Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator has given an excellent example about programs that have been successful. And we know these programs are working, as the Senator has pointed out. Communities do not understand why, just a year ago, we joined hands to help them reduce class size--yet we are on the verge of abandoning our commitment now. Research has documented what parents and teachers have always known-- smaller classes improve student achievement. In small classes, students receive more individual attention and instruction. Students with learning disabilities have those disabilities identified earlier, and their needs can be met without placing them in costly special education. In small classes, teachers are better able to maintain discipline. Parents and teachers can work together more effectively to support children's education. Project STAR studied 7,000 students in 80 schools in Tennessee. Students in small classes performed better than students in large classes in each grade from kindergarten through third grade. Follow-up studies show that students from small classes enrolled in more college-bound courses, had higher grade-point averages, had fewer discipline problems, and were less likely to drop out of school. Because of the Class Size Reduction Act, 1.7 million children are benefiting from smaller classes this year. 29,000 teachers have been hired. 1,247 are teaching in the first grade, reducing class sizes from 23 to 17. 6,670 are teaching in the second grade, reducing class size from 23 to 18. 6,960 are teaching in the third grade, reducing class size from 24 to 18. 2,900 are in other grades, K-12, 290 special education teachers have been hired. The program is well under way. Abandoning our commitment to help communities reduce class sizes would break a specific promise made by Congress only 1 year ago. It would also be a violation of our responsibility to support a strong Federal-State-local partnership in education. Congress cannot abdicate this responsibility. We must also ensure that teachers get the training they need to come to school ready to teach. Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants are an important step in addressing the critical national need for high- quality teachers. It received strong bipartisan support in the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, and Congress should fund it at the full authorization level of $300 million for next year. Children need and deserve a good education in order to succeed in life. But they cannot obtain that education if school roofs are falling down around them, if sewage is backing up because of faulty plumbing-- asbestos in flaking off the walls and ceilings--schools lack computers and modern technology--and if classrooms are overcrowded. We need to invest more to help States and communities rebuild crumbling schools, modernize decrepit buildings, and expand facilities to accommodate reduced class sizes. Sending children to dilapidated, overcrowded schools sends an unacceptable message to these children. It tells them they don't matter. No CEO would tolerate a leaky ceiling in the board room, and no teacher should have to tolerate it in the classroom. We need to do all we can to ensure that children are learning in safe, modern school buildings. Nearly one third of all public schools are more than 50 years old. Fourteen million children in a third of the Nation's schools are learning in substandard buildings. The problem of ailing school buildings is not the problem of the inner city alone. It exists in almost every community, urban, rural, or suburban. In addition to modernizing and renovating dilapidated schools, communities need to build new schools in order to keep pace with rising enrollments and to reduce class sizes. Elementary and secondary school enrollment has reached an all-time high again this year of 53 million students, and will continue to grow. The Department of Education estimates that 2,400 new public schools will be needed by 2003, just to accommodate rising enrollments. The General Accounting Office estimates that it will cost communities $112 billion to repair and modernize the Nation's schools. Congress should lend a helping hand, and do all we can to help schools and communities across the country meet this challenge. Finally, in June with the support of over 250 groups representing the disability community, health care providers, and the business community, the Senate passed landmark legislation 99-0 to open the workplace doors for disabled people in communities across this country. Last week, the House of Representatives passed this legislation by a vote of 412-9. Once this measure is enacted into law, large numbers of people with disabilities will have the opportunity to fulfill their hopes and dreams of living independent and productive lives. But despite the overwhelming bipartisan support for the Work Incentives Improvement Act, the House of Representatives has yet to appoint conferees to move enactment of this bill forward. A decade ago, when we enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act, we promised our disabled fellow citizens a new and better life, in which disability would no longer end the American dream. Too often, for too many Americans, that promise has been unfulfilled. The Work Incentives Improvement Act 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 the Republican Leadership in the House continues to deny these citizens the opportunity to work be refusing to appoint conferees and move this bill forward. Every day this legislation is delayed is another day the nation is denied the talents and the contributions of disabled Americans. Current laws are an anachronism. Modern medicine and modern technology are making it easier than ever before for disabled persons to have productive lives and careers. Yet current laws are often a greater obstacle to that goal than the disability itself. It's ridiculous that we punish disable persons who dare to take a job by penalizing them financially, by taking away their health insurance lifeline, and by placing these unfair obstacles in their path. 