Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, HIV/AIDS in Africa has become a global emergency unlike anything that public health has seen in this century. According to Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, ``AIDS in Africa is a plague of biblical proportions. It is a holy war that we must win.'' The number of HIV-infected individuals in Africa has now reached 22.5 million. As a nation, America is all too familiar with the devastation that AIDS causes. Nearly 10 years ago, Senator Hatch and I sponsored the Ryan White CARE act, the legislation that helped begin the long battle to deal with the AIDS epidemic in this country. The situation has steadily improved in the United States, because extensive efforts have been made and needed systems of care have been put in place. The CARE Act has helped us make great progress. We began our fight against AIDS in the United States with the advantage of having the world's most advanced health care infrastructure, but the situation in the developing world is much different. Resources are scarce, infrastructure is limited, and the people of Africa face a situation that is not improving but is steadily growing worse. Officials at UNICEF have described the situation that many nations in sub-Saharan Africa face as a ``tripod of deprivation'' that involves poverty, debt and AIDS. Any of these three crises would be severe on its own. Taken together they are devastating. The result for the African continent is enormous pain, suffering, and death. Decades of progress on economic growth, infant mortality, and life expectancy are all threatened. The AIDS virus is infecting every aspect of life for the people of Africa, from work and family to education and even national stability. The effect on the African workforce is especially ominous. African nations have worked hard for the economic development that is emerging. But HIV is striking vast numbers of individuals during their most productive years, and all of this recent progress is being placed in jeopardy. AIDS directly undermines productivity by increasing absenteeism. It raises the cost of business through increased need for benefits. Costs of recruiting and training employees are rising, as current employees die or become disabled. Higher costs also threaten international investment in Africa, which is essential for future economic development. Over 8 million children have already been orphaned by AIDS in Africa. In the next decade, that number will reach 40 million, a number equal to the total number of children in the United States who live east of the Mississippi River. Children are forced to leave their schools in order to care for dying parents and put food on the table for themselves and their family. Many of these children are already suffering emotionally from the loss of one or both of their parents, and now they are losing the vital educational opportunities they need and deserve. HIV infection rates are as high as 80 percent in some African military forces, and the disease is threatening the security and stability of these nations. Forces that have been weakened by disease are less capable of defending their nations, maintaining order, or protecting citizens. The concern is immediate. A 1998 UNAIDS study reported that in both Zimbabwe and Cameroon, HIV infection rates were three to four times higher in the military than in the civilian population. While new therapies have begun to offer hope in the fight against AIDS in the United States, the cost of these treatments has put them out of reach for developing countries, where the epidemic is raging out of control. During the past six years, there has been a 300 percent increase in annual cases of HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. Yet until this year, U.S. funding for AIDS programs overseas had remained level- funded at $125 million. When inflation is taken into account, level funding means a 25 percent decrease between 1993 and 1999. Last year, many of us in Congress and the administration worked hard to obtain an additional $100 million to fight the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa. This funding was a vital first step towards turning the tide, but it is not nearly enough. This money will be used for prevention efforts, counseling and testing, direct medical services, and also to assist the millions of children orphaned by AIDS in the region. The additional $100 million that President Clinton has included in his FY2001 budget will enable us to reach an even greater proportion of people infected with HIV in Africa. Yesterday I cosponsored the bipartisan legislation introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer and Senator Gordon Smith that extends the U.S. commitment to sub-Saharan Africa through 2005. We know that increased U.S. aid for Africa is essential. In partnership with other donors, the U.S. invested $46 million in HIV prevention and care in Uganda, and helped cut the HIV rates by more than half. Prevention is effective, but it costs money. Treatment and care also cost money. Yet the nations of sub-Saharan Africa are among the poorest in the world, and they cannot and should not bear this burden alone. The U.S. is the leading donor of development assistance for HIV/AIDS prevention and control in the developing world, but our response to this crisis has so far been inadequate. The United States currently ranks ninth in terms of the percentage of GNP devoted to international AIDS programs. This is not the leadership that this country has shown in the past, when nations have been torn apart by tragedy. I recently learned about a couple in Senegal who were both stricken by HIV. They have a small shop that sells newspapers, candy and other goods, and are economically well-off in comparison to many of their fellow citizens. Their financial situation allowed them to afford some AIDS drugs, but the cost of basic treatment for one person takes thirty percent of their monthly income. They have been forced to choose which one of them will take these life-saving medications. That is a decision that no couple should have to make. The rate at which AIDS has spread in developing countries should alarm all nations and peoples. The world is too small for us to think that a virus which has infected 34 million people and killed 14 million is under control and will not continue to infect our own country. This global epidemic has already taken more lives than all but one of the major conflicts of this century. Only World War II surpasses AIDS in terms of human devastation in this century. We cannot stand by and let this level of suffering continue. We can and must do more as a nation to fight this growing global epidemic. It is estimated that by the year 2005 more than 100 million people worldwide will have become infected with HIV--100 million people. The magnitude of the emergency is immense. What will we tell our children and our grandchildren about how we faced the largest human tragedy of our time? I hope that we can tell them that we reached across the aisle and then across the ocean to help those caught in this relentless epidemic. This is not about Democrats or Republicans. This is about America, and what we stand for as a nation and as a world leader. I urge my colleagues to do all we can to save lives and ease this tragic suffering.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the leaders. Mr. President, I yield myself 8 minutes at this time.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it has been remarkably balanced, with the exception of this legislation. Finally, when you come down to it, one has to ask who benefits and who loses. It is very clear the winners in this are the credit card companies and the losers are the hard-working men and women who have fallen on difficult times, in most instances due to no fault of their own. They are men and women who have been downsized as a result of mergers. They are men and women who have fallen into serious economic times because of the failure of their health insurance to cover those individuals. They are primarily women who, as a result of their personal relationships, have been divorced and find it difficult to maintain a system of credit. One can look back over all of these and find they are the victims of this legislation and they are the ones who are going to suffer the harsh penalties of it. It is fundamentally wrong. We have not had the opportunity in this debate to see protections for children and mothers. The reason for the Dodd amendment is to give special protections which historically have been a part of our bankruptcy laws. That has been defeated, as well as the amendments to remedy some of the harsh provisions of the means test. This legislation is not the legislation that passed the Congress a little over a year ago in which I joined others in supporting. This is not balanced legislation. For those reasons, plus the fact we have $73 billion of tax breaks for wealthy individuals in here and a denial to the hardest working Americans for fairness in treating them with a minimum wage, it ought to be voted down. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as the Senate completes its work on the bankruptcy bill, we are more aware than ever of the potential impact of this legislation on American citizens and businesses. This legislation purports to reform the bankruptcy system and eliminate debtor abuses, and the banking and credit card industries have been urging action on it for the past two years. They argue that during this time of economic expansion, Congress should deal with the increase in bankruptcy filings by curtailing pervasive debtor fraud. If Congress doesn't act, they say, the economy will suffer. But the industry's cure is worse than the disease. First, they fail to acknowledge a key fact--the steady decline in bankruptcy filings. Without any action by Congress, the number of bankruptcy filings is going down. Filings have dropped in 42 states. Overall, there were 112,000 fewer personal bankruptcies in 1999 than in 1998--the largest one-year drop on record. Leading economists believe that the bankruptcy crisis is self- correcting. The significant drop in filing is ample indication that a harsh bankruptcy bill is not needed. It is abundantly clear that the bill before us is unnecessarily harsh. As House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde acknowledged, it contains dozens of provisions that favor creditors, and it fails to address the serious problems that often force citizens into bankruptcy. The bill will make it more difficult for thousands of debtors who file for bankruptcy because of the layoffs and corporate downsizing that take place after mergers, and that are ordered by businesses to improve profits. This bill also makes it more difficult for families already torn apart by divorce--particularly divorced women, who are four times more likely to file for bankruptcy than married women or single men. The bill would also have a devastating effect on the millions of Americans who have no health insurance or substandard coverage. For almost 20 percent of those filing for bankruptcy protection, a health- related problem led to their economic problems. Earlier in the debate we took the time of the Senate to go through each of those categories, the numbers of people who went into bankruptcy as a result of the mergers and downsizing of major companies and corporations. These are American men and women who have worked hard all of their lives and through no fault of their own were put in very difficult economic straits and run into bankruptcy. Because of the escalation of divorce, large numbers of single women are particularly vulnerable, because of their credit situation, to run into problems with bankruptcy. We have seen with the decline of health care coverage, particularly among older workers in their fifties, before they are eligible for Medicare, they have been the increasing targets of bankruptcy. These are groups of Americans who have been hard-working all of their lives and now are going to be caught up in this particular legislation which I think is particularly harsh on these individuals, and needlessly so. In addition, this bill fails to significantly address the serious problems created by the credit card industry. In an average month, 7 percent of all households in the country receive a credit card solicitation. In recent years, the credit card industry has also begun to offer new lines of credit targeted at people with low incomes-- people they know cannot afford to pile up credit card debt. Facts such as these have reduced the economic stability of millions of families, and have led many of them to file for bankruptcy. Two out of every three bankruptcy filers have an employment problem. One out of every five has a health-care problem. Divorced or separated people are three times more likely than married couples to file for bankruptcy. Working men and women in economic free fall often have no choice except bankruptcy. Although the Senate spent two weeks debating and amending the bankruptcy bill last year