Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, what is the matter that is before the Senate at the present time?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes of the 4 minutes. I think this chart really tells what is happening in the area of the Federal share of education funding. It demonstrates the very significant decline from 1980 to 1999. The blue on the chart indicates what was being spent in elementary and secondary education in 1980. Here we see it was 11.9 percent in elementary and secondary education and 15.4 percent in higher education. Now we are at 7.7 percent in elementary and secondary education and 10.7 percent in the area of higher education. There has been a significant decline in terms of the money that is being spent in education. Look at what has happened in the area of higher education, where you see a continuing expansion of enrollment in terms of higher education. And it is going to continue. There is an important need in the area of higher education, as there is in K through 12. This chart shows the enormous rise in the total enrollment in schools all across this country. Every parent, every school board, every local group can tell you that. It is against that background that we find in the President's budget there would be $6.9 billion. This increases $2.2 billion. That reflects the difference in the Bingaman amendment. We say allocate that money before we are going to have a tax break. There was a question raised earlier about whether this was an accurate portrayal. I will put in the Record the CBO figures, as prepared by OMB, that give the whole function that lists education, training, and the Head Start programs. The bottom line shows there is $4.7 billion less, according to CBO, than the President's budget. Those are the figures. Those are the figures in the Bingaman amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have that table printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I had the privilege of meeting today with a wonderful group of courageous and dedicated young people who are members of Mayor Thomas Menino's Youth Council in Boston. This diverse group of junior and senior high school students is in town for their annual trip to Washington to discuss issues that affect today's youth. The group presented a letter signed by hundreds of Boston's young people, asking Congress to provide funding for youth summer jobs programs. Mayor Menino's Youth Council was established in 1994 to give young people the opportunity to take an active role as advocates on issues that directly affect their lives. These dedicated volunteers from each of the neighborhoods in Boston have reached out to their community. They work closely with other organizations to hold monthly meetings and workshops, and they sponsor forums where young people can express their concerns and recommend solutions to elected officials. This week these high school students are here to emphasize their support for increased funding for summer job programs. These programs provide valuable job experience for youths who otherwise might not have them. It helps them support their families and save money for college. Last summer, 500,000 young people were able to give back to their community, serving in such worthwhile summer programs as day camps, child care, care for the elderly, and cleaning city parks and recreation areas. Studies show that early work experience raises lifetime earnings by ten percent. Clearly, our investment in these programs opens doors for the future by providing experience, connections in the community, and an increased prospects for their lifelong earning potential. I commend the efforts of these young people to create jobs, and to prepare students for worthwhile careers and the important choices that lie ahead. I look forward to working with them to build on this effort and make it even more effective. I also look forward to seeing these young activists become the leaders who will make a difference whatever challenge they face. I hope that they will continue to inspire their peers and their representatives through their energy, dedication and passion on the issues that can make a difference in the lives of our nation's youth. I congratulate these future leaders, for they are truly shining examples to us all.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Krugman writes: Anyway, in the short run--and what we have right now is a short-run gasoline shortage--cutting gas taxes probably won't even temporarily reduce prices at the pump. The quantity of oil available for U.S. consumption over the near future is pretty much a fixed number; the inventories on hand plus the supplies en route from the Middle East. Even if OPEC increases its output next month-- Which they did, as we heard from the announcements in the last couple of days-- supplies are likely to be limited for a couple more months. The rising price of gasoline to consumers is in effect the market's way of rationing that limited supply of oil. Now suppose that we were to cut gasoline taxes. If the price of gas at the pump were to fall, motorists would buy more gas. But there isn't any more gas, so the price at the pump, inclusive of the lower tax, would quickly be bid right back up to the pre-tax-cut level. And that means that any cut in taxes would show up not in lower price at the pump, but in a higher price paid to distributors. In other words, the benefits of the tax cut would flow not to consumers but to the other parties, mainly the domestic oil refining industry. There is a very substantial body of opinion that agrees with that. If we are talking about enhancements of profits of the domestic oil refining industry--and that is going to be the result of legislation-- we ought to give consideration to men and women in this country making the minimum wage, trying to make ends meet, playing by the rules, working hard 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year trying to keep their families together. There is a more compelling public interest for a modest increase in the minimum wage than in lowering the gas tax. If we are talking about providing some relief to the American consumers, it seems to me among the American consumers, the ones who are the most hard-pressed in our society, are those who are earning the minimum wage. If we are interested in providing such relief, we ought to at least address their particular needs. That is what this amendment will do, and that is the reason I have filed it. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in morning business, I send an amendment to the desk to S. 2285.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, soon the Senate will have an opportunity to consider legislation to lower the Federal gasoline tax. The amendment I submit intends to at least consider on that particular measure an increase in the minimum wage in two phases--50 cents this year and 50 cents next year. If the idea of repealing the gasoline tax is to provide some relief for hard-working Americans, it seems to me the best way we can provide some relief to the 11 million Americans who are earning the minimum wage is to provide a modest increase--50 cents this year and 50 cents next year--so they have less of an adverse impact, whether they are paying for gas to go to work at the present time or otherwise dealing with increased costs with which they are faced every single day. I am mindful of some of the recent reports about whether this gasoline reduction will have much of an impact, in any event, for consumers and working families in this country. All one has to do is read what a Republican leader in the House of Representatives said about this particular issue when he pointed out in the New York Times-- this is J.C. Watts: If that were not chilling enough to Republicans eager to maintain their tenuous control of the House this fall, other party leaders voiced skepticism over the repeal's impact on consumers. ``I don't know if the tax has any effect on fuel costs,'' says Rep. J.C. Watts. ``Supply and demand is driving prices right now.'' That is an interesting and, I think, a pretty accurate statement. As a matter of fact, included in the fundamental legislation is a study as to whether lowering the cost of gasoline will have any positive impact on consumers. On Wednesday, March 15, in the New York Times, there was a very interesting article by Paul Krugman of MIT talking about ``Gasoline Tax Follies.'' I will reference part of the article. I ask unanimous consent the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to go into morning business for 3 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, at a recent event at the John F. Kennedy Library in Boston, the Chairman of the Library Foundation, Paul G. Kirk, Jr., and the new Director of the Peace Corps, Mark Schneider, spoke of the importance of the Peace Corps as it launched its year- long, 40th anniversary celebration. Mr. Schneider announced a new initiative to expand the role of Peace Corps volunteers in bringing information technology to the task of reducing poverty in developing countries. He also outlined a plan to expand the Peace Corps' efforts to raise global awareness about HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. It is fitting that this occasion was held at President Kennedy's library. In March 1961, President Kennedy launched the Peace Corps as a new idea to demonstrate that a new generation of Americans was moving into positions of leadership in the United States, and they intended to serve the cause of peace around the world. The Peace Corps today continues its vital and thriving mission, with 7,400 volunteers serving in 77 countries, including recent missions in South Africa, Jordan, Mozambique and Bangladesh. In the past four decades, more than 150,000 Americans have served as Peace Corps volunteers in 134 countries, promoting peace, education, economic development and international cooperation. Mr. President, I commend the significant current role of the Peace Corps in involving U.S. citizens in world affairs, and making the world a better place by their efforts. I ask consent that the addresses by Mark Schneider and Paul Kirk be printed in the Record. The material follows: Remarks of Paul G. Kirk, Jr. Thank you, Jim. Good evening. I know this is a special occasion for all of you, but I want you to know that it is an equally special evening for those of us associated with the Kennedy Library. Like each of you, I am also a volunteer in an important cause. And in my responsibilities as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation, few privileges are as significant as having the honor to welcome home so many Peace Corps Volunteers to the nation's memorial to President Kennedy. Senator Kennedy and Mark Schneider agreed that this Library, whose mission it is to honor John Kennedy's public life and career and to perpetuate his passion for service, is the most appropriate site at which to begin the celebration of the 40th Anniversary of the Peace Corps. And I congratulate you and I am delighted to welcome you all on behalf of the Kennedy Family, our Board of Directors and our dedicated staff. Here in New England, as you know, we enjoy many seasons. At this time of year, we look forward to the springtime--a season when nature's energy bursts forth, when promise and hope are renewed--when opportunities seem limitless--and when a spirit of confidence and optimism make all of us, regardless of our age, feel younger than our years. If it could be said that politics also has seasons, 40 years ago there began a season in our history that proved to be--and remains today--the height of America's political springtime--as the nation, renewed in energy, hope and idealism, responded to the patriotic call to service of the newly elected, youthful 35th President of the United States. If, as I believe, his 1000 days were ``the height of America's political springtime'', then it must be said that the planting and the subsequent flowering of the Peace Corps epitomizes all that is the very best in the lasting legacy of that season of service. On March 1, 1961, 6 weeks after his inauguration, upon signing the Executive Order establishing the Peace Corps, President Kennedy said he was convinced that ``We have in this country, an immense reservoir of men and women--anxious to sacrifice their energies and time and toil to the cause of world peace and human progress.'' He acknowledged that ``life in the Peace Corps will not be easy,'' but he also promised it would be ``rich and satisfying.'' ``. . . (E)very young American who participates in the Peace Corps--who works in a foreign land''--he said, ``will know that he or she is sharing in the great common task of bringing to man that decent way of life which is the foundation of freedom and a condition of peace.'' 40 years later, thanks to your service and what you continue to do, his words have a timeless quality. Tonight, you begin your 40th Anniversary celebration at a Library and Museum that celebrates scholarship and service in John Kennedy's memory each day it opens its doors. His history and yours are preserved here for scholastic research. We seek to perpetuate his inspiration and yours by the various activities and programs which take place here: the Profile in Courage Award, the Distinguished Foreign Visitors Programs, the forums and symposia promoting public discourse on the issues of our time, the 1st Pres. Debate of general election 2000 which we will co-host with the University of Massachusetts-Boston, the John F. Kennedy Library Corps a youth based community service and leadership program modeled after the Peace Corps itself. Your own service in the Peace Corps and your presence here tonight speak the mission of the Kennedy Library. At a time when citizen participation, even voting, in the world's greatest democracy, is embarrassingly low, reminding others of the importance of service is at the core of our message. No group can take greater pride in having lived President Kennedy's mantra that ``each individual can make a difference, and all of us must try'' than Peace Corps Volunteers. We are honored by your presence, and the country is honored by the difference you have made by your service, and we hope you'll return next year to wind up your anniversary celebration in the tone and spirit and at the place where it begins tonight. In addition to marking your 40th Anniversary, tonight could also serve as the 30th Reunion of Mark Schneider and myself. As you know, Mark is the second returned Peace Corps Volunteer to head the agency. Upon his return from El Salvador, 30 years ago Mark and I began working together in the Washington office of Senator Ted Kennedy. Mark came to Massachusetts for the Senator's 1970 campaign and tonight could probably tell you as much about the issues and demographics of this state as could the head of our Chamber of Commerce. From those days to this, Mark has demonstrated the idealism, energy and leadership qualities reflecting the very best in a career of public service. In key posts at the Department of State, Pan American Health Organization, and at USAID, Mark's values, his leadership and commitment made a difference in the lives of hundreds of thousands of families in other lands who will never know his name. I can tell you that the Peace Corps is in the hands of the best of individuals under the direction and leadership of a man whose name and values I know well and respect greatly. Please join me in a rousing New England Peace Corps welcome for the Peace Corps' able Director, Mark Schneider. Mark, as a way of sharing and renewing and celebrating all that was begun by President Kennedy 40 years ago, on behalf of all of us here who seek to remind future generations of his inspiration and to perpetuate his challenge for sacrifice and service, I present this bust of John Kennedy to you, as Peace Corps Director, from the Kennedy Library and Foundation. It is our hope that this bust will be displayed in the Director's Office not only commemorating this occasion and this Anniversary year but also reminding those in years to come that Peace Corps Volunteers will forever remain the best products of ``the height of America's political springtime''.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senators Jeffords, Frist, Dodd, Hatch, Bingaman, and Wellstone in introducing the Ryan White CARE Reauthorization Act. I commend Senator Jeffords for his leadership and commitment in making this legislation a top priority of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee for enactment this year. I commend Senator Frist for his medical knowledge and expertise in drafting this legislation. Senator Dodd has been strongly committed to this issue for many years and I am pleased that he continues his commitment this year. Senator Hatch joined me more than a decade ago when we first introduced this legislation, and he has remained committed and involved ever since, and I commend his leadership. Senators Bingaman and Wellstone are members of our Senate Committee, and they have shown a great deal of interest in making sure that these resources reach rural Americans and other emerging populations. Over the past twenty years, the nation has made extraordinary progress in responding to the AIDS epidemic. Medical advances, new and effective treatments, and the development of an HIV care infrastructure in every state have dramatically improved the access to care for individuals and families with HIV who would otherwise not be able to afford such care. By providing life-sustaining health and related support services, we have reduced the spread of AIDS. The CARE Act has contributed to the significant drop in new AIDS cases. AIDS-related deaths have decreased significantly, dropping 42% from 1996 to 1997, and 20% from 1997 to 1998. Persons with HIV/AIDS are living longer and healthier lives because of the CARE Act. Perinatal HIV transmission from mother to child has been reduced by 75% from 1992 to 1997. We are closing the gap in health care disparities in vulnerable populations such as communities of color, women, and persons with HIV who are uninsured and underinsured. Medications have made a difference too. Highly active anti-retroviral therapies have given a second lease on life to many Americans with HIV/ AIDS. An estimated 80% of persons in treatment have used one or more of these new and effective drugs. HIV health care and supportive services have also made a difference. An estimated 600,000 persons have received HIV services through the Ryan White CARE Act, including primary care, substance abuse treatment, dental care, hospice care, and other specialized HIV health care services, and the availability of these services has enabled them to lead productive lives. In Massachusetts, for example, we have seen an overall 77% decline in AIDS and HIV-related deaths since 1995. At the same time, however, like many other states, we are concerned about the changing HIV/AIDS trends and profiles. AIDS and HIV cases increased in women by 11% from 1997 to 1998, and 55% of persons living with AIDS in the state are persons of color. Clearly, we have had significant successes in fighting AIDS. We have come a long way from the days when ideology dictated care for people with AIDS and not sound public health policy. Fortunately, with the leadership of Senator Hatch and Senator Jeffords and our bipartisan coalition, we were able to enact the Ryan White CARE Act in memory of Ryan White. He was a young man with hemophilia who contracted AIDS through blood transfusions, and touched the world's heart through his valiant efforts to speak out against the ignorance and discrimination faced by many persons living with AIDS. His mother, Jeanne White carried on her son's message after Ryan's death in 1990. She was instrumental in the passage of the Care Act in 1990 and then again in 1996 and now in 2000. The enactment of the Ryan White CARE Act in 1900 provided an emergency response to the devastating effects of HIV on individuals, families, communities, and state and local governments. The CARE Act signaled a comprehensive approach by targeting funds to respond to the specific needs of communities. Title I targets the hardest hit metropolitan areas in the country. Local planning and priority setting requirements under Title I assure that each of the Eligible Metropolitan Areas respond to the local HIV/AIDS demographics. Title II of the Act funds emergency relief to the states. It helps them to develop an HIV care infrastructure and provide effective and life-sustaining HIV/AIDS drug therapies through the AIDS Drug Assistance Program to over 61,000 persons each month. Title III funds community health centers and other primary health care providers that serve communities with a significant and disproportionate need for HIV care. Many of these community health centers are located in the hardest hit areas, serving low income communities. Finally, Title IV of the CARE Act is designed to meet the specific needs of women, children and families. While the CARE Act has benefited large numbers of Americans in need, a number of critical areas remain where improvements are essential if we are to meet the growing needs in our communities. We know that of the estimated 750,000 persons living with HIV/AIDS in the United States, over 215,000 know their HIV status, yet are not in care. New health care access points are needed to bring these persons into care. At the same time, the CARE Act programs currently serving an estimated 600,000 persons annually are challenged more than ever in meeting the growing need and demand for services. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that the need will continue to grow since we have an estimated 40,000 new cases of HIV/AIDS annually in the United States. Also, not everyone is benefiting from the advances in the development of new and effective drug treatments. The skyrocketing costs of expensive AIDS drugs, estimated at $15,000 annually per person, has led 26% of the CARE Act's AIDS Drug Assistance Programs to cap enrollment, establish waiting lists, or limit eligibility. Guaranteeing that effective drug treatments are available and affordable to all persons with HIV/AIDS has always been a priority for the CARE Act. Reducing barriers to access in communities of color and other vulnerable populations is a priority for this reauthorization. We are fortunate in Massachusetts to have a state budget that has also been able to provide funding for primary care, prevention, and outreach efforts, but no state by itself can provide the significant financial resources to help persons living with HIV to obtain needed medical and support access. We still find serious disparities in access to HIV health care in communities of color, women, the uninsured and underinsured. The demographics of the epidemic have been steadily changing. The majority of new AIDS cases reported are among racial and ethnic minority populations and groups that traditionally have faced heavy barriers in obtaining adequate health care services. While African Americans make up 12% of the general population, they account for 45% of new AIDS cases. 80% of new AIDS cases are occurring in women of color. As many as half of all new infections are occurring in people under the age of 25, and one quarter of all new infections are occurring in persons under the age of 22. The CARE Act must be able to adjust to meet these changing trends in the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Geographic shifts in the epidemic as well as the availability of new sources of financing for HIV/AIDS care must be taken into account to assure equity in how the federal government and states respond to the epidemic. The CARE Act must continue to provide resources to help local communities to plan and to set priorities for CARE dollars. We must develop better ways to measure the severity of need and the health disparities, and assure that these improvements are taken into account in HIV planning, in establishing priorities, and in allocating funds. This bill addresses these new challenges in ensuring access to HIV drug treatments for all, reducing health disparities in vulnerable communities, and improving the distribution and quality of services under the CARE Act. Proposed changes will ensure greater access to care in low income, historically underserved urban and rural communities, by increasing targeted funding to areas where the HIV care infrastructure may not exist. This bill also focuses on quality and accountability of HIV service delivery by requiring effective quality management activities that ensure their consistency with Public Health Service guidelines, and by making changes to ensure that CARE Act dollars are used for their intended purposes. These improvements are intended to close the gap in health care disparities and improve inequities in services and funding among states. They will build capacity in underserved rural and urban areas, and focus state and local program priorities on underserved populations and persons not in care. They will develop new points of entry relationships to improve coordination of care. They will increase early access to care, in order to begin HIV treatment earlier and improve the quality of care that patients receive. We know that the CARE Act has made a difference not only in the lives of persons with HIV/AIDS, but also in the lives of countless loved ones who have seen despair turned to hope through support of CARE Act services. The story of Lory in Massachusetts is a compelling example of young woman living with HIV, unable to work full-time, and unable to afford anti-retroviral medications without Ryan White CARE Act assistance. The support she has received from the caring staff at Fenway Clinic in Boston is impressive. As Lory told us at our committee hearing on March 2nd on the reauthorization of the Act ``It is not an exaggeration when I tell you that without Fenway I would be dead. They have saved my life.'' I'm sure that Lory's eloquent testimony is true of countless others across the country who are living with this tragic disease. The Ryan White CARE Act has made an enormous difference in their lives. I look forward to early action by Congress on this important legislation, so that we can continue to help as many people as possible.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to express my concern about Andrei Babitsky, the accomplished Russian journalist who still faces serious charges in Russia after being held captive first by Russian authorities, then by Chechens, and now again by Russian authorities. Mr. Babitsky has worked for the last 10 years for the U.S. government-funded broadcasting service, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. He is well-known as one of the most courageous reporters who has covered the conflict in Chechnya. The skill and courage he demonstrated in his coverage of the conflict are clearly the major reasons for his continuing plight. Russian authorities repeatedly expressed displeasure with Mr. Babitsky's reporting of Russian troop casualties and Russian human rights violations against Chechen civilians in the weeks leading up to his arrest. On January 8, his Moscow apartment was ransacked by members of the Federal Security Service, the FSB, which is the successor organization to the KGB. They confiscated film alleged to contain photos of dead Russian soldiers in Chechnya. On January 16, Mr. Babitsky was seized by Russian police in the Chechen battle zone. After first denying that he was in their custody, Russian authorities claimed that Mr. Babitsky had been assisting the Chechen forces and was to stand trial in Moscow. On February 3, the Russian government announced that Mr. Babitsky had been handed over to Chechen units in exchange for Russian prisoners, a violation of the Geneva Convention to which Russia is a party. Subsequently, Russian authorities claimed to have no knowledge of Mr. Babitsky's whereabouts. As it turns out, he was taken to a so-called ``filtration camp'' for suspected Chechen collaborators, then held at an undisclosed location by Chechen forces loyal to Moscow. On February 25, Mr. Babitsky was taken to the Republic of Dagestan and told he was about to be freed. But authorities said he was carrying false identity papers, and they arrested and jailed him. Mr. Babitsky says the papers were forced on him by his captors in Chechnya and used to smuggle him over the border. Facing international pressure to account for Mr. Babitsky's whereabouts since his disappearance, Russian authorities flew Mr. Babitsky to Moscow and released him on his own recognizance. The allegations of assisting Chechen forces and carrying forged identity papers still stand against Mr. Babitsky. If convicted, he faces at least two years in prison on the identity papers charges alone. The State Department would like to see this case resolved. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is seeking to have all charges against Mr. Babitsky dropped, and I strongly support this effort. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees the right to seek and to impart information through the media, regardless of frontiers. Taking into custody any reporter, and transferring him to the custody of hostile forces, is a serious human rights violation and behavior unbefitting a democracy. I urge the newly-elected Russian President, Vladimir Putin, to demonstrate his commitment to the principles of democracy and respect for human rights and freedom of the press by seeing to it that the trumped-up charges against Mr. Babitsky are dropped.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see my friend and colleague, the good Senator from Delaware; but behind him, I see someone for whom I have great admiration, who I join in welcoming back to the United States, a dear friend to me and one of the great world leaders of our time. He is a real voice for peace in the Middle East. I know I will not trespass on the privileges of the Chair and the ranking minority by mentioning his name, but I want him to know what a pleasure it is to see him here.