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. For far too long, disabled Americans have been left out and left behind. It is time for Congress to stop stalling this legislation, and take the long overdue action to correct the injustices they are unfairly suffering. The issues I have discussed today--a fair wage, health care, education, employment for the disabled, freedom from hate crimes--touch the lives of every American. If this Congress wants to make a difference for our constituents--to improve their lives and to ease their burdens--these are major issues we must address. I thank the Chair and thank the Senator from Maine for her indulgence.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Illinois. I must say, he has summarized the situation as we are drawing to the end of this part of the Congress very well. There is still some time for this do nothing Congress to mend its ways--if there were a disposition to make some progress, there is still some time to do so. But I think it is important, as we come to the end of this session, to take stock of what has been achieved and has not been achieved. My friend from Illinois has done an excellent job summarizing those issues. I would like to provide some additional comments on some of the matters he raised. First of all, as the Senator from Illinois and others have pointed out in these last days, we are still failing to meet our responsibilities to those 11 million Americans who earn the minimum wage. In many instances these are the hardest-working laborers in our economy, but they are on the bottom rung of the economic ladder--and this, during the most extraordinary prosperity in the history of this country. There has been an incredible accumulation of wealth that has taken place over the period of the last 5, 6, 7 years. As a direct result of the leadership of President Clinton and the Democratic Members of Congress, and despite the opposition of nearly every single Republican Member, we are in the midst of the greatest economic growth in the history of the country. We have even found the will to raise our own salaries some $4,600 a year. But the Republicans are now holding a minimum wage increase hostage to $35 billion in new tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. All we are asking is that we have at least the opportunity to bring this matter before the Senate and permit a vote on it. It does not take too much time--Members know this issue. But under the parliamentary situation that we find ourselves in now, the leadership--the Republican leadership--is denying us the opportunity to do so. This is the seventh time that technique has been used this year. Do we think the purpose of it is to open and broaden debate and discussion on matters before the American people? No, it is to narrow and close down the opportunity for debate and discussion. So, when we look where we are as a country, from 1965 up to the year 2000, this line reflects what the purchasing power of the minimum wage would be with constant dollars of 1998. Here we find back in 1965 all the way up to the early 1980s, we actually found Republicans and Democrats alike working together to make sure that working Americans could earn a livable wage. Then there was a period during the Reagan administration, starting in 1980 and going right through 1988, when we had a great deal of resistance in getting any increase. We had one increase in the minimum wage and another spike again in 1995. But if we do not take action by the year 2001, the purchasing power of the minimum wage will be at an all-time low. And still we are denied an opportunity to bring this matter before the Senate. Eighty-five percent of the American people favor increasing the minimum wage, and the opposition refuses to even debate it. The two old arguments they have used against increasing the minimum wage are that it will cause a loss of jobs and that it will add to inflation. Those tired old arguments have long since been discredited. We know that when there has been an actual increase, again, in October 1996 and October 1997, the employment levels have continued to go up. There is absolutely no case that can be made that this will lose jobs. Our proposal is modest, a one dollar increase in two installments--50 cents next January, and 50 cents the following year--to provide a lifeline to so many who are working so hard in our country. We know who the workers earning the minimum wage are. They are assistant schoolteachers who work in our children's classrooms. They are assistants in nursing homes caring for our family members. This is a women's issue because the overwhelming majority of individuals who work at minimum wage are women. This is a children's issue because eighty-five percent of the women who are receiving minimum wage have children. It is a civil rights issue because many of those involved in making the minimum wage are men and women of color. Most of all, it is a fairness issue. How can we justify raising our own salaries $4,600 a year and refuse to provide a $1 increase over 2 years for men and women who go out every single day, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year? This