and several additional days this year, this bill still does not acknowledge the problems that force so many Americans into bankruptcy. It remains heavily tilted toward the financial services industry, and many needed amendments were defeated. Simultaneously, amendments were adopted that should be an embarrassment to the Senate. By a one-vote margin, the Senate adopted an amendment that provides for school vouchers, as well as harmful changes in the nation's anti-drug policy. The Republican leadership offered a watered-down minimum wage increase, tied to a poison pill that cuts overtime pay, and an enormous $71 billion in tax breaks that disproportionately benefit the wealthiest Americans. Those provisions are now part of this bankruptcy bill--making a bad bill even worse. By failing to increase the minimum wage last year, Congress failed the American people. It is time--long past time--to raise the minimum wage. Our proposal is modest--a one dollar increase in two installments--50 cents now, and 50 cents a year from now. Over 10 million American workers will benefit. Our position is clear, it's ``50-50 or fight!'' Our Democratic proposal to increase the minimum wage by a dollar over the next year will make a significant difference in the lives of all workers who earn the minimum wage and their families. Unlike the Republican proposal, our Democratic proposal will give minimum wage workers the pay raise they need and deserve, so that they can care more effectively for their families and pay for the food and clothing and housing they need. We shouldn't delay an increase. We shouldn't stretch it out. We shouldn't use it to slash overtime pay. We shouldn't use it as an excuse to give tax breaks to the wealthy. Raising the minimum wage is an issue of fairness and dignity. No one who works for a living should have to live in poverty. Before casting our final votes on this legislation, we have the opportunity to adopt several very important amendments that deserve our support. Yesterday, we started debate on the Levin-Durbin gun amendment, which would prevent gun manufacturers from abusing the bankruptcy system. Today, Senator Schumer offered an amendment that eliminates a loop- hole currently being exploited by perpetrators of clinic violence. Senator Schumer's proposed amendment is neither a prochoice amendment nor an anti-choice amendment. At its heart, it is not about abortion at all. Rather, it is about accountability for violent, illegal acts. It is about preventing those who use tactics of violence and intimidation against reproductive health clinics from using the bankruptcy laws as a shield from financial liability for their unlawful acts. In response to a wave of violence which included murder, arson, bombing and harassment, Congress enacted the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act in 1994. That Act established criminal penalties and financial penalties for violence and intimidation directed against reproductive health service patients and providers. I'm proud to be the Senate author of that legislation because since its passage, incidents of clinic violence have declined significantly. In addition, under the act and other federal and state laws, victims of clinic violence have been able to obtain remedies, and perpetrators of unlawful clinic violence have paid substantial fines and civil penalties. Unfortunately, some of these offenders are attempting to evade their liability by exploiting the bankruptcy system. For example, last year a federal judge ordered two anti-abortion groups and twelve individuals to pay in excess of $107 million for anti-choice activities and threats. However, within the last few months, five of those defendants, who collectively owe more than $45.5 million in clinic-violence debts, filed for bankruptcy to avoid the judgments. For over 100 years, our bankruptcy system has enabled honest debtors to receive a fresh start--but, the bankruptcy laws were never intended to be a safe haven for the deliberate disregard of Federal or State laws. The Schumer amendment preserves the integrity of the bankruptcy laws, and I urge my colleagues to support it. The Schumer amendment, the Levin amendment, and others are critical in the needed effort to salvage this bill. Our goal is to enact responsible bankruptcy reform, not a sweetheart deal for the credit card industry. Mr. President, at the appropriate time, I intend to offer a motion to instruct the conferees on the bankruptcy bill to fix the deeply flawed minimum wage proposal contained in the bill. The watered-down wage proposal in this bill is an insult to the hard-working men and women earning the minimum wage. In this time of plenty, we must not shortchange these workers. We should provide a 50-cent raise now and 50 cents a year from now. Finally, it is fair to ask when we look at any piece of legislation we do who is going to benefit and who is going to lose. As has been demonstrated during the hearings and during the debate, just about every thoughtful person who has studied the bankruptcy bills remarks about how Congress, over the history of our Nation, has proposed bankruptcy bills which have been balanced between the debtor and the creditor, with the understanding that there are so many millions of Americans who may fall onto hard times briefly but are hard-working, decent people.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Levin for taking the initiative to close a gaping loophole that allows gun manufacturers, distributors, and dealers to use the Bankruptcy Code to avoid judgments against them based on fraud, recklessness, negligence or product liability. Firearms manufacturers and dealers should not be able to use bankruptcy to escape liability. Under current law, many types of debt are dischargeable under the Bankruptcy Code. However, the Code makes certain debts nondischargeable, due to public policy concerns, such as debts incurred by the operation of a motor vehicle while legally intoxicated. Recently, private citizens and local governments have sued the gun industry to hold it accountable for deaths and injuries caused by firearms. The current litigation can be an effective way of assessing responsibility and providing remedies for obvious harm, in accord with the long-standing traditions of the law. Many of these lawsuits have been brought by federal and state governments against firearms manufacturers. Opponents of these lawsuits argue that the industry cannot afford them, and that the suits may well force some firms into bankruptcy. The entire focus of the current lawsuits is the wrongdoing of the defendant corporations. The authority of the court to award damages against these defendants requires a judicial finding that the company engaged in misconduct in the manufacturing or marketing of its product. In the absence of such a finding, there is no liability. At long last, the American people are getting their day in court against the gun industry, and the gun manufacturers and the NRA fear that justice will be done. Everyday, 13 more children across the country die from gunshot wounds. Yet, the national response to this death toll continues to be grossly inadequate. The gun industry has fought against reasonable gun control legislation. It has failed to use technology to make guns safer. It has attempted to insulate itself from its distributors and dealers, once the guns leave the factory door. Studies estimating the total public cost of firearm-related injuries put the cost at over one million dollars for each shooting victim. According to the Centers for Disease Control, cities, counties and states incur billions of dollars in costs each year as a result of gun violence--including the costs of medical care, law enforcement, and other public services. Communities across the country are attempting to deal with the epidemic of gun violence that claims the lives of so many people each year. Law enforcement officials, community leaders, parents and youth are struggling to deal with this continuing epidemic of gun violence. But the gun industry, and Congress, and most state legislatures have persistently ignored these concerns. Now, when the courts are likely to hold them accountable, some gun manufacturers are attempting to avoid their responsibility by filing for bankruptcy. One example is Lorcin Industries. During its heyday, Lorcin was one of the largest manufacturers of ``affordable'' guns. Law enforcement and gun-control advocates call them ``Saturday night specials''--the inexpensive, easily concealed handguns often used in crimes. Lorcin is one of several companies that sprang up after a 1968 law banned imports of ``Saturday night specials'' but permitted domestic manufacturing. Studies have found that these products are characterized by short ``time to crime''--the brief period between sale and the time when the guns are used in criminal acts. Lorcin Engineering Co. has been named as a defendant in 27 lawsuits. The suits charge that Lorcin and other firearm manufacturers do not provide adequate safety devices, and that they negligently market their products, so that their weapons are too easily accessible to criminals and juveniles. Lorcin was also the subject of at least 35 wrongful- death or injury claims involving people killed or wounded when their Lorcin pistols accidentally discharged. Lorcin settled at least two dozen of the 35 claims, ranging from a few thousand dollars to $495,000. Lorcin sought refuge from these product liability lawsuits by filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in October 1996. In bankruptcy, Lorcin was able to settle its lawsuits for pennies on the dollar, when tens of millions of dollars in damages were at stake. One of the major issues raised by creditors in the Lorcin bankruptcy case was whether the company was using the ability to reorganize its operations under the bankruptcy code as a way to avoid paying large sums to plaintiffs if it lost the suits. Last January, Lorcin was released from a lawsuit filed by the City of New Orleans. It petitioned the court to be removed from another lawsuit filed by the City of Chicago, because the company was reorganizing itself under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code when the cities filed their lawsuits. The litigation has prompted two other gun manufacturers to seek refuge in bankruptcy. Sundance Industries of Valencia, California filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The owner said he has been worn down by the legal assault on the gun industry. In addition, Davis Industries of Mira Loma, California sought Chapter 11 protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court on May 27, 1999. According to a lawyer who represented creditors in the 1996 bankruptcy of Lorcin, ``Bankruptcy is a very useful negotiating tool and predictably the more suits that are filed, the more these gun companies are going to file for bankruptcy.'' A lawyer for one of the cities suing the gun-makers said that bankruptcy ``is going to be a huge pain,'' because it will require much more time and expense for the cities, limit the amount of damages they can collect, and, perhaps most important, put the litigation in federal bankruptcy court. Litigation may well be the only means to hold gun manufacturers accountable for the harm caused by their products. As we have seen with litigation against the tobacco industry, manufacturing secrets and marketing secrets often come to light in a courtroom. Public interest lawsuits have changed the balance of power between the public and the mammoth industries long thought to be invincible. The Levin amendment supports the citizens harmed by these powerful industries. It deserves to be supported by the Senate, and I urge the Senate to approve it. Mr. President, in summation, I congratulate my friend, the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, for the development of this particular amendment, and I join with others to recommend it strongly to the Senate. I am hopeful that it will be successful. The Levin amendment, as has been pointed out, takes the initiative to close a gaping loophole that allows the gun manufacturers and distributors and dealers to use the bankruptcy code to avoid judgments against them based on fraud, recklessness, and negligence, or product liability. Firearm manufacturers and dealers should not be able to abuse the bankruptcy laws to escape liability. We can ask ourselves, is this a problem? The answer is yes. Do the gun manufacturers intend to utilize bankruptcy to basically avoid responsibility to families across the country and because of the basis of negligence, recklessness, or fraud? The answer is yes to that, too, which undermines the importance of this particular amendment. America has a gun problem and it is massive. The crisis is especially serious for children. Every day, 13 more children across the country die from gunshot wounds. For every child killed with a gun, four are wounded. Yet the national response to this death toll continues to be grossly inadequate. The gun industry has fought against reasonable gun control legislation. It