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senate Finance Committee is today holding the second in a series of hearings on prescription drugs. It is the 14th hearing on Medicare reform and how we will deal with the challenges facing the Medicare system. I had an opportunity to testify before the Finance Committee as did several of my colleagues. Both Republicans and Democrats are urging the Senate Finance Committee to take steps to provide important our senior citizens relief from the cost of prescription drugs. It is a national crisis. It affects seniors in New England, it affects seniors in the Southwest, it affects seniors all across this Nation. We have a responsibility to our seniors to address the issue this year. It would be inexcusable for us to have an adjournment without addressing the prescription drug crisis that is affecting the health, well-being, and livelihood of millions of senior citizens all across this Nation. I want to take just a few moments of time to review exactly where we are in this challenge that is facing the Senate of the United States as an institution. The Budget Committee is meeting today to make recommendations on the issue of prescription drugs, and the Finance Committee has responsibility in examining why action is so important now. The drug crisis for seniors is reflected in two important ways: One, coverage is going down. Those seniors who currently have drug coverage are seeing it evaporate. The costs being paid by those senior citizens with coverage are going through the roof. This chart is a clear indication of the situation facing our senior citizens. There are approximately 35 million senior citizens receiving Medicare. Twelve million of these seniors have no prescription drug coverage whatsoever. This is almost one third of all senior citizens. Almost another third--11 million--have employer-sponsored coverage through their former employers. They have coverage. Then we have Medicare HMOs, which cover 3 million seniors; 4 million seniors purchase Medigap coverage that includes a limited drug benefit; 4 million seniors have coverage through Medicaid; and 3 million have coverage through the VA and other means. This chart really tells the story. We have 12 million seniors on Medicare with no prescription drug coverage. What about those seniors with employer-sponsored coverage? How reliable is that coverage for our senior citizens? Look at this chart. There has been a 25% drop in firms offering retiree health coverage between 1994 and 1997, a 3-year period. A quarter of all persons receiving employer-sponsored retiree coverage have been dropped. The rather ominous fact is that current coverage is declining in an even more dramatic way. More and more firms are unilaterally dropping prescription drug coverage from their retiree programs. The number of seniors who are in these employer-sponsored programs is going down dramatically. Let's look at the 3 million who have coverage through Medicare HMOs. This year alone, more than 325,000 Medicare beneficiaries lost their HMO coverage. That is true in the western part of my State. It is true in Connecticut, it is true in many parts of New England and it is true in many other areas of the country. We know the drug coverage is only an option under HMOs; Medicare HMOs are not required to provide drug coverage. Medicare HMOs are leaving the market, and those remaining are drastically reducing the level of drug coverage. Seventy-five percent of all seniors covered through Medicare HMOs have limited coverage--capped at less than $1,000 this year. The number of plans with such limited coverage has doubled since 1998. Thirty-two percent have imposed caps of less than $500, an increase of 50 percent since 1998. On the one hand, many HMOs are dropping coverage. Those maintaining coverage are putting limitations on the dollar amounts they actually cover. In the last 2 years, 75 percent have unilaterally declared that they won't provide any coverage in excess of $1,000, and 32 percent have limited coverage to $500. Here we have no coverage. Here we have falling coverage. Here we have collapsing coverage. And now we look at the question of the Medigap. Look at the situation with Medigap. To qualify for Medigap coverage that includes a drug benefit, one must get that coverage at the time they first enroll in Medicare. This chart shows that drug coverage through Medigap is unaffordable. This is the sample premium for a 75-year-old: In Delaware, $2,600; New York, $1,900; in Iowa, $2,000; in Maine, $2,400; Mississippi, $2,400. Individuals have to apply for Medigap plans with drug coverage at the time they first qualify for Medicare; they are effectively closed out from purchasing a Medigap plan that includes drug coverage later. What we are seeing here is an explosion of the Medigap premiums. As a result, protection against the cost of prescription drugs through Medigap is also in free fall. The only seniors with reliable drug coverage are the 4 million covered through Medicaid. At the same time we are seeing this very significant decline in coverage, drug costs are growing at double-digit rates. We go from 1995, 9.7 percent; 10.1 percent in 1996; 14.2 percent in 1997; 15.7 percent in 1998; and 16.0 percent in 1999. This is against a background of a virtual flat rate of inflation. The inflation rate in 1995 was 2.5 percent; 1996, 3.3; 1997, 1.7; 1998, 1.6 and in 1999, 2.7. The inflation rate is virtually flat, yet we have seen dramatic increases in costs and reduction in coverage for drug benefits. We have a situation where Congress is going to act. We need coverage for all, universal coverage. We must include both basic and catastrophic coverage. We should try to take care of those senior citizens represented in this group here: the 57 percent with incomes under $15,000 plus the 21 percent with incomes between $15,000 and $25,000--a total of close to 80 percent of all senior citizens have incomes below $25,000. We have to take care of these seniors. I believe coverage ought to be universal. This is what we currently do in both Medicare and Social Security. Close to 80 percent of our senior citizens have incomes below $25,000 a year. This is extraordinary. Almost 60 percent have incomes below $15,000. Overall, their incomes are very modest indeed. So coverage is collapsing at the same time costs are exploding. And who is it impacting? It is impacting close to 80 percent of the elderly people in this country with incomes below $25,000. This chart gives an idea of typical patient profiles. These are the types of ailments that typically affect so many of our seniors: Osteoporosis, heart trouble, high blood pressure, enlarged prostate, arthritis, ulcers, high blood pressure, heart disease and anemia. Look at the typical cost per year. If 150 percent of poverty is $11,985, and we saw on the last chart about 60 percent of our seniors have incomes in that range, look at the outlays these seniors have: 20 percent of their entire income, just to cover the of essential drugs needed to treat osteoporosis and heart trouble. The costs only increase for other typical conditions. These are their out-of-pocket expenditures for drugs; this does not even deal with other health- related needs they might have. It is an extraordinary burden they have. This is why we believe that Medicare drug coverage needs to be universal. It should cover all of our senior citizens. It should provide basic coverage. It should also reach those with higher drug costs through catastrophic coverage. We know only about 10 percent of the seniors need catastrophic coverage today. But many of our seniors are very concerned that they may face catastrophic needs in the future. I am a strong believer that the next century is going to be the life science century, with major breakthroughs in medical treatment. For example, in my State of Massachusetts, if we had a breakthrough in Alzheimer's disease, we would empty half of all the nursing home beds. The savings would be astronomical. The cost of the prescription drugs might be large, but the savings through keeping Medicare beneficiaries out of hospitals and nursing homes can be dramatic, significant. That is why I think we need both basic and catastrophic coverage. We must be guided by these principles. We want coverage that is affordable for the individual senior citizen. It should also be affordable to the Federal Government. That is why Senator Rockefeller and I have advanced a Medicare drug program. A number of our colleagues have advanced other programs. What is important is that we take action and take it now. I have here before me what we call the chairman's mark. The Budget Committee of the Senate of the United States is meeting even as I speak. They have in their chairman's mark what they call a reserve fund for Medicare. They are talking about reserving $20 billion for Medicare. In the chairman's mark they describe a reserve fund for Medicare: Whenever the Committee on Ways and Means of the House or the Finance Committee reports a bill or an amendment or a conference report that implements the structural Medicare reform-- In other words, nothing is available for prescription drugs without comprehensive Medicare reform. I am all for Medicare reform. But I do not know why we ought to hold a good, effective prescription drug benefit program hostage until we get comprehensive Medicare reform. This is what the program requires. Then it says: and improves the solvency of the Medicare Program without the use of transfers or new subsidies from the general fund. Therefore it prohibits any use of any of the surplus at a time where we have an important and significant surplus projection. The surplus should be used to assist the Medicare program in a modest way. They prohibit any use of that surplus. It also requires and ensures additional reimbursement for Medicare providers. So we have to have a comprehensive reform of the Medicare system and we have to also have the major changes for Medicare providers before we can ever come to consider the $20 billion that is going to be recommended as possible funds that could be used for a prescription drug program. This is half of what the President of the United States has asked for, half of his $40 million request. This is what it says. Under the budget: Prescription drug benefit. The adjustments made pursuant to the prescription drug benefit may be made to address the cost of prescription drugs. It is optional. It is optional. I do not think that is what the seniors or the American people--not just seniors, but all Americans are really interested in. They want us to take action and they want us to take action now. They do not want to set up an arbitrary barricade for us before we can take action. I do