is absolutely unfair. Americans understand fairness, they understand work, they understand fair play, and the Republican leadership is denying the American workers fair play on this issue. I want to mention another important issue which we hope to address in the final days of the Senate, and that is the issue of the Patients' Bill of Rights, a very simple piece of legislation that says doctors-- not accountants--ought to be making decisions in matters affecting the health of our families. The protections contained in the Norwood-Dingell managed care reform bill which passed in the House of Representatives three weeks ago by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 275-151, have been recommended by the broad-based and nonpartisan Presidents' Commission. They are included in the model standards of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. These protections are already available under Medicare. They are used as voluntary standards by the managed care companies' own trade associations. They are the rights that ethical insurance companies honor as a matter of course, and that every family believes it has purchased when it pays its premiums. These protections listed on this chart are the ones we tried to guarantee to the consumers of America. That essentially is the Democratic proposal we debated in the Senate. These circles indicate what the Senate finally did on these protections. My colleagues can see they are zero in most of the cases, and small coloring in other cases, which means they took a partial fix on some of these protections. And my colleagues can see what the bipartisan Republican and Democratic proposal did in the House of Representatives. We are prepared to bring that House bill before the Senate and debate it for a few hours, pass it, and provide protections for the American people. We do not need a conference. The President will sign it. Why don't we move ahead on this? This has bipartisan support. This has already been debated and it had the overwhelming support of 68 Republican Members in the House of Representatives. Why are we not protecting the American people? Why are we being denied the opportunity to provide protections? If there is some question as to whether we really are providing protections, look at what is happening across the country every single day. Every single day the Congress delays the Patients' Bill of Rights means more patients are suffering. Each day that Congress delays means that more patients will suffer and die. According to a survey by the University of California at Berkeley, every day we delay means that 35,000 patients will find their access to needed care delayed. Thirty-one thousand will be forced to change doctors. Eighteen thousand will be forced to forego medications ordered by their doctor. Fifty-nine thousand will endure unnecessary pain and suffering as the result of adverse actions by their health plan. And 11,000 will suffer permanent disability. The health professionals who deal with managed care companies every day know that prompt action is critical. According to a survey of physicians by the Harvard University School of Public Health, every week at least 18,000 patients' medical condition worsens because they are denied an overnight stay in a hospital. At least twenty-three thousand patients are harmed every week because of the denial of specialty care. Each week, at least seventy-nine thousand patients are harmed because of denial of needed prescription drugs. The list goes on and on.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield for a question.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, I had heard that, that they were going to hold some $7.8 billion. Maybe they could, with $1 billion, hold for some period of time. NIH might be able to deal with that. They are talking about $7.8 billion, effectively undermining the most significant and important basic research that is taking place any place in the world at a time of extraordinary possibility and breakthroughs in terms of health, in order to fund a number of military pieces of equipment that were never requested by the military and other special projects that were never requested by the administration. They don't want to cut those out, but they want to tamper with the greatest research center in the world, which is the NIH, doing so much on so many of these diseases that affect every family in America, whether it is cancer, whether it is on the issues of Alzheimer's, whether Parkinson's disease, you name it, lupus, whatever it is, osteoporosis that affect our senior citizens. They are tampering with those funds. I have seen a lot of shenanigans in the budgeting of the Federal budget, but I would certainly agree with the Senator that tampering with the NIH funds in the way this is done would have a dramatic adverse impact in our whole basic research programs at the NIH and would cause enormous harm. I welcome the Senator's observation, because, if there weren't other problems in this report, that in and of itself would justify the rejection of it.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am.

Mr. KENNEDY. I remember the discussion on the floor, an article by Mr. Rogers, I think. It was an excellent article and a very accurate one. It was included in the Record. I hope our colleagues will read that.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is absolutely correct. It does not, for example, even give the military, give the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the commanders, the range of options they could have in order to meet their responsibility. We are up to 270-odd billion dollars in terms of defense appropriations; 1 percent is $2.7 billion. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, we heard from the Joint Chiefs that it would be a devastating cut in terms of personnel and in terms of readiness. They don't give the flexibility to any of the administrators to be able to do it. They are just mandating the requirement right across the board. That is the most inefficient way of doing it.