has failed to use the technology to make guns safer. All we have to do is remember the debates we had on the violence against youth legislation at the end of last year. We saw the efforts to try to provide common sense solutions to those who make these weapons available to individuals in our society who should not have these weapons, and how that was frustrated in important ways by the gun manufacturers. They were able to keep that piece of legislation that was passed with regard to gun show loopholes tied up in conference. How many weeks and how many months have passed when we have been unable to address this issue either in conference or back on the floor of the U.S. Senate? Those efforts continue to go on even today. Here we find in the bankruptcy legislation another attempt by the gun manufacturers to exercise their muscle by giving them a special consideration at a time when the problems they foist on the American families are so significant. The gun industry has attempted to insulate itself from its distributors and dealers once the guns leave the factory door. Guns are the only consumer product exempt from safety regulations. Cities, counties, and States incur billions of dollars in costs each year as a result of gun violence, including the costs of medical care, law enforcement, and other public services. Studies estimating the total public cost of firearm-related injuries put the cost at over $1 million for each shooting victim. Communities across the country are attempting to deal with the epidemic of gun violence that claims the lives of so many people each year. Law enforcement officials, community leaders, parents, and youth are struggling to deal with this continuing epidemic of gun violence. But the gun industry, Congress, and most State legislatures have persistently ignored these concerns. At long last, the American people are getting their day in court against the gun industry. Individuals, organizations, and municipalities are making progress in their effort to hold the industry liable for its failure to incorporate reasonable safety designs in the guns they sell, including features that would prevent gun use by children and other unauthorized users. Personalizing or childproofing guns would dramatically reduce the number of unintentional shootings, teenage suicides, and criminal offenses using stolen weapons. One such lawsuit was filed in Massachusetts on behalf of the parents of Ross Mathieu, a 12-year-old boy who was killed in 1996 when a friend the same age unintentionally shot him with a Beretta pistol, believing that the gun was unloaded. In 1997, a suit was filed against Beretta in Federal court in Boston alleging that Beretta caused the death by failing to include with the pistol either a magazine disconnect safety device, a chamber-loaded indicator, or a locking device that would have ``personalized'' the gun. Last summer, the city of Boston filed a suit against gun manufacturers, distributors, and trade associations whose manufacturing decisions, marketing schemes, and distribution patterns have injured the city and its citizens. Boston is one of 30 cities and counties to have filed groundbreaking lawsuits to reform the gun industry. When the courts seem likely to hold the industry accountable, some gun manufacturers are attempting to avoid their responsibility by filing for bankruptcy. We have heard the example that the Senator from Illinois pointed out, Lorcin Industries, one of the largest manufacturers of the Saturday night specials. We heard how they have attempted to use the bankruptcy laws to their financial advantage and to the disadvantage of the families who have legitimate interests in pursuing their rights in a court of law. As a result, Lorcin was able to settle its lawsuit for pennies on the dollar when tens of millions of dollars in damages were at stake. One of the major issues raised by creditors in the bankruptcy case was whether the company was using the ability to reorganize its operations under the bankruptcy code as a way of avoiding paying large sums to plaintiffs if it lost the suits. That has been replicated by Sundance Industries of Valencia, CA, who filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy. The owner said he had been worn down by the legal assault on the gun industry. In addition, last May, Davis Industries of Mira Loma, CA, sought protection in the U.S. bankruptcy court. According to a lawyer who represented creditors in the 1996 bankruptcy of Lorcin, ``Bankruptcy is a very useful negotiating tool, and predictably the more suits that are filed, the more these gun companies are going to file for bankruptcy.'' A lawyer for one of the cities suing the gun manufacturers said that bankruptcy ``is going to be a huge pain'' because it will require much more time and expense for the cities. Litigation may well be the only means to hold the gun manufacturers accountable for the harm caused by their products. Public interest lawsuits have changed the balance of power between the public and the mammoth industries long thought to be invincible. At long last, the American people are getting their day in court against the gun industry. The gun manufacturers and the NRA should not be allowed to hide behind the bankruptcy laws to prevent liability. The Levin amendment supports the citizens and cities harmed by this powerful industry. It deserves to be supported by the Senate, and I urge the Senate to approve it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for the record, I want to ensure that congressional intent on the Secretary of Health and Human Services' organ transplantation rule is clear. The provision in the tax extender bill, which provides for a 90 day delay with a required 60 day comment period, does not reflect the views of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Rather, congressional intent is expressed by the provision in the Consolidated Appropriations bill, which simply delays the effective date of the regulation by 42 days. This compromise assures that the transplant community and affected patients will have one final chance to discuss this issue, and that the Secretary shall then proceed with the regulation. Therefore, the provision in the Consolidated Appropriations bill should have legal effect, notwithstanding the provision in the tax extender bill. I ask unanimous consent a statement of Administration Policy be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Senator Gorton and I have worked closely with Chairman Jeffords and Chairman Frist to prepare this substitute amendment to S. 1488, the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act. I particularly commend my colleague from Washington, Senator Gorton, for his leadership on this issue. Promoting the use of defibrillators is good public policy. The substitute amendment is supported by the American Heart Association, the American Red Cross and the American Red Cross. I am hopeful that the recommendations to be developed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services will encourage decision makers at the federal, state and local levels to make the most effective use of automated external defibrillators. I believe that this legislation will save lives. The ``Good Samaritan'' provisions contained in the legislation are targeted, and there is no need for additional categories. I urge the Senate to approve it now, and the House to pass it in the next session. It is a solid proposal, and it deserves prompt enactment.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Tennessee in proposing legislation to amend the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. This program is an important part of the nation's public health strategy. In order to encourage the development and use of effective vaccines, the program guarantees compensation to the few children who are injured by routine immunization. Recent evidence suggests that some children may suffer vaccine- related injuries that are not covered under the current criteria used to determine eligibility for compensation. To continue the program's success, Congress must assure that the system is responsive to new developments in medical science. We need to be certain that any child who suffers a severe injury as a result of routine vaccination is eligible for compensation under the program. My colleague from Vermont has concisely summarized the current status of the program and the importance of amending the statute. Families and physicians need to know that public health procedures are capable of a rapid and appropriate response to scientific developments. It is a privilege to join my colleagues in offering this legislation to improve the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, advances in biomedical science and technology in this century have given us many tools to improve our understanding of the causes of disease, and to develop better strategies to prevent and treat human illness. The recent explosion of knowledge in genetics offers us the newest and most powerful weapons in the war against disease and suffering. The legislation I am introducing, the Genetics and Public Health Services Act, will increase the federal, state and local public health resources needed to translate genetic information and technology into strategies to improve public health. Our national investment in science, and in particular in the National Institutes of Health, is reaping important dividends for the entire country. As a result of the Human Genome Project and other public and private sector research, we soon may have access to the entire human genetic code. From work accomplished so far, scientists have begun to develop a greater understanding of how genes contribute to the development of common diseases, such as cancer, diabetes, hypertension, depression, heart disease and many other illnesses. Genetic information and technology have enormous potential for improving our efforts to promote health and combat disease. Based on current understanding of genes and human disease, we know that at least 65 percent of Americans have or will have a health problem for which there is a clear genetic contribution. Some have rare, but serious, conditions--such as cystic fibrosis, sickle cell disease or phenylketonuria. Many more have common disorders--asthma, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, stroke and depression--in which genetic predisposition plays an important role. Genetic information can help us to understand and identify those at risk for serious diseases and conditions, and help doctors monitor their health in order to diagnose and treat the diseases before they cause irreversible injury or death. Advancing our understand of genetics will revolutionize the treatment of disease. For example, understanding the genetic factors that contribute to Alzheimer's disease will help us to understand why some patients seem to respond to a new treatment, while others do not. Genetic information may soon be able to predict the types of individuals who have intolerable side effects from certain therapies. Doctors will be able to use genetic information to choose safer and more effective treatments that are tailored to each individual. Medical scientists are now beginning to think about genetic-based strategies to prevent illness, too. Understanding how genes contribute to the development of disease will give us new ways to intervene before disease develops. We will be able to use new therapies to prevent stroke, heart disease and many other conditions that cause disability and premature death. We have an unprecedented opportunity to use the expanding knowledge in genetics to improve health care. Scientific discoveries based on genetic information will change the face of health care in the future. But we lack the resources and systems needed today to translate that information into effective steps to diagnose, treat, and ultimately prevented disease. In order to realize the potential benefits of genetic information and technology, we must invest the resources needed to translate this knowledge into practical approaches to health care. We must do this quickly, to keep pace with the explosion of knowledge coming from public and private sector scientists. This legislation accomplishes these goals by creating two new grant programs in the Department of Health and Human Services. The first provides grants to states to develop and maintain ways to safely and effectively use genetic information in their state and local public health programs. The second grant program focuses on the translation of new genetic information and technologies to practical public health strategies that can be used in public and private health care. The grant program for states will support methods to incorporate genetics at every level of state and local public health systems. Each state and territory has a unique population and a unique public health program. This proposal provides states with the support and flexibility to design approaches tailored to their specific needs and existing resources. States may use funds to establish and maintain