not understand why our Budget Committee is effectively binding the Senate of the United States and prohibiting it from being able to take action on a prescription drug benefit this year unless it goes through the hoops which they have established in the committee. Even if you were able to get through all those hoops, it provides woefully inadequate funding over the next 5 years. Last year the Budget Committee had $100 billion over 10 years for Medicare, although in reality that money was not dedicated solely to Medicare and Medicare prescription drug coverage. Yet this year they are talking about $20 billion over 5 years. The problem has gotten worse, not better. As we have seen, even though they had their program last year and said they are really all for prescription drug coverage, they do not have any program. That is a very unsatisfactory way to proceed when we are talking about one of the central concerns for not only seniors but also for their families. Seniors do the best they can. So often, when the parents are unable to pay, the burden falls on other family members to chip in and help pay for mom or dad's necessary prescription drugs. The fact is, when the Medicare system was adopted in 1965, it was to be universal in nature and have the confidence of the American people. It was a pledge to the American people--if they worked hard and played by the rules, when they retired these seniors who fought in this country's wars would be free from the dangers of absolute financial ruin due solely to their health. We passed Social Security to provide for them to live with some sense of dignity, and Medicare was passed to give assurance that they would be able to live their golden years in with the peace, security, and dignity in knowing their health care would be covered. At that time, only 3 percent of all private health insurance programs had a prescription benefit, so the Medicare system did not put in a prescription drug benefit. Now almost every private employer-based health plan--99 percent of them--have a prescription drug benefit. But not Medicare. This is a serious coverage gap that exists, and every senior citizen has to be concerned about this gap in coverage. It demands action. We can develop a program this year with our current circumstances, with the economic benefits under the existing surplus. We can enact a benefit package now that can benefit seniors. We ought to pass it this year. Sure, we can phase it in, we can build it up, but we want it now. Not like the Budget Committee saying maybe sometime off in the future and giving us absolutely no assurance. That is a mistake. That is flawed policy. That is, I think, a completely inadequate response to the challenges our seniors face. Next week, when we debate the budget, we will have the opportunity to address this issue. I hope the overwhelming majority of the Members will support an effort that will come from our side, from our leaders to commit this body to take action and take it now. We will have a chance to vote on that. It ought to be something to which every senior citizen in this country pays attention. We will make every effort to fashion a program to provide assistance to our seniors. We are committed to that. We will not be discouraged from that opportunity by these budget recommendations.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. I don't intend to take that amount of time.

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senators Jeffords, Frist, Dodd, Hatch, Bingaman, and Wellstone in introducing the Ryan White CARE Reauthorization Act. I commend Senator Jeffords for his leadership and commitment in making this legislation a top priority of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee for enactment this year. I commend Senator Frist for his medical knowledge and expertise in drafting this legislation. Senator Dodd has been strongly committed to this issue for many years and I am pleased that he continues his commitment this year. Senator Hatch joined me more than a decade ago when we first introduced this legislation, and he has remained committed and involved ever since, and I commend his leadership. Senators Bingaman and Wellstone are members of our Senate Committee, and they have shown a great deal of interest in making sure that these resources reach rural Americans and other emerging populations. Over the past twenty years, the nation has made extraordinary progress in responding to the AIDS epidemic. Medical advances, new and effective treatments, and the development of an HIV care infrastructure in every state have dramatically improved the access to care for individuals and families with HIV who would otherwise not be able to afford such care. By providing life-sustaining health and related support services, we have reduced the spread of AIDS. The CARE Act has contributed to the significant drop in new AIDS cases. AIDS-related deaths have decreased significantly, dropping 42% from 1996 to 1997, and 20% from 1997 to 1998. Persons with HIV/AIDS are living longer and healthier lives because of the CARE Act. Perinatal HIV transmission from mother to child has been reduced by 75% from 1992 to 1997. We are closing the gap in health care disparities in vulnerable populations such as communities of color, women, and persons with HIV who are uninsured and underinsured. Medications have made a difference too. Highly active anti-retroviral therapies have given a second lease on life to many Americans with HIV/ AIDS. An estimated 80% of persons in treatment have used one or more of these new and effective drugs. HIV health care and supportive services have also made a difference. An estimated 600,000 persons have received HIV services through the Ryan White CARE Act, including primary care, substance abuse treatment, dental care, hospice care, and other specialized HIV health care services, and the availability of these services has enabled them to lead productive lives. In Massachusetts, for example, we have seen an overall 77% decline in AIDS and HIV-related deaths since 1995. At the same time, however, like many other states, we are concerned about the changing HIV/AIDS trends and profiles. AIDS and HIV cases increased in women by 11% from 1997 to 1998, and 55% of persons living with AIDS in the state are persons of color. Clearly, we have had significant successes in fighting AIDS. We have come a long way from the days when ideology dictated care for people with AIDS and not sound public health policy. Fortunately, with the leadership of Senator Hatch and Senator Jeffords and our bipartisan coalition, we were able to enact the Ryan White CARE Act in memory of Ryan White. He was a young man with hemophilia who contracted AIDS through blood transfusions, and touched the world's heart through his valiant efforts to speak out against the ignorance and discrimination faced by many persons living with AIDS. His mother, Jeanne White carried on her son's message after Ryan's death in 1990. She was instrumental in the passage of the Care Act in 1990 and then again in 1996 and now in 2000. The enactment of the Ryan White CARE Act in 1900 provided an emergency response to the devastating effects of HIV on individuals, families, communities, and state and local governments. The CARE Act signaled a comprehensive approach by targeting funds to respond to the specific needs of communities. Title I targets the hardest hit metropolitan areas in the country. Local planning and priority setting requirements under Title I assure that each of the Eligible Metropolitan Areas respond to the local HIV/AIDS demographics. Title II of the Act funds emergency relief to the states. It helps them to develop an HIV care infrastructure and provide effective and life-sustaining HIV/AIDS drug therapies through the AIDS Drug Assistance Program to over 61,000 persons each month. Title III funds community health centers and other primary health care providers that serve communities with a significant and disproportionate need for HIV care. Many of these community health centers are located in the hardest hit areas, serving low income communities. Finally, Title IV of the CARE Act is designed to meet the specific needs of women, children and families. While the CARE Act has benefited large numbers of Americans in need, a number of critical areas remain where improvements are essential if we are to meet the growing needs in our communities. We know that of the estimated 750,000 persons living with HIV/AIDS in the United States, over 215,000 know their HIV status, yet are not in care. New health care access points are needed to bring these persons into care. At the same time, the CARE Act programs currently serving an estimated 600,000 persons annually are challenged more than ever in meeting the growing need and demand for services. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that the need will continue to grow since we have an estimated 40,000 new cases of HIV/AIDS annually in the United States. Also, not everyone is benefiting from the advances in the development of new and effective drug treatments. The skyrocketing costs of expensive AIDS drugs, estimated at $15,000 annually per person, has led 26% of the CARE Act's AIDS Drug Assistance Programs to cap enrollment, establish waiting lists, or limit eligibility. Guaranteeing that effective drug treatments are available and affordable to all persons with HIV/AIDS has always been a priority for the CARE Act. Reducing barriers to access in communities of color and other vulnerable populations is a priority for this reauthorization. We are fortunate in Massachusetts to have a state budget that has also been able to provide funding for primary care, prevention, and outreach efforts, but no state by itself can provide the significant financial resources to help persons living with HIV to obtain needed medical and support access. We still find serious disparities in access to HIV health care in communities of color, women, the uninsured and underinsured. The demographics of the epidemic have been steadily changing. The majority of new AIDS cases reported are among racial and ethnic minority populations and groups that traditionally have faced heavy barriers in obtaining adequate health care services. While African Americans make up 12% of the general population, they account for 45% of new AIDS cases. 