Mr. KENNEDY. I was aware of it. The particular need for that program is to provide help and assistance for low-income working families who have children. This is basically the children. That program benefits the children of working poor, to try to give some assurance they will at least have some measure of quality of life. That was the program targeted by the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives to be undermined, that program and the resources in that program, in order to offset the other benefits they had given to their special projects.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I commend the Senator for his very eloquent and accurate assessment of what has happened to this institution. I have been here for some period of time, and I say this is absolutely a unique set of circumstances. The leader has, I think, accurately described the current system. I think it is important, as our friend from California pointed out, what it means in terms of people's lives. We can talk about the tree and blocking amendments, but let's take one bill, the Patients' Bill of Rights. This chart lists in white all the provisions that were in the Senate bill, which our Democratic leader managed so well, and which was submitted in the Senate. All of these provisions represent the best judgment of a bipartisan commission set up by the President. They unanimously made these recommendations. They had to be unanimous in order to make the recommendations. They didn't make the recommendation to put them in law, but they said: This is what is necessary to protect the people. Or by the insurance commissioners, that are neither Democrat or Republican organizations; or, in other instances, in Medicare. This side of the chart represents what happened in the House of Representatives with a bipartisan group of House Members, 68 Republicans and the Democrats. These full dots indicate the House of Representatives has effectively agreed with the legislation advanced by the minority leader. I ask, since this was a bipartisan program and the leader had the overwhelming support of the Democrats, whether the Senator would not welcome the opportunity this afternoon to go ahead and pass what was passed in the House of Representatives so we would not have the kind of circumstance we have every single day we are delayed: 35,000 Americans delayed or denied specialty care; 31,000 forced to change doctors; 18,000 forced to change medicine indications; 59,000 Americans with added pain and suffering; 41,000 with a worsening condition; and 11,000 with permanent disability. That happens every single day. As I gather from what the leader has said, the kind of legislative trapeze that has been set up by the majority leader denies this minority the opportunity to take action that can make a difference in the lives of the families of America. I think it is worthwhile, as we talk and listen carefully to the Senator's concerns, to know the result of the inaction. Real families are being hurt in America. They don't have to be hurt. Republicans and Democrats alike got together to provide some protection, but this leadership in this body is denying the American people the ability to receive the kind of protections they should.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I regret that because of a long-standing commitment, I will not be here for tomorrow's vote on cloture on H.R. 434, The Sub-Saharan Africa Free Trade Act. If I could be here, I would vote against cloture. I strongly oppose the majority leader's decision to fill the amendment tree to prevent us from offering amendments on some of the most important issues facing working families in this country, especially the minimum wage. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan has said numerous times that increased trade has raised the standards of living and the quality of life for almost all countries involved in trade, and especially the quality of life in our own country. Chairman Greenspan believes that the number one benefit of trade is not simply jobs, but enhanced standards of living. I can think of no more important enhancement to the standard of living of America's hardest pressed working families than to increase the minimum wage. Surely, it is appropriate to send the message on this legislation that increased trade must definitely mean a better quality of life for the working poor. I had hoped to offer an amendment to raise the minimum wage to this bill, but the majority leader's actions prevent me from doing that. This trade bill has been offered to enhance the standards of living for workers in Africa and the Caribbean. I am certainly in favor of that, but there are honest disagreements as to whether the proposal before us effectively does so. But, while we express our concern for workers in these nations, we cannot forget about the workers in our own country. I commend President Clinton for making trade with Africa a priority for his administration. His leadership is the driving force behind this entire debate. As the Senate debates trade with Sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean region, we must ensure that we take the right approach to building these