essential resources, such as information systems, service programs, and other fundamental elements. States will be required to monitor, evaluate and report on the impact of programs and systems funded by the Act. Responsible use of genetic information must be based on scientific data. The second grant program created by this legislation addresses the need for ongoing development and evaluation of public health strategies that use genetic information and technology. The bill creates a demonstration program for public and private non-profit organizations to test innovative approaches for using genetic information to improve people's health, and to evaluate the suitability of such approaches for incorporation into state and local public health programs. Broad input from all parties is a key ingredient for successful and safe use of genetic information to improve public health. Individuals must not be coerced to participate in genetic testing. It is important to involve the public in local, state and federal decisions about how to use genetic information in developing public health policy. Evidence suggests that many people are afraid to take advantage of available genetic tests because they fear discrimination in the workplace or in the health insurance market. Until we pass legislation to stop such discrimination, those fears are grounded in reality. We know that steps can be taken to protect the confidentiality of genetic information and to better educate the public about the issues surrounding genetic testing. This legislation requires each state to show how it plans to involve the public in the design and implementation of its proposal. The legislation also establishes a federal advisory committee to assist the Secretary of Health and Human Services in the implementation and oversight of programs under this Act. Public participation is essential. Our system has failed if we offer population-wide testing for predisposition to stroke, but fail to educate individuals who must decide whether to be tested. Our system has failed if we implement population-wide testing for predisposition to breast cancer, but fail to provide access to the care that is needed to reduce the risk of developing disease. Effective integration of genetics into public health systems must build on current efforts of the private and the public sector, including the work of many federal agencies. These include the achievements of the Human Genome Project at the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration's oversight of certain aspects of genetic testing, the ongoing work of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing, and the contributions of the project on the Ethical Legal and Social Implications of the Human Genome Project at the Department of Energy. Our new Federal commitment to safe and effective use of new genetic information and technology in the public health system will also draw significantly upon the expertise of the Health Resources and Services Administration. Translating genetic information and technology into practice will benefit as well from the expertise of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in disease surveillance and in developing and testing new public health strategies. This legislation emphasizes the need to educate both health care providers and the general public. It also provides the structure and resources to include genetics in all aspects of public health--from the development of policy to the delivery of services. We must ensure that our entire public health system is ready and able to respond to the challenge of using genetic information for improving health. The Genetics and Public Health Services Act is supported by leading public health and genetics organizations, including the American Public Health Association, the American College of Medical Genetics, the National, Society of Genetic Counselors, and the American Society of Human Genetics. The Alliance of Genetic Support Groups--representing those who live with genetic diseases--has written eloquently about the need to improve the resources dedicated to integrating genetics into public health. I am confident this support will grow in the coming months. Genetics research has brought us to an era of limitless possibility. The 21st century will be the century of life sciences. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort to take advantage of this unprecedented opportunity to improve America's health. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, advances in biomedical science and technology in this century have given us many tools to improve our understanding of the causes of disease, and to develop better strategies to prevent and treat human illness. The recent explosion of knowledge in genetics offers us the newest and most powerful weapons in the war against disease and suffering. The legislation I am introducing, the Genetics and Public Health Services Act, will increase the federal, state and local public health resources needed to translate genetic information and technology into strategies to improve public health. Our national investment in science, and in particular in the National Institutes of Health, is reaping important dividends for the entire country. As a result of the Human Genome Project and other public and private sector research, we soon may have access to the entire human genetic code. From work accomplished so far, scientists have begun to develop a greater understanding of how genes contribute to the development of common diseases, such as cancer, diabetes, hypertension, depression, heart disease and many other illnesses. Genetic information and technology have enormous potential for improving our efforts to promote health and combat disease. Based on current understanding of genes and human disease, we know that at least 65 percent of Americans have or will have a health problem for which there is a clear genetic contribution. Some have rare, but serious, conditions--such as cystic fibrosis, sickle cell disease or phenylketonuria. Many more have common disorders--asthma, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, stroke and depression--in which genetic predisposition plays an important role. Genetic information can help us to understand and identify those at risk for serious diseases and conditions, and help doctors monitor their health in order to diagnose and treat the diseases before they cause irreversible injury or death. Advancing our understand of genetics will revolutionize the treatment of disease. For example, understanding the genetic factors that contribute to Alzheimer's disease will help us to understand why some patients seem to respond to a new treatment, while others do not. Genetic information may soon be able to predict the types of individuals who have intolerable side effects from certain therapies. Doctors will be able to use genetic information to choose safer and more effective treatments that are tailored to each individual. Medical scientists are now beginning to think about genetic-based strategies to prevent illness, too. Understanding how genes contribute to the development of disease will give us new ways to intervene before disease develops. We will be able to use new therapies to prevent stroke, heart disease and many other conditions that cause disability and premature death. We have an unprecedented opportunity to use the expanding knowledge in genetics to improve health care. Scientific discoveries based on genetic information will change the face of health care in the future. But we lack the resources and systems needed today to translate that information into effective steps to diagnose, treat, and ultimately prevented disease. In order to realize the potential benefits of genetic information and technology, we must invest the resources needed to translate this knowledge into practical approaches to health care. We must do this quickly, to keep pace with the explosion of knowledge coming from public and private sector scientists. This legislation accomplishes these goals by creating two new grant programs in the Department of Health and Human Services. The first provides grants to states to develop and maintain ways to safely and effectively use genetic information in their state and local public health programs. The second grant program focuses on the translation of new genetic information and technologies to practical public health strategies that can be used in public and private health care. The grant program for states will support methods to incorporate genetics at every level of state and local public health systems. Each state and territory has a unique population and a unique public health program. This proposal provides states with the support and flexibility to design approaches tailored to their specific needs and existing resources. States may use funds to establish and maintain essential resources, such as information systems, service programs, and other fundamental elements. States will be required to monitor, evaluate and report on the impact of programs and systems funded by the Act. Responsible use of genetic information must be based on scientific data. The second grant program created by this legislation addresses the need for ongoing development and evaluation of public health strategies that use genetic information and technology. The bill creates a demonstration program for public and private non-profit organizations to test innovative approaches for using genetic information to improve people's health, and to evaluate the suitability of such approaches for incorporation into state and local public health programs. Broad input from all parties is a key ingredient for successful and safe use of genetic information to improve public health. Individuals must not be coerced to participate in genetic testing. It is important to involve the public in local, state and federal decisions about how to use genetic information in developing public health policy. Evidence suggests that many people are afraid to take advantage of available genetic tests because they fear discrimination in the workplace or in the health insurance market. Until we pass legislation to stop such discrimination, those fears are grounded in reality. We know that steps can be taken to protect the confidentiality of genetic information and to better educate the public about the issues surrounding genetic testing. This legislation requires each state to show how it plans to involve the public in the design and implementation of its proposal. The legislation also establishes a federal advisory committee to assist the Secretary of Health and Human Services in the implementation and oversight of programs under this Act. Public participation is essential. Our system has failed if we offer population-wide testing for predisposition to stroke, but fail to educate individuals who must decide whether to be tested. Our system has failed if we implement population-wide testing for predisposition to breast cancer, but fail to provide access to the care that is needed to reduce the risk of developing disease. Effective integration of genetics into public health systems must build on current efforts of the private and the public sector, including the work of many federal agencies. These include the achievements of the Human Genome Project at the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration's oversight of certain aspects of genetic testing, the ongoing work of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing, and the contributions of the project on the Ethical Legal and Social Implications of the Human Genome Project at the Department of Energy. Our new Federal commitment to safe and effective use of new genetic information and technology in the public health system will also draw significantly upon the expertise of the Health Resources and Services Administration. Translating genetic information and technology into practice will benefit as well from the expertise of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in disease surveillance and in developing and testing new public health strategies. This legislation emphasizes the need to educate both health care providers and the general public. It also provides the structure and resources to include genetics in all aspects of public health--from the development of policy to the delivery of services. We must ensure that our entire public health system is ready and able to respond to the challenge of using genetic information for improving health. The Genetics and Public Health Services Act is supported by leading public health and genetics organizations, including the American Public Health Association, the American College of Medical Genetics, the National, Society of Genetic Counselors, and the American Society of Human Genetics. The Alliance of Genetic Support Groups--representing those who live with genetic diseases--has written eloquently about the need to improve the resources dedicated to integrating genetics into public health. I am confident this support will grow in the coming months. Genetics research has brought us to an era of limitless possibility. The 21st century will be the century of life sciences. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort to take advantage of this unprecedented opportunity to improve America's health. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, biomedical research continues to produce great advances in our ability to combat deadly diseases, and its promise for the future is vast. For that promise to be fully realized in improvements in people's health, we need a stronger commitment to bring medical discoveries from the laboratory to the bedside. Increased support for clinical research is vital for developing cures and better treatments for disease. Clinical research brings insight into the most effective ways to care for patients. It offers effective ways to reduce both the human and financial costs of disease. Despite these clear benefits, clinical research faces a worsening crisis. The Institute of Medicine, the National Academy of Sciences and the National Institutes of Health have all concluded that the nation's ability to conduct clinical research has declined significantly in recent years. Passing the bill currently before the Senate will reverse this dangerous decline, by addressing the major factors that have led to the weakening of our nation's ability to conduct clinical research. One of these factors is the steep financial barrier than health care professionals encounter when considering a career in clinical research. Burdened with debt from their professional training, clinicians must often forego a research career in order to earn the money necessary to pay back their loans. Our bill will lower the economic barriers to careers in clinical research by providing financial incentives for doctors to conduct patient-research. The bill authorizes the National Institutes of Health to establish a loan repayment program to lessen the debt they must carry if they pursue careers in clinical research. The bill also provides for peer-reviewed grants to support clinical researchers at all stages of their careers. While the current state of clinical research is cause for great concern, the future of this vital health care field is even more worrying. Many of today's young clinical investigators have inadequate training in the methods of clinical research. Dr. Harold Varmus, Director of the National Institutes of Health, has emphasized the need for clinicians to have access to specialized training in patient- oriented research. This bill will provide grant support for young medical professionals to receive graduate training in such research. To meet the nation's need for clinical research, it is not enough to increase the number of doctors conducting such research. Clinical researchers must also have the facilities necessary to conduct their lifesaving work. In these days when hospitals are squeezed more and more tightly by financial pressures, there is little room for them to devote scarce resources to clinical research. To address this problem, the bill provides grants to General Clinical Research Centers, now established in 27 states, where health professionals can have access to the vital hospital resources necessary to conduct high quality patient- oriented research. This measure is supported by more than 70 biomedical associations. I commend the Chairman of our Health Committee, Senator Jeffords, for his effective leadership on this legislation. It is vital to the quality of health care in the nation in years ahead, and I urge the Senate to approve it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, biomedical research is making great strides in providing new treatments for a wide range of diseases. Thousands of talented scientists across the country are making new discoveries about the fundamental mechanisms of health and disease. Yet the talents of these researchers are often undermined by a lack of adequate facilities and equipment to conduct their crucial work. Numerous authoritative studies have demonstrated that medical research laboratories are critically in need of reconstruction and repair. The National Science Foundation found that over half the institutions conducting biomedical research in this country suffer from inadequate space for medical research. The Foundation also reported that medical research institutions have had to postpone nearly $11 billion in renovation and construction projects due to lack of adequate funding. As a result, over a quarter of medical research facilities in the nation are in urgent need of renovation or reconstruction. The need to revitalize the infrastructure of our research enterprise is recognized throughout the medical community. The Association of American Medical Colleges and the Federation of Societies for Experimental Biology have both issued statements calling on the federal government to provide increased resources for reconstruction and renovation of medical research facilities. The bill before the Senate today significantly increases our commitment by authorizing a substantial increase in the funds available to the National Institute of Health to provide peer-reviewed grants for laboratory construction and renovation. Not only have medical research facilities fallen into disrepair, but laboratories frequently lack needed research equipment. Modern medical instruments are increasingly sophisticated. Scientists are gaining new insights into such basic processes as the workings of the brain and the genetic basis of disease. With this increase in sophistication has come an increase in cost. The rising price of medical technology means that scientists must often curtail research programs, because they lack access to sensitive instruments such as MRI scanners or high resolution microscopes. To address the acute need for sophisticated scientific instruments, the bill before us also provides needed funds for medical researchers to purchase major pieces of scientific equipment. Only by giving medical researchers the equipment they need to use their talents fully can we achieve the scientific breakthroughs necessary to meet our most pressing health needs. We should not enter the twenty-first century with medical laboratories that lack adequate space, adequate facilities and adequate equipment. We must provide the funding that is urgently needed to construct modern laboratories and give researchers the equipment necessary for their cutting-edge research. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this legislation that is so vital to the health care needs of our nation and I commend my distinguished colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin, for his leadership on this and many other critical health care issues.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this legislation is necessary to resolve the confusion in current law over whether firefighters who are also trained as paramedics are covered by the exemption in section 7(k) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. This bill defines ``employee engaged in fire protection activities'' to make clear that fire fighters who perform fire fighting duties are covered by the exemption, regardless of the number of hours they spend in responding to Emergency Medical Services calls. This legislation restores the original intent of the 1986 law that created the section exemption. Significantly, the legislation also states that in order to qualify for the exemption, an employee must have the ``legal authority and responsibility to engage in fire suppression.'' This phrase was added for the express purpose of assuring that single-role emergency medical personnel are not covered by the exemption. Simply sending paramedics to the fire academy will not automatically bring them under the exemption. Fire suppression must be an integral part of the responsibilities for all employees covered by the exemption.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to express my strong support for the Northeast Dairy Compact. Since taking effect in October 1997, the Compact has stabilized milk prices for both farmers and consumers in New England. Farmers across the country are unable to make ends meet. The number of farmers in New England has declined significantly in recent years. In 1992, Massachusetts had 365 dairy farms. Today, that number has declined to 290 dairy farms. Farmers in New England are losing a priceless heritage, that their families have owned for generations-- some since the 1600s. The Northeast Dairy Compact helps ensure that in the face of these difficult times for their industry, our farmers will have a consistent income to preserve their way of life. There are many misconceptions about the Dairy Compact. One of the most serious misconceptions is that taxpayers pick up the cost of the Compact. Taxpayers do not pay for this program--it is run at no cost to the federal government. In addition, with respect to competition a Congressional a condition imposed on the Compact specifically provides that: ``The Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact Commission shall not prohibit or in any way limit the marketing in the compact region of any milk or milk product produced in any other production area in the United States.'' Another misconception is that the Dairy Compact hurts the poor. This program does not hurt poor people. WIC and the school lunch program are exempt. In fact, in New England, the Compact overpaid these programs for two years in a row. When approved in 1996, the purpose of the Dairy Compact was to ensure the viability of dairy farming in the Northeast and to ensure an adequate supply of local milk to consumers. The Compact is a price support, and was never intended to make anyone rich. It was intended to preserve small family farms and provide safeguards against excessive production. The Compact has been a great success. The price of milk has actually dropped by an average of 5 cents a gallon across New England, and for many months at a time, prices have remained so stable that no compact money has been paid to farmers. The Dairy Compact is good for our farmers, preserving their way of life. It is good for the environment, preserving farms and green space that Western Massachusetts is known for. And it is good for consumers, stabilizing prices and ensuring a fresh and local supply of milk. We stand for free competition, but we also stand for fair competition. In many areas of current law, there are long-standing provisions designed to produce competition that is both free and fair. The New England Dairy Compact deserves the support it has received from the Senate in recent years, and I hope that it will continue to receive that support.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join with Senator Moynihan and Senator Roth in commending our colleagues on the Finance Committee for their strong work in helping bring us to where we are today. I thank them for their leadership. I would especially like to acknowledge Senator Jeffords, who has been instrumental in the development of the legislation. And I, all of us on this side and throughout the Senate and across the country always recognize the real leader on all of the disability issues, our friend from Iowa, Senator Harkin, who has had a lifetime of commitment on the issues of promoting the interests of disabled Americans. The Senate will welcome his comments this afternoon. Today, Congress will complete action on the Ticket to Work and the Work Incentives Improvement Act, and this important legislation will go at long last to the White House. When President Clinton signs this bill into law, he will truly be signing a modern Declaration of Independence for millions of men and women with disabilities in communities across the country who will have a priceless new opportunity to fulfill their hopes and dreams of living independent and productive lives. We know how far we have come in the ongoing battle over many decades to ensure that people with disabilities have the independence they need to be participating members of their communities. Mr. President, 67 years ago this month we elected a disabled American to the highest office in the land. He became one of the greatest Presidents, but Franklin Roosevelt was compelled by the prevailing attitudes of his time to conceal his disability as much as possible. The World War II Generation began to change all that. The 1950s showed the Nation a new class of people--people with disabilities--as veterans returned from the war to an inaccessible society. Each decade since then has brought significant progress. In the 1960s, Congress responded with new architectural standards so we could build a society of which everyone could be a part. The 1970s convinced us that full participation in society was needed, not only for disabled veterans but for disabled children and family members and for those injured in everyday accidents. Congress responded with a range of federally funded programs which improved the lives of people with mental retardation, supported the rights of children with disabilities to go to school, ensured the right of people