80% of new AIDS cases are occurring in women of color. As many as half of all new infections are occurring in people under the age of 25, and one quarter of all new infections are occurring in persons under the age of 22. The CARE Act must be able to adjust to meet these changing trends in the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Geographic shifts in the epidemic as well as the availability of new sources of financing for HIV/AIDS care must be taken into account to assure equity in how the federal government and states respond to the epidemic. The CARE Act must continue to provide resources to help local communities to plan and to set priorities for CARE dollars. We must develop better ways to measure the severity of need and the health disparities, and assure that these improvements are taken into account in HIV planning, in establishing priorities, and in allocating funds. This bill addresses these new challenges in ensuring access to HIV drug treatments for all, reducing health disparities in vulnerable communities, and improving the distribution and quality of services under the CARE Act. Proposed changes will ensure greater access to care in low income, historically underserved urban and rural communities, by increasing targeted funding to areas where the HIV care infrastructure may not exist. This bill also focuses on quality and accountability of HIV service delivery by requiring effective quality management activities that ensure their consistency with Public Health Service guidelines, and by making changes to ensure that CARE Act dollars are used for their intended purposes. These improvements are intended to close the gap in health care disparities and improve inequities in services and funding among states. They will build capacity in underserved rural and urban areas, and focus state and local program priorities on underserved populations and persons not in care. They will develop new points of entry relationships to improve coordination of care. They will increase early access to care, in order to begin HIV treatment earlier and improve the quality of care that patients receive. We know that the CARE Act has made a difference not only in the lives of persons with HIV/AIDS, but also in the lives of countless loved ones who have seen despair turned to hope through support of CARE Act services. The story of Lory in Massachusetts is a compelling example of young woman living with HIV, unable to work full-time, and unable to afford anti-retroviral medications without Ryan White CARE Act assistance. The support she has received from the caring staff at Fenway Clinic in Boston is impressive. As Lory told us at our committee hearing on March 2nd on the reauthorization of the Act ``It is not an exaggeration when I tell you that without Fenway I would be dead. They have saved my life.'' I'm sure that Lory's eloquent testimony is true of countless others across the country who are living with this tragic disease. The Ryan White CARE Act has made an enormous difference in their lives. I look forward to early action by Congress on this important legislation, so that we can continue to help as many people as possible.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank my friend, the good Senator from Minnesota, for an excellent presentation and for reminding us about the needs of our veterans, particularly those who are having some service- connected disability. The problems he has talked about that have affected his region are duplicated in my region of the country as well. I received a call just 2 days ago from a very good friend, a person who worked here in the Senate, about his uncle who is 86 years old and who was at Pearl Harbor. He was one of those wounded at Pearl Harbor, survived, and went on. He was wounded in the Second World War and is now destitute and trying to get into a service home just outside of Boston. The waiting line there is 2\1/2\ years. I remember very well speaking to those who came back from the war. At that time, they all believed they were fortunate to make it back, and they weren't asking very much of this country. We responded in a way in which all of us have been enormously appreciative with the GI bill. Many of these men and women took 4 or 5 years out of their lives to serve their country and risked life and death. We provided the GI bill to them so they could get an education. They got an education and went on to contribute to their country. As the Senator knows, for every $1 invested in that education program, $8 was returned to the Treasury. But there was not a member of the Armed Forces in any of the services who didn't believe in committing this Nation to taking care of those who served this country, who suffered and were wounded in the line of battle. They believed they should live in peace, respect, and dignity during their golden years. They are not, and it is a national disgrace. We tried to join with others in this body. And I tell my good friend I will work with him closely, not on those relevant committees, but I think we have been here long enough to know we can make some difference in this area. I look forward to working with him. This is a problem that faces us in New England. I see my colleague from Rhode Island chairing the Senate this afternoon. I am sure he and his colleague, Senator Reid, have these kinds of cases as well. It is a matter of priority. We will join with him at a later time.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, once again we are debating whether to amend the Constitution to prohibit flag burning. Flag burning is a vile and contemptuous act, but it is also a form of expression protected by the first amendment. Surely we are not so insecure in our commitment to freedom of speech and the first amendment that we are willing to start carving loopholes now in that majestic language. I strongly oppose the constitutional amendment we are debating today. The first amendment is one of the great pillars of our freedom and democracy. It has never been amended in over 200 years of our history, and now is no time to start. There is not even a plausible factual basis for carving a hole in the heart of the first amendment. There is no significant problem. Flag burning is exceedingly rare. Published reports indicate that fewer than 10 flag burning incidents have occurred a year since the Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. Johnson in 1989 on the first amendment. Over the last 5 years, there was only one such incident in Massachusetts. This is hardly the kind of serious and widespread problem in American life that warrants an assault on the first amendment. Surely there is no clear and present danger that warrants such a change. This proposal fails the reality test. The Constitution is not a billboard on which to plaster amendments as if they were bumper sticker slogans. In this Congress alone, over a dozen constitutional amendments have been introduced. With every new proposed amendment, we undermine and trivialize the Constitution and threaten to weaken its enduring strength. I remember listening to a speech given by Justice Douglas, one of the great Supreme Court Justices of this century. Students asked him: What was the most important export of the United States? He said, without hesitation: The first amendment because it is the defining amendment for the preservation of free speech as the basic and fundamental right in shaping our Nation. Clearly, it would be a mistake of historic proportions for this Congress to make the first alteration to the first amendment in more than two centuries. The first amendment breathes light into the very concept of our democracy. It protects the freedoms of all Americans, including the fundamental freedom of citizens to criticize their government and the country itself, including the flag. As the Supreme Court explained in Texas v. Johnson, it is a bedrock principle underlying the first amendment that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because the society finds the idea itself offensive and disagreeable. No one in the Senate condones the act of flag burning. We all condemn it. The flag is a symbol that embodies all that is great and good about America. It symbolizes our patriotism, our achievements, and, above all, our respect for our freedoms and our democracy. We do not honor the flag by dishonoring the first amendment. Gen. Colin Powell agrees with our opposition to this proposed amendment. He has told us in reaching this decision he was inspired by the words of James Warner, a former marine aviator, who was a prisoner in North Vietnam between 1967 and 1973. As James Warner wrote in 1989: It hurts to see the flag being burned, but I part company with those who want to punish the flag burners. In one interrogation, I was shown a photograph of American protesters burning a flag. There, the officer said: People in your country protest against your cause. That proves you are wrong. No, I said, that proves that I am right. In my country we are not afraid of freedom, even if it means that people disagree with us. The officer was on his feet in an instant, his face purple with rage. He smashed his fist onto the table and screamed at me to shut up. While he was ranting, I was astonished to see pain, compounded by fear, in his eyes. I have never forgotten that look, nor have I forgotten the satisfaction I felt in using his tool, the picture of the burning flag, against him. That says it all. We respect the flag the most, we protect it the best, and the flag itself flies the highest when we honor the freedom for which it stands. I urge my colleagues to vote against this misguided constitutional amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Senator Mikulski recently returned from a visit to Northern Ireland, where she held productive discussions with both Catholics and Protestants who are working together for community and economic development. As columnist Thomas Oliphant wrote in a perceptive column on March 19 in the Boston Globe, Senator Mikulski's trip, and her work for grassroots development and cooperation in these communities, are important both symbolically and practically. As all of us who share the dream of a permanent and lasting peace are aware, much remains to be done to carry out the peace process. I commend Senator Mikulski for her initiative and leadership on this issue, and I ask that Mr. Oliphant's column about her trip may be printed in the Record. The column follows: [From the Boston Globe, Mar. 19, 2000] New Optimism Out of Ulster (By Thomas Oliphant) The brain connected to the freshest pair of eyes to look into Northern Ireland in some time was somewhat surprised by two things. The first observation by Senator Barbara Mikulski was that the six counties' political leaders are themselves surprised at their inability to get out of the stalemate-ditches they keep driving into. The second was that during an intensive visit framed around what's really exciting in the North these days--cross- community, practical efforts by Protestants and Catholics to get basic things done together--it was not until she got to the seat of government at Stormont that she heard the word ``decommissioning,'' the absurd euphemism that refers to the turning in of weapons by paramilitary organizations. What this shows is merely how the pull of the violent, unjust sectarian past blocks a settlement that the people want. It has been going on for the two years since the U.S.