vital partnerships. Clearly, we must strengthen our economic ties with these nations, but I am not convinced the proposal before us is the best way to do so. Unfortunately, the majority leader's actions have also prevented anyone on this side of the aisle from offering germane amendments that will help us to build lasting partnerships between African and American businesses, provide strong protections for workers rights, and preserve the environment. We clearly had an opportunity to enact a bill that would make trade with Africa and the Caribbean Basin countries a win- win for all of the nations involved, but the majority leader's actions have made that impossible. Any bill on Africa that comes before the Senate should address both trade and the other important issues facing Africa today. It must deal with the AIDS crisis. It must offer substantial debt relief. And it must restore foreign aid. Yet the proposal currently before the Senate is silent on these fundamental issues facing Africa. I am pleased that Senator Feingold, Senator Durbin, and other Senators are prepared to offer amendments that address all of these concerns, and I strongly support them. I am also very concerned about the impact of the pending bill on our textile and apparel industries, which are often hardest hit by imports. These industries remain a critical source of employment for many American workers. In Massachusetts, many textile and apparel employees live in the Merrimack Valley and in Southeastern Massachusetts. They work hard, and they have made a lasting impact on our state's history and culture. I believe even the proponents of this bill will admit that the short- term effect of the legislation will be an acceleration of job loss in the apparel sector. And while this bill includes a re-authorization of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, which I strongly support, nothing in this bill will create a single job for these displaced workers to have. While Massachusetts continues to be a leader in exports, many small companies and workers are suffering as a result of the trade deficits caused by the economic crises in Asia and South America. In response to the needs of companies hurt by imports, the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program in general, and the New England Trade Adjustment Assistance Center in particular, exist as valuable resources. They offer vital assistance to firms and workers suffering from competition by imports. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Program is an effective initiative that has been shown to provide a return on investment of up to 348 percent. The American people, I believe, will hold this Congress responsible for refusing to address so many issues which are critical to our families and our communities. The majority has once again turned a deaf ear to the pleas of the American people for action, and I regret this latest missed opportunity.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, yesterday Senators Specter, Leahy, Jeffords, and I introduced The Hunger Relief Act of 1999, S. 1805. Our goals in this legislation are to promote self-sufficiency and the transition from welfare to work, and to eradicate childhood hunger by increasing the availability of food stamps to low-income working families. Republicans and Democrats share these goals, and it deserves broad bipartisan support. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill and the statement of organizations supporting the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I join with my colleagues, Senator Frist, Senator Jeffords, Senator Mikulski, Senator Murray, Senator Durbin, and Senator Cochran to introduce the ``Clinical Research Enhancement Act of 1999''. Our goal is to enhance support for clinical research, which is central to biomedical research. Major advances in basic biological research are opening doors to new insights into all aspects of medicine. As a result, extraordinary opportunities exist for cutting- edge clinical research to bring breakthroughs in the laboratory to the bedside of the patient. Clinical research is essential for the advancement of scientific knowledge and the development of cures and treatments for disease. In addition, the results of clinical research are incorporated by industry and used to develop new drugs, vaccines, and health care products. These advances in turn strengthen the economy and create jobs. Unfortunately, the number of physicians choosing careers in clinical research is in serious decline. Between 1994 and 1998, the number of physicians applying for first-time NIH grants decreased by 21%. Studies by the Institute of Medicine, the National Research Council, the National Academy of Sciences, and the National Institutes of Health have all highlighted the significant problems faced by clinical researchers, including lack of grant support, lack of training opportunities, and the heavy debt burden from medical school. The legislation we are introducing today seeks to enhance clinical research by addressing these issues. Our bill will provide research support and training opportunities for clinical researchers at all stages of their careers, as well as the necessary infrastructure to conduct clinical research. The bill establishes several research grant awards. The Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Career Development Awards will support clinical investigators in the early phases of their independent careers by providing salary and other support for a period of supervised study. The Mid-Career Investigator Awards in Patient-Oriented Research will provide support for mid-career