with disabilities to vote, and gave people with disabilities greater access to health care. The 1980s brought a new realization that when we are talking about assisting people with disabilities, we must not look only to Federal programs, but to the private sector as well. Congress again responded by guaranteeing fair housing opportunities for people with disabilities, by ensuring access to air travel, and making telecommunication advances available for people who are hard of hearing or deaf. The 1990s brought us the Americans with Disabilities Act, which promised every disabled citizen a new and better life, in which disability would no longer put an end to the American dream. But too often, for too many Americans, the promise of the ADA has been unfulfilled. Now, with this legislation, we will finally link civil rights clearly with health care. It isn't civil and it isn't right to send a person to work without the health care they need and deserve. As Bob Dole stated in his eloquent testimony to the Finance Committee earlier this year, this issue is about people going to work--``it is about dignity and opportunity and all the things we talk about, when we talk about being an American.'' Millions of disabled men and women in this country want to work and are able to work. But they have been denied the opportunity to work because they lack access to needed health care. As result, the Nation has been denied their talents and their contributions to our communities. Current laws are an anachronism. Modern medicine and modern technology make it easier than ever before for disabled persons to have productive lives and careers. Current laws are often a greater obstacle to that goal than their disability itself. It's ridiculous that we punish disabled persons who dare to take a job by penalizing them financially, by taking away their health insurance lifeline, and by placing other unfair obstacles in their path. Currently, there are approximately 9 million working-age adults who receive disability benefits, many of whom could take jobs if they could keep their governmentally financed health benefits. A national survey earlier this year showed that, while 76 percent of people with disabilities wanted to work, nearly 75 percent are unemployed. Of those receiving benefits, only \1/2\ of 1% leave the disability roles to return to work. Disability groups have estimated that about 2 million of the 8 million would consider forgoing disability payments and take jobs as a result of this legislation. The estimated cost of this new program would be recouped if only 70,000 people leave the disability benefit roles. If 210,000 of them take jobs, the government would actually save $1 billion annually in disability payments. That 210,000 constitutes only 10% of the number of people who the disability community believe will avail themselves of this program. If their estimates are even close to accurate, the savings to the Federal Government could eventually approach $10 billion per year. Far more important that the savings is the impact on people's lives. It is about dignity. It is about opportunity that is by far the most important charge. Today is a new beginning for persons with disabilities in their pursuit of the American dream. This bill corrects the injustice they have unfairly suffered. The Work Incentives Improvement Act removes these unfair barriers to work that face so many Americans with disabilities: In makes health insurance available and affordable when a disabled person goes to work, or develops a significant disability while working. It gives people with disabilities greater access to the services they need to become successfully employed. It phases out the loss of cash benefits as income rises, instead of the unfair sudden cut-off that workers with disabilities face today. It places work incentive planners in communities, rather than in bureaucracies, to help workers with disabilities learn how to obtain the employment services and support they need. Many leaders in communities throughout the country have worked long and hard and well to help us reach this milestone. They are consumers, family members, citizens, and advocates. They showed us how current job programs for people with disabilities are failing them and forcing them into poverty. In all the time I have been in the Senate, I doubt if there has really been a single piece of legislation that has so coherently reflected the common concerns of a constituency and all of that constituency worked so effectively on recommendations to the Congress of the United States. We have worked together for many months to develop effective ways to right these wrongs. And to all of them I say, thank you for helping us to achieve this needed legislation. It truly represents legislation of the people, by the people and for the people. It is all of you who have been the fearless, tireless warriors for justice. When we think of citizens with disabilities, we tend to think of men and women and children who are disabled from birth. But fewer than 15% of all people with disabilities are born with their disabilities. A bicycle accident or a serious fall or a serious illness can suddenly disable the healthiest and most physically able person. In the long run, this legislation may be more important than any other action we have taken in this Congress. I say that very sincerely. In the long run, this legislation may be the most important piece of legislation we have passed in this Congress. Its offers a new and better life to large numbers of our fellow citizens. Disability need no longer end the American dream. That was the promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act a decade ago, and this legislation dramatically strengthens our fulfillment of that promise. This bill has a human face. It is for Alice in Oklahoma, who was disabled because of multiple sclerosis and receives SSDI benefits. She will now be able to get personal assistance to work and live in here community. No longer will she have to use all of her savings and half of her wages to pay for personal assistance and prescription drugs. No longer will she be left in poverty. This bill is for Tammy in Indiana, who has cerebral palsy and uses a wheelchair and works part-time at Wal-Mart. No longer will she be forced to restrict her hours of work. Her goals of becoming a productive citizen will no longer be denied--because now she will have access to the health care she needs. This bill is for Abby in Massachusetts, who is six years old and has mental retardation. Her parents are very concerned about her future. Already, she has been denied coverage by two health insurance firms because of the diagnosis is of mental retardation. Without Medicaid, her parents would be bankrupted by her current medical bills. Now when Abby enters the work force, she will not have to live in poverty or lose her Medicaid coverage. All that will change, and she will have a fair opportunity to work and prosper. This bill is for many other citizens whose stories are told in this diary, called ``A Day in the Life of a Person with a Disability.'' Disabled people are not unable. Our goal in this legislation is to banish the stereotypes, to reform and improve existing disability programs, so that they genuinely encourage and support every disabled person's dream to work and live independently, and be a productive and contributing member of their community. That goal should be the birthright of all Americans--and with this legislation, we are taking a giant step toward that goal. A story from the debate on the Americans with Disabilities Act illustrates the point. A postmaster in a town was told that he must make his post office accessible. The building had 20 steep steps leading up to a revolving door at the only entrance. The postmaster questioned the need to make such costly repairs. He said, ``I've been here for thirty-five years, and in all that time, I've yet to see a single customer come in here in a wheelchair.'' As the Americans with Disabilities Act has proved so well, if you build the ramp, they will come, and they will find their field of dreams. This bill builds new ramps, and vast numbers of the disabled will now come--to work. The road to economic prosperity and the right to a decent wage must be more accessible to all Americans--no matter how many steps stand in the way. That is our goal in this legislation. It is the right thing to do, and it is the cost effective thing to do. And now we are finally doing it. Eliminating these barriers to work will help disabled Americans to achieve self-sufficiency. We are a better and stronger and fairer country when we open the door of opportunity to all Americans, and enable them to be equal partners in the American dream. For millions of Americans with disabilities, this bill is a declaration of independence that can make the American dream come true. Now, when we say ``equal opportunity for all,'' it will be clear that we mean all. No one in America should lose their medial coverage--which can mean the difference between life and death--if they go to work. No one in this country should have to choose between buying a decent meal and buying the medication they need. Nearly a year ago, President Clinton signed an executive order to increase employment and health care coverage for people with disabilities. Today, with strong bipartisan support, Congress is demonstrating its commitment to our fellow disabled citizens. But our work is far from done. This bill is only the first step in the major reform of the Social Security disability programs that will enable individuals with disabilities to have the rights and privileges that all other Americans enjoy; 54 million Americans with disabilities are waiting for our action. We will not stop today, we will not stop tomorrow, we will not ever stop until America works for all Americans. Mr. President, in these final moments, I especially commend President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and Secretary Shalala. President Clinton made this one of his top priorities over this year and during these final negotiations. He understands the importance of this legislation, and this was a matter of central importance to him and his Presidency. I also thank John Podesta and Chris Jennings who saw this through to the very end. I commend the many Senate staff members whose skilled assistance contributed so much to the achievement: Jennifer Baxendale, Alec Vachon, and Frank Polk of Senator Roth's staff; Kristin Testa, John Resnick, Edwin Park, and David Podoff of Senator Moynihan's staff; Pat Morrissey, Lu Zeph, Chris Crowley, Jim Downing, and Mark Powden of Senator Jeffords' staff; Connie Garner--a special thanks to Connie Garner--Jim Manley, Jonathan Press, Jeffrey Teitz, and Michael Myers of my own staff; and the many other staff members of the Health Committee and the Finance Committee. No longer will disabled Americans be left out and left behind. The Ticket to Work and the Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 is an act of courage, an act of community, and, above all, an act of hope for the future. I urge its passage, and I reserve the remainder of the time of the Senator from New York. Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is important that we remember how vital our nuclear nonproliferation programs with Russia are to our national security. That's why I was pleased, in recent weeks, to see two articles by Brett Wagner in the San Francisco chronicle and in the Wall Street Journal, which I would like to submit for the Record. Mr. Wagner is the president of the California Center for Strategic Studies, and his articles bring much needed attention to an essential aspect of our nuclear nonproliferation policy--to ensure that Russian weapons-grade, highly-enriched uranium does not fall into the wrong hands. We need to live up to our agreement with Russia and strengthen our nuclear, chemical and biological nonproliferation program with that nation. Our future could well depend on it. I believe that Mr. Wagner's articles will be of interest to all of us in Congress who care about these issues, and I ask that they be printed in the Record. The articles follow. [From the San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 22, 1999] U.S. Must Move Quickly to Buy Russia's Excess Nukes (by Brett Wagner) Without a doubt, what's been most frustrating about being a national security specialist in the 1990s has been urging that the United States buy the hundreds of tons of undersecured excess weapon-grade uranium scattered across Russia--only to repeatedly hear in response that this could never happen in the real world because of Washington's never- ending struggle to balance the federal budget. My, how things change. Today, Washington is awash in an unprecedented trillion- dollar budget surplus--a surplus expected to surpass $100 billion in the next fiscal year alone. Politicians from both major parties are busy, of course, debating what to do with all the extra money. Unfortunately, neither party has even mentioned Russia's offer to sell its enormous stockpiles of excess weapon-grade uranium to the United States as quickly as possible in exchange for badly needed hard currency. Congressional and presidential priorities aside, it's hard to imagine a better time to reconsider this issue. By now, almost everyone who reads the newspaper or watches the evening news knows that Russia has yet to develop any reliable means of securing its enormous stockpiles of weapon- grade uranium and plutonium. It doesn't even have an accounting system capable of keeping track of them. And as the media often remind us, these materials have already begun leaking into the West--troubling news, to say the least, considering that: The blueprints and non-nuclear components necessary to build crude but highly effective nuclear weapons are already widely available; It only takes 20 or 30 pounds of highly enriched uranium to arm a device capable of leveling a city the size of downtown Washington; Rogue states and terrorist groups openly hostile to the United States have already attempted several times to purchase nuclear warheads or material from Russian nuclear workers; There is no reliable way of keeping a nuclear weapon or contraband from being smuggled into U.S. territory if it ever does fall into the wrong hands. What most people don't seem to remember, however, is that for several years now Russia has been trying to sell these same undersecured stockpiles of highly enriched uranium to the United States for use as nuclear fuel in commercial power plants and, what's more, that an agreement designed to help further this goal was signed by President Clinton and Russian leader Doris Yeltsin in February 1993. Unfortunately, that agreement is a full year behind schedule, with shipments from 1993 through 1999 representing only 80 tons of highly enriched uranium--30 tons short of the minimum goal by the end of its seventh year in force. Moreover, even if the agreement were moving ahead at full speed, it would still cover only a fraction of Russia's excess weapon-grade uranium (500 of 1,200 tons), and none of its plutonium. A frustrated Russia can't understand why America wants to move so slowly. Meanwhile, terrorism is spiraling out of control in and around Moscow, war is breaking out again in the Caucus and the nuclear materials from thousands of dismantled Russian warheads continue to pile up in poorly protected makeshift warehouses scattered across several time zones, many of them far from the central government's watchful eye. All of which begs the question: How long can things go on this way, before we run out of luck? Or, in other words, how long can Russia's hundreds of tons of missile materials be stored so haphazardly before small but significant amounts begin winding up in the hands of terrorists or rogue states? The time has come for Washington to finally put its money where its mouth is and use part of the enormous budget surplus to purchase as much of Russia's fissile materials-- both uranium and plutonium--as Moscow is willing to sell, and as quickly as Moscow is wiling to sell them. The case for taking such a bold step should be easy to make with the American people. First, the sticker price would be remarkably low--less than $20 billion. And since the U.S. government would presumably one day sell most or all of the uranium and plutonium for use as nuclear fuel, the expense would not have to be counted as an expense--an argument sure to resonate well with fiscal conservatives eager to keep pace with Gramm-Rudman. Second, one could compare the price tag with the hundreds of billions of dollars America spent to defend itself and its allies against nuclear weapons during the Cold War; the trillion dollars of human life that would result if a small nuclear device were ever successfully detonated in a place such as downtown Washington; and the billions of dollars that rogue states and terrorist groups have already offered Russian nuclear workers for extremely small amounts of the same nuclear material. And there is the tremendous sense of relief in purchasing the very stuff that for so long threatened America's very survival, and which now threatens the whole world. With the 2000 election cycle beginning to pick up steam, and with the possibility of a viable third-party presidential candidate growing by the day, one would think that the two major parties would be scrambling to take the lead on this most serious of national Security issues.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. As I mentioned earlier, this has been a continuing process beginning with the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act, when we put into law protections for the disabled so they wouldn't be discriminated against in the workplace based upon their disability. As the Senator knows very well, that has been enormously important and has been effective. But as the Senator has pointed out, with this legislation complimenting what has been achieved with the Americans With Disabilities Act, we can open an entirely new dawn for millions who have some disability. As we are getting closer to achieving that, I am sure the Senator agrees with me that when we finally have the President's signature on this, there will be people saying: What has taken them so long? This is such a commonsense approach. But as the Senator knows, this has been a battle every step of the way. There have been those who have felt that if we do this for this particular group, we might be establishing some form of precedent that may be used somewhere down the road, and worry if we know where it might lead. There are a number of strong negative voices out there. Nonetheless, I think with the leadership of the Senator from Vermont and others--he mentioned certainly Senator Dole, Senator Weicker, and our good friend on our human resources committee, Tom Harkin, who is generally recognized in this body as one of the real authorities on disability issues--this has been a common effort of this institution. It is an area of public policy where this institution has done what it is challenged to do; and that is to find common ground in a bipartisan way to address a common concern that affects millions of Americans and make progress on it. I again thank the Senator from Vermont for the opportunity to work with him. We still have a ways to go to make sure the legislation actually reaches the people and addresses the regulations in the way it is intended. But I think this is going to be enormously important--and I hope soon to finally have the President's signature on this legislation. We are much closer today than we have ever been in the past. I join with the Senator to thank him for his good work. We hope to see that this is actually put into place and implemented so it will benefit those that it should benefit. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, the House of Representatives will take up one of the most important bills to come before this Congress, now labeled the Ticket To Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act, which is intended to move us closer to opening the workplace doors for the disabled in communities across the country. It is a sad day when the U.S. Congress finds it necessary to attach a controversial provision to the legislation that could jeopardize the opportunity for large numbers of people with disabilities to fulfill their hopes and dreams of living independent and productive lives. A decade ago, when Congress enacted the Americans With Disabilities Act, we promised our disabled fellow citizens a new and better life in which disability would no longer put an end to the American dream. Too often, for too many Americans, that promise has been unfulfilled. The Ticket To Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act is basically the legislation that Senator Jeffords of Vermont and I, Senator Roth, and Senator Moynihan urged the Senate to accept and had been accepted by the Senate by a 99-0 vote. Now the title is the Ticket To Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act, and it will dramatically strengthen the fulfillment of that promise. We know that millions of disabled men and women in this country want to work and are able to work. But they are denied the opportunity, primarily because they lack the continued access to needed health care. As a result, the Nation is denied their talents and contributions to our community. Eliminating the health care barriers to work will help large numbers of disabled Americans to achieve self-sufficiency and enable them to become equal partners in the American dream. The Ticket To Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act removes these unfair barriers to work that face so many Americans with disabilities. It makes health insurance available and affordable when a disabled person goes to work, or develops a significant disability while working; it gives people greater access to the services they need to become successfully employed; it phases out the loss of cash benefits as income rises, instead of the unfair sudden cutoff that workers with disabilities face today; it places work incentives in communities, rather than bureaucracies, to help workers with disabilities to learn how to obtain the employment services and support they need. For far too long, disabled Americans have been left out and left behind. It is time for us to take the long overdue action needed to correct the injustices that have unfairly been placed upon those with disabilities. We should not have this legislation brought down by a controversial provision that does not belong in this bill--a provision that is effectively what they call around here a ``poison pill.'' A provision that endangers the legislation. I want to say that for a time it looked as if we were going to see a successful achievement for this legislation, and I want to commend my colleague and friend, the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, for his strong leadership, as chairman of our Human Resource Committee. He has worked long and hard for this legislation. If we are able to achieve it, his role in support of it and also in its development is enormously important. On the unacceptable amendment that I had mentioned, it is the amendment which would effectively undermine the proposal of the Secretary of HHS on Final Rule for organ transplantation. There is an excellent editorial in the Washington Post, dated 11-17-99. It puts this issue in perspective. It says: Congress has not quite given up the year-long attempt to block rules that would make the Nation's organ transplant network more equitable. House leaders are maneuvering to undo a deal reached by conferees allowing the rules to go into effect, even threatening to block an unrelated authorization for research and training at children's hospitals if the organ rules are not further delayed. This was written at a time when they were threatening to hold up the help and assistance that pediatric hospitals need to train pediatricians, to make sure that pediatric hospitals were going to be treated fairly and equitably, as other teaching hospitals. There is broad and wide bipartisan support for the proposal to support teaching in pediatric hospitals. But that was going to be the messenger, and the poison pill was going to be the language which, as I understand, would be a part of the legislation that we will see later on in the day. Let me continue with the Post editorial: The rules issuance last year touched off furious counter- lobbying by the supporters of the small local transplant centers who feared that a new system based more on finding the patients with the most urgent need, and less on keeping organs near home, would force small centers to close. Never mind if it also would save lives. Currently, when an organ becomes available, it is offered locally first and then regionally. That leads to situations in which people languish on long waiting lists in some places, while the wait in other regions is much shorter. The wealthy can get on multiple waiting lists and fly to wherever a liver or kidney becomes available. Since some 4,000 people a year die while waiting for an organ, you would think a proposal to purge the distribution system of some of its inefficiencies would have been welcome. Instead, local transplant centers turn to Congress, which twice attached riders to appropriations bills delaying the regulations' effective date. They also turned to State governments, many of which passed laws that bar and prevent organs from being transferred out of State. Finally, conferees reached a compromise that would delay the rules 6 more weeks, then let them go into effect. Mr. President, that agreement was broken with the language that has been included on the disability legislation. By breaking that agreement, the lives of tens of thousands of desperately ill people are put at risk. Every year, thousands of people die while waiting for transplantation--and at least one person every day dies because the transplantation system is not equitable. The language included on the disability legislation violates fundamental fairness--the fairness of