- brokered Good Friday Agreement put all the building blocks for reconciliation except local political will into place. ``But,'' says the Maryland senator, ``even though the peace process appears to be on hold, there is another informal but absolutely crucial peace process going on at the community and neighborhood level.'' Mikulski was referring to the overwhelming majority's intense desire to put the Troubles in their past. That desire is creating a ``social glue'' that has enormous potential for Northern Ireland's long-range evolution. By far the most important example exists under the umbrella of the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust. Beneath this umbrella exists all manner of activities that involve Catholics and Protestants informally in specific tasks. There are groups that include former prisoners as well as families of the victims of violence and their survivors; organizations working on environmental issues as well as community centers and playgrounds; unions and microeconomic development activists; work on mental health issues as well as children's health problems. As Mikulski notes, it is all specific and local--and loaded with implications. The best symbol, in the North Belfast Community Development Council, is the cellular phones in use during the Protestant marching season. Rumors are chased down, Catholics hear that a particular march will halt at a predesignated spot without any triumphalist chanting and should thus be of no major concern, and armed with that assurance, keep their own hotheads in check. A year ago, when some 50 of the trust's most active female activists met with U.S. supporters, they were so fresh to their cause and nervous about the impact that the names of the participants were kept private. Mikulski arranged a meeting for them with women in the U.S. Senate, most of whom came to politics via similar routes of local activism. Mikulski's involvement at this delicate stage is important both because of what she has done and who she is. She got into her business because of her fight against a highway. Years later she remains a grass-roots political leader, able to understand the byzantine nature of Northern Ireland's street-level culture. And she is a powerful Democratic senator on the Appropriations Committee who is comfortable working across party lines. Mikulski notes that the Fund for Ireland, the basic aid network to which the U.S. government commits $20 million, is an excellent operation that has been especially useful in economic development and other brick and mortar activities. But she also suggests that the time has come to ``take a fresh look at the U.S. role to think about supporting this cross- communal activity.'' She is also blunt about looking at the trust's activities and potential, official U.S. support without blinders. ``Their idea, what makes them so worthwhile,'' she said, ``is their very careful focus on specific needs and projects. This is not some gooshy-poo, Irish sensitivity training where everybody gets in a hot tub and bonds. It's serious work. The fund has done a very good job, but I think we're now at a different place.'' What she says about U.S. policy also should spark new thinking about private American support for Ireland. Given the roaring condition of the Irish Republic's economy, traditional charity and philanthropy appears to be less important than the cutting-edge activism across sectarian lines of the trust's participants. They cannot be a substitute for the appalling failure of politicians in the North to transcend the past. But they do demonstrate how much of a difference individuals can make when they band together. There now exist networks of community organizations that personify the broader refusal to regress, and they need all the support they can get. But they can't fill the vacuum without their so-called leaders. ``It's like when you put your VCR on pause,'' said Mikulski. ``It holds for a while, but eventually the old tape starts playing again.''

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Robin Myer, a Pearson Fellow in my office, be permitted the privilege of the floor while I deliver this statement.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on Wednesday of this week, a team of State Department officials departed for Libya as part of a review of the travel ban that has been in effect since 1981. State Department officials will be in Libya for 26 hours in the next few days, visiting hotels and other sites. They will then prepare a recommendation for the Secretary to help her determine if there is still ``Imminent danger to . . . the physical safety of United States travellers,'' as the law requires in order to maintain the ban. Because of the travel ban, American citizens can only travel to Libya if they obtain a license from the Department of the Treasury. In addition, the State Department must first validate a passport for travel to Libya. The travel ban was imposed originally for safety reasons and predates the terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. But lifting the ban now, just as the two Libyan suspects are about to go on trial in the Netherlands for their role in that atrocity, will undoubtedly be viewed as a gesture of good will to Colonel Qadhafi. Indeed, just after the State Department announced that it would send this consular team, a Saudi-owned daily paper quoted a senior Libyan official as saying the one-day visit by the U.S. Team was a ``step in the right direction.'' The official said the visit was a sign that ``the international community was convinced that Libya's foreign policy position was not wrong and there is a noticeable improvement in Libya's relations with the world.'' I have been in contact with many of the families of the victims of Pan Am Flight 103, and they are extremely upset by the timing of this decision. The families want to know why the Secretary of State is making this friendly overture to Qadhafi now--just six weeks before the trial in the Netherlands begins. They question how much information the State Department will be able to obtain by spending only 26 hours in Libya. They wonder why the Department cannot continue to use the same sources of information it has been using for many years to make a determination about the travel ban. These courageous Americans have waited for justice for eleven long years. They feel betrayed by this decision. They have watched with dismay as our close ally, Great Britain, has rushed to reestablish diplomatic relations with Libya, before justice is served for the British citizens killed in the terrorist bombing. The State Department denies it, but the families are concerned that the visit signals a change in U.S. policy, undermines U.S. sanctions, and calls into question the Administration's commitment to vigorously enforce the Iran Libya Sanctions Act. That Act requires the U.S. to impose sanctions on foreign companies which invest more than $40 million in the Libyan petroleum industry, until Libya complies with the four conditions specified by the UN Security Council. The bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, in which 188 Americans were killed, was one of the worst terrorist atrocities in American history. The State Department should not have sent a delegation to Libya now and it should not lift the travel ban on Libya at this time. The State Department's long-standing case-by-case consideration of passport requests for visits to Libya by U.S. citizens has worked well. It can continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, this is an issue on which I believe every Member of this body has voted at one time or another. It is not an extraordinary, complex issue, as issues go that we deal with. This is a rather basic issue and a rather fundamental issue. As the leader pointed out, it is basically a question of whether we are going to respect the dignity of those who want to work and can work, who are willing to work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year. Institutionally, we have voted, if my memory serves me correctly, over the history of this, probably 10 to 14 times. It is not a new issue. Members know what the dimensions of this particular question are really about. The Senator, as I understand it, would agree with me that it wouldn't take a very long period of time to permit the Senate to express its will on whether they believe there should be an increase in the minimum wage. As I understand the leader's position, he introduced this legislation. It is 50 cents this year; it is 50 cents next year. If we don't see this increase, we will see that the increase we provided in the 1996-1997 period will effectively be wiped out. It will be about the lowest period in the history of the country in terms of the purchasing power of the minimum wage at a time perhaps of greatest prosperity. Does the Senator find that is something that is difficult to explain to people back in his own State of South Dakota, as I do in Massachusetts, and who wonder why we aren't willing to take some action?