We will welcome their newest site here in Washington in September. This bipartisan bill that we offer today will allow these programs to continue to grow and enable many more Americans to participate in improving their communities and building a stronger America. Our former colleague, Dan Coats, has written an eloquent article in support of AmeriCorps. The article appeared in today's edition of The Hill, and I ask unanimous consent that it be made a part of the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand it, Senator Hatch will control 10 minutes; am I correct?