the bargaining process in which an agreement was reached between the Secretary and the appropriators, and the fairness of the organ allocation system. Mr. President, I will take only a moment or two more--because the time is moving on--to refer to the Institute of Medicine report, which really is the authoritative report on this whole issue. I will mention relevant parts of the institute report, and focus on the conclusion that the Institute of Medicine had on the whole question of developing rules on fairness for organ transplantation--the question of how to best address the moral issues and the ability of people to be able to be treated fairly under a system of organ distribution. The Institute of Medicine's analysis shows that patients who have a less urgent need for a transplant sometimes receive transplants before more severely ill patients who are served by different OPOs. There is no credible evidence that implementing the HHS's recommendation would result in closure of smaller transplant centers. Mr. President, that fear about the fate of small centers is the heart of the argument of those that have put on this rider. A rider that has no business being put on this legislation. The Institute of Medicine analysis further found that there is no reason to conclude that minority and low-income patients would be less likely to obtain organ transplants as a result. Likewise, data does not support the assertion that potential donors and their families would decline to make donations because an organ might be used outside the donor's immediate geographical area. The Institute of Medicine recommended that HHS--and this is on page 12 of the report--should exercise the legitimate oversight responsibilities assigned to it by the National Organ Transplant Act, and articulated in the Final Rule, to manage the system of organ procurement and transplantation in the public interest. Federal oversight is needed to ensure that high standards of equity and quality are met. Those high standards of equity and quality were included in the Secretary's excellent recommendation. By tampering with those, we are undermining enormously powerful and important health policy issues. And this extremely controversial rider is added onto underlying legislation which is so important to millions of disabled individuals in our country. Individuals who thought--when this legislation moved through with very strong bipartisan support in the Senate, and then through the final months, has moved through the House of Representatives, and has the strong support of President Clinton, and has had the bipartisan support here in the Congress--thought that there was going to be a new day for those who have physical or mental challenges and disabilities to have the ability to participate in the workforce and become more productive, useful, active, and independent citizens in this country, and also to be able to contribute to the Nation in a more significant way. I certainly hope we can work through this process because the legislation, which as I mentioned, has been completed and supported in a bipartisan way, is a lifeline to millions of Americans and deserves passage. I see my friend and colleague, Senator Jeffords, who has been instrumental in having this legislation advanced. I am glad to see him on the floor at this time. I hope he will address the Senate on this issue.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I call up amendment numbered 2652.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand we are back on the bankruptcy legislation; is that correct?

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is a rather simple amendment. The amendment I have offered will protect a debtor's Social Security benefits during bankruptcy. This amendment is very important to older Americans. I hope my colleagues will support it as our House colleagues supported it last year. As currently written, the means test in the pending bill will require debtors to use their Social Security benefits to repay creditors. My amendment excludes Social Security benefits from the definition of ``current monthly income'' and ensures that those benefits will never be used to repay credit card debt and other debt. This amendment is particularly important to seniors. Between 1991 and 1999 the numbers of people over 65 who filed bankruptcy grew by 120 percent. If we look over the figures from 1991 to 1999 by age of petitioner, we see the growth of those that are going through bankruptcy primarily have increased in the older citizen age group. This is primarily a result of the downsizing, dismissing older workers and because of health care costs--primarily they have been dropped from health insurance. As the various statistics show, increasing numbers of individuals have been impacted because of the prescription drugs. Debtors filing a medical reason for bankruptcy, as the chart shows, reflects the fact we have gotten a significant increase in the number of older people who have gone into bankruptcy. The debtors who file as medical reasons for bankruptcy, we find, increases dramatically for older workers primarily because of health care costs more than any other factor. We believe very strongly those individuals, most of whom are dependent upon Social Security as virtually their only income ought to have those funds protected so they will be able to live in peace with some degree of security and some degree of dignity. This is sufficiently important. One can ask, why are we doing this now rather than before? The reason it was not necessary before is because the Social Security effectively was protected with a series of protections that were included in the existing bankruptcy law which have not been included in this legislation. Therefore, without this kind of an amendment, they would be eligible for creditors. We think protecting our senior citizens, those on Social Security, as a matter of both public policy and the fact of the importance of their contributions, obviously, in terms of society, should be protected during their senior years. Today, many Americans work long and hard into the senior years. A growing percentage of the population is over the age of 85 and predominantly female. We see over the period of the next 10 years our elderly population will double and the increase in the percentage of women is going to increase significantly, as well. Others may be able to find alternative employment but at substantially lower wages or without health and other benefits that become increasingly important with age. In spite of all of the efforts to slow down the discrimination against elderly, in too many circumstances in our country today, the elderly are discriminated against in terms of employment. Older Americans sometimes resort to short-term, high-interest credit when faced with unemployment because they assume their unemployment will be temporary. They hope their use of credit or credit card debt will serve as a bridge to cover the necessities until they start receiving paychecks again. Due to their age, however, many of these individuals never earn a salary comparable to the pay they lost. They find themselves unable to deal with the new debt they have incurred. When they have nowhere else to turn, they sometimes turn to the safety value of bankruptcy. Older Americans are also more frequent victims of predatory lending practices. Sometimes, bankruptcy is the most viable avenue for an elderly person to address the financial consequences of being victimized by unscrupulous lenders. It is unfortunate that Senator Durbin's amendment to address that problem was defeated last week. Studies of the problems facing older Americans tell us the same sad story. In one study, one in ten older Americans reported that they filed for bankruptcy after unsuccessfully attempting to negotiate with their creditors. In some cases, their creditors threatened them with seizure of property, or placed harassing collection calls. Some of these senior citizens explained that they have been the victims of credit scams, and they were seeking relief in the bankruptcy courts. For example, a 70-year-old woman filed for bankruptcy after her son discovered that she has allowed herself to become involved in a number of dubious financial transactions, including buying more than six different expensive and duplicative life insurance policies and spending several thousand dollars on sweepstakes contests. At the time of her bankruptcy, she had mortgaged her previously mortgage-free home for more than $74,000 to try and pay off her debts. She was in danger of losing the home she shared with her husband who was in failing health. The bottom line is that bankruptcy shouldn't be made more difficult for those who are depending on Social Security for their livelihood. Social Security was developed to ensure that seniors can live their golden years in dignity. If we allow Social Security income to be considered while determining whether someone is eligible for bankruptcy, a portion of those benefits could be used in a manner inconsistent with Congress' intent. Some of my colleagues oppose this amendment because they argue that wealthy seniors would be the beneficiaries. But, practically speaking, wealthy debtors rarely use Chapter 7--they've more likely to file under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code. For very high income individuals, like Ross Perot, social security represents a very small percentage of their total income. Indeed, the maximum social security retirement benefit for a new 65-year-old retiree in 1997 was $16,000. For the Ross Perot in this country, $16,000 is a rounding error. His income is so high that including or excluding $6,000 changes his income by only a tiny percentage. But for the poor widow who gets 90 percent of her income from social security it makes a big difference. Rich debtors who file in Chapter 7 would be caught by the means test, whether or not the courts include Social Security income as part of the debtor's ``current monthly income.'' It is important to realize that even though we do tax individuals on higher Social Security, 75 percent of our seniors pay no tax on Social Security because they are below $25,000 in income. this is the group about which we are talking. For two-thirds of American seniors, Social Security income represents more than 50 percent of the their total income, and for 42 percent of seniors, it represents three-quarters of their total income. That is basically what we are talking about. We will hear: We can't accept this because it will create some loophole for our seniors. We have to realize that for 42 percent of all seniors, Social Security represents three-quarters of their total income. Furthermore, 95 percent of all workers never reach the maximum Social Security benefit. That means only 5 percent of workers earn more than $72,000, and the average person is well below that income level. The myth of the wealthy senior using this amendment to avoid their obligations is just that--it is a myth. The purpose of Social Security is to guarantee there is a financial foundation provided for all senior citizens to ensure their basic needs--food, shelter, clothing, and medicines--are met. For two-thirds of senior citizens, Social Security provides more than half of their income, and Social Security benefits are hardly enough, in many cases, to meet these basic needs of seniors. Certainly, they cannot survive on less. If we are serious about providing financial security and personal dignity for the elderly, we must protect their Social Security benefits from claims in bankruptcy. Otherwise, we run the risk of vulnerable senior citizens being left with virtually nothing. In many cases, these are the people who are not healthy enough to return to work, who certainly lack the physical stamina to work the extra hours or get a second job. Social Security benefits are all they have--all they ever will have--and these few dollars are essential to their financial survival. There is a higher concern here than recovering every last dollar for creditors. It is guaranteeing the elderly some measure of financial security in their declining years. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, all of us in Massachusetts know that Pedro Martinez, the great pitcher for the Boston Red Sox, is the class of the American League. Yesterday, the Baseball Writers' Association of America confirmed that judgment by unanimously selecting Pedro Martinez as the winner of the Cy Young Award for the American League for 1999. Pedro's record this year was brilliant. His 23 victories, his earned run average of 2.07, and his 313 strikeouts led the league in all three of those categories, and his dramatic victory over the New York Yankees in the third game of the American League Championship Series last month was the crowning achievement in his extraordinary season. All of us in Boston are proud of the Red Sox and proud of Pedro Martinez. I congratulate him on this well-deserved recognition, and I ask unanimous consent that a ``Red Sox News Flash'' about the award be printed in the Record.