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see others who desire to be recognized. But I want to at this time join with our leader, Senator Daschle, in the introduction of this measure. He has pointed out that it is 50 cents this year and 50 cents next year. That is a very modest increase. We have been debating this issue for the last 2\1/2\ years. We have been denied the opportunity to bring this up to the Senate. We have been told by Republican leadership, day in and day out, that we haven't the time to debate this issue, that this is a complex issue that will impact inflation, that it will impact employment. These are very important macroeconomic issues. We need time to debate. Let the record show that our Democratic leader and others introduced this measure this afternoon. We are prepared this afternoon, on a Thursday in late March, to consider this legislation and deal with amendments, as we have done day in and day out over the period of the last 2 and a half years since we introduced minimum wage legislation. But we are prepared to deal with those arguments and finally take action. We are being denied the opportunity as elected officials of our respective States to be able to have a vote on the increase in the minimum wage because of process, because of procedures, and because of the rules of the Senate. That is so today. But it isn't always going to be that way. As the leader pointed out, we are strongly committed to getting a vote on this measure as soon as we possibly can. We would like to do it in an orderly way so Members can participate in the debate and offer amendments. We can reach a final resolution. But if we are denied that opportunity, we are going to find a way or means to insist that the Senate address this particular issue. I will just take a few moments to review exactly where we are in terms of the people about whom we are talking and those who would be the beneficiaries of this particular action. We have taken action at other times in our history in order to provide for and to say to those who are working at different levels of our economy 40 hours a week for 52 weeks of the year that they are not going to have to live in poverty. That is what this is all about. Are we going to say in the United States of America that men and women who work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year, who play by the rules, are not going to have to live in poverty in the year 2000 and 2001, when we have this extraordinary prosperity? We say yes; the other side says no. That is a principal difference between our two parties on this issue. The American people ought to understand it. If Tom Daschle were the majority leader, we would be debating and acting on this issue this afternoon in the Senate. But we are not. We are denied it because of the Republican position. Our leader has pointed out, all Members, Republicans and Democrats, were quite willing, without delay, without any kind of prolonged debate, to take the cost-of-living index increase of $4,600 without delay, which is what our Republican friends want us to do, delay the increase of the $1 minimum wage over 3 years. We didn't hear any of them say during the debate on the increase in the cost of living of $4,600: Spread that out. No, no, no, we took that quickly. We want for those working, who are needy and who are poor and who are struggling, we are saying we will spread out your increase of $1 over 3 years. How does anyone dignify that position? We can see what has happened. The bottom fifth of families have fallen behind some 6 percent. This is from 1979 through 1999, over the last 20 years. Middle-income families are working harder. Generally, additional members of the family are going into the workforce. These middle-income families have seen a 5 percent increase in income. But most of them are working longer. The United States of America today has workers working over 50 hours more a year than any other industrial society in the world. They are working harder and barely hanging on. Look what has happened to the top 5 percent of income families, those earning $246,000 versus the bottom 20 percent earning $12,500. Of the bottom 20 percent, many are minimum wage earners, with incomes of $10,000 or less. Look what has been happening in the workforce during this period. People have always said the real issue in question for wage increase is productivity. There must be an increase in productivity for a wage increase. Look what has happened regarding productivity and the American worker. The real value of the minimum wage drops as productivity grows. We have had one of the greatest spurts in American productivity in the history of this Nation by American workers in recent years. At the same time, the real value of the minimum wage has collapsed. We have a dramatic increase in productivity, with more goods being produced by these workers, and they are still getting paid less and less. What is the possible justification for that? Every indicator we have--the size of employment, the impact on inflation, the issues of productivity--all come to the same conclusion, that this Nation at this time as never before can afford an increase in the minimum wage. That is what this is about. Finally, as the leader has pointed out, we have found now in order to get some action in the House of Representatives in the Senate of the United States, our Republican leader said we are going to ``piddle'' out an increase in the minimum wage over 3 years. We will take 3 years. However, we will provide $75 billion in unpaid for tax expenditures. I hope we don't hear from the other side about being responsible economically. Mr. President, that is $75 billion for 3 years. That wasn't good enough for the House of Representatives. Do you know what they said? We will give you 2 years, but we have $122 billion in unpaid-for tax cuts where 94 percent of the benefits go to the top fifth. Is that not interesting? We have to take care of the small little mom-and-pop stores; we have to help them out. We are interested in doing that. We would work with our Republican friends in terms of the mom-and-pop stores. Our Democratic leader indicated a willingness to do that. We did it in the last minimum wage increase. We are glad to take modest steps in order to be able to do that. We heard we are going to have some tax expenditures in order to protect the mom-and-pop stores. Except under this tax cut, mom-and-pop stores aren't helped; 94 percent goes to the top fifth. Maybe that goes over in some areas of the country, but we want our friends on the other side to know this issue will not go away. When we have that kind of action that has been taken previously, a delayed minimum wage increase spread out over 3 years, added to a $75 billion in unpaid-for tax expenditures, it makes me wonder. How many times have we come on the floor of the Senate saying: Let's do something about Head Start; let's do something about immunization, or on mental health. How much will it cost? Is it paid for? Is it paid for? Is it paid for? Well, you are not getting that, Senator. I don't know what happened to that particular position where we have now $75 billion and $122 billion in play, holding that minimum wage hostage to benefit the wealthiest individuals in this country. Can we justify that? Is it a position that is defensible? I don't believe so. It is wrong. Fundamentally, it is wrong. This issue is basically a women's issue because the majority of those who receive the minimum wage are women. It is a children's issue because many women who are receiving the minimum wage have children. This is about the quality of life. As the Council of Economic Advisers has pointed out, the children in minimum-wage families spend 22 hours a week less with their parents than they did 20 years ago. When we talk about the minimum wage, it is a family issue. It is a civil rights issue because many of the people who earn the minimum wage are people of color. And it is a fairness issue because it says in the United States we stand for men and women who work hard, play by the rules, and they ought not to live in poverty. We believe the overwhelming majority of Americans support it. I thank our leader for bringing this matter to the Senate again and for all of the leadership he has provided. I am proud to stand with some of my colleagues on this side who have stood for that kind of increase and for the brave few on the other side who have joined. As the leader has pointed out, we will have this issue up one way or the other. It will come back again and again and again until we get fairness in our society for working men and women.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see others who wish to address the Senate. On this issue of the scope of what we are talking about and increasing the minimum wage 50 cents and 50 cents, as I understand it, all Americans combined earn about $4.2 trillion per year. The impact of a $1 wage increase over 2 years would be one-fifth of 1 percent of the national payroll. This is effectively what we are talking about. If the leader has given up the floor, I ask for recognition on my own right.

Mr. KENNEDY. Does the Senator agree with me that here we are on Thursday afternoon, early afternoon, 2:45, most Americans are out working. The Senate, as I understand the schedule, will not be voting until next week on Tuesday. It is Thursday afternoon. Does the Senator agree that we have an opportunity to debate this this afternoon, and, if there were additional questions, we could debate it on Friday where, again, most Americans are working? We could stay here, doing our business, and then vote sometime on Friday or Friday afternoon, that we could dispose of this issue in a timely way? Will the Senator not agree with me that someone who bears a responsibility--as well as the majority leader, in terms of a schedule--that this particular issue could be easily disposed of this afternoon, or on tomorrow, without interrupting the Senate schedule?

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?