clinicians, to give them time for clinical research and to act as mentors for beginning investigators. To encourage the training of clinical investigators at various stages in their careers, the bill establishes several programs. The NIH will support intramural and extramural training programs for medical and dental students. For students who want to pursue an advanced degree in clinical research, the bill provides support for both students and institutions to create training programs. For post-graduate education, NIH will support continuing education in such research. Our legislation also creates a clinical research tuition loan repayment program to encourage recruitment of new investigators. Student debt is a major barrier to clinical research. Young physicians graduate from medical school with an average debt of $86,000. Because of the limited financial opportunities in clinical research to repay their large debts, many young physicians are under great pressure to choose more lucrative fields of medical practice. NIH has acknowledged this problem, and has established an intramural loan repayment program to encourage the recruitment of clinical researchers to NIH. Our legislation expands the current program, so that researchers throughout the country will be eligible. A solid infrastructure is essential to any research program. In clinical research, that infrastructure is provided, in part, by the general clinical research centers at academic health centers throughout the country. Our bill provides statutory authority for those clinical research centers. In the past, support for these centers was once provided largely by academic health centers. However, academic health centers today are confronted with heavy competition from non-teaching institutions and are increasingly emphasizing patient care over research to minimize costs. In the face of these changes, clinical researchers have become much more dependent on NIH for infrastructure support. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this important legislation through Congress. Our bill is supported by over 70 biomedical associations and organizations. I commend the American Federation for Medical Research for its support of this legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I join with my colleagues, Senator Frist, Senator Jeffords, Senator Mikulski, Senator Murray, Senator Durbin, and Senator Cochran to introduce the ``Clinical Research Enhancement Act of 1999''. Our goal is to enhance support for clinical research, which is central to biomedical research. Major advances in basic biological research are opening doors to new insights into all aspects of medicine. As a result, extraordinary opportunities exist for cutting- edge clinical research to bring breakthroughs in the laboratory to the bedside of the patient. Clinical research is essential for the advancement of scientific knowledge and the development of cures and treatments for disease. In addition, the results of clinical research are incorporated by industry and used to develop new drugs, vaccines, and health care products. These advances in turn strengthen the economy and create jobs. Unfortunately, the number of physicians choosing careers in clinical research is in serious decline. Between 1994 and 1998, the number of physicians applying for first-time NIH grants decreased by 21 percent. Studies by the Institute of Medicine, the National Research Council, the National Academy of Sciences, and the National Institutes of Health have all highlighted the significant problems faced by clinical researchers, including lack of grant support, lack of training opportunities, and the heavy debt burden from medical school. The legislation we are introducing today seeks to enhance clinical research by addressing these issues. Our bill will provide research support and training opportunities for clinical researchers at all stages of their careers, as well as the necessary infrastructure to conduct clinical research. The bill establishes several research grant awards. The Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Career Development Awards will support clinical investigators in the early phases of their independent careers by providing salary and other support for a period of supervised study. The Mid-Career Investigator Awards in Patient-Oriented Research will provide support for mid-career clinicians, to give them time for clinical research and to act as mentors for beginning investigators. To encourage the training of clinical investigators at various stages in their careers, the bill establishes several programs. The NIH will support intramural and extramural training programs for medical and dental students. For students who want to pursue an advanced degree in clinical research, the bill provides support for both students and institutions to create training programs. For post-graduate education, NIH will support continuing education in such research. Our legislation also creates a clinical research tuition loan repayment program to encourage recruitment of new investigators. Student debt is a major barrier to clinical research. Young physicians graduate from medical school with an average debt of $86,000. Because of the limited financial opportunities in clinical research to repay their large debts, many young physicians are under great pressure to choose more lucrative fields of medical practice. NIH has acknowledged this problem, and has established an intramural loan repayment program to encourage the recruitment of clinical researchers to NIH. Our legislation expands the current program, so that researchers throughout the country will be eligible. A solid infrastructure is essential to any research program. In clinical research, that infrastructure is provided, in part, by the general clinical research centers at academic health centers throughout the country. Our bill provides statutory authority for those clinical research centers. In the past, support for these centers was once provided largely by academic health centers. However, academic health centers today are confronted with heavy competition from non-teaching institutions and are increasingly emphasizing patient care over research to minimize costs. In the face of these changes, clinical researchers have become much more dependent on NIH for infrastructure support. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this important legislation through Congress. Our bill is supported by over 70 biomedical associations and organizations. I commend the American Federation for Medical Research for its support of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill, the American Federation for Medical Research's letter of support, and a list of supporters be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today Senators Specter, Leahy, Jeffords, and I are introducing the Hunger Relief Act of 1999. Our goals in this legislation are to promote self-sufficiency and the transition from welfare to work, and to eradicate childhood hunger by increasing the availability of food stamps to low-income working families. Republicans and Democrats share these goals, and it deserves broad bipartisan support. Improving Food Stamp accessibility is a central part of helping low- income working families feed their children and achieve self- sufficiency. A strong Food Stamp Program, along with a higher minimum wage and an adequate Earned Income Tax Credit, gives low-income families the stability they need to build a brighter future. With the unemployment rate at a 30-year low and record, economic growth, this is a time of broad economic prosperity for most Americans. But that is not true for the poorest Americans. In 1998 the poverty rate declined from 13.3% to 12.7%, but this still surpasses rates in the 11% range recorded throughout the 1970's. The safety net provided by food stamps has weakened since the 1970's, and hunger among working families in America has grown. In July 1999, the Department of Agriculture reported that 6.6 million adults and 3.4 million children live in households that suffered from hunger in 1998, and that 36 million people comprising 10% of the nation's households lack secure access to enough food for an active healthy life. In the same month, the Congressional General Accounting Office reported that of the 14 million U.S. children who live in poverty, the proportion who receive food stamps dropped from 94% in 1995 to 84% in 1997. During 1997 alone, the number of children living in poverty decreased by 350,000--but the number receiving food stamps decreased by 1.3 million. GAO's report concludes, ``children's participation in the Food Stamp Program has dropped more sharply than the number of children living in poverty, indicating a growing gap between need and assistance.'' In January 1999, the Urban Institute released the results of a study of former welfare recipients and reported that 33% have to skip or reduce meals due to lack of food. This result is corroborated by independent studies in Wisconsin and South Carolina, and by NETWORK's National Welfare Reform Project. In 1998, surveys of emergency food providers conducted by the U.S. Conference of Mayors and America's Second Harvest independently documented that the need for emergency food services increased 15 to 20% over the previous year, and that almost 40% of emergency food clients live in households in which an adult is employed. The Community Childhood Hunger Identification Project conducted surveys of over 5,000 low-income families between 1992 and 1994--the most comprehensive study of childhood hunger ever undertaken in the U.S.--and found that approximately 4 million children under age 12 were hungry, and 9.6 million were at risk of hunger. Far too many working parents still struggle to feed their families. If our national values cannot persuade us to fight hunger now, while the economy is strong, when will we ever do so? If we need economic reasons to fight hunger in America, we need only consider the effects of hunger on children. Hunger and undernutrition are serious problems for people of all ages, but their effects are particularly damaging to children. Over 14 million children live in households that suffer hunger. Hungry and undernourished children are more likely to become anemic, and to suffer from allergies, asthma, diarrhea, and infections. They are also more likely to have behavioral problems and difficulty in learning. When children arrive at school hungry, they cannot learn. If we do not address this problem, our considerable investments in education and early learning activities will not have the full positive impact that they should. Hunger and under-nutrition injure our greatest national resource--our children. In the past three decades, food stamps have grown into the nation's most comprehensive and trusted way to end hunger. The news that participation in the Food Stamp Program has declined 27% over the past three and a half years would be welcome--if poverty had declined by a comparable amount. But the poverty rate declined by only 7% over this time. Six million more poor people are without food stamps today than in 1995. GAO reported that in 1997 alone, while the number of children living in poverty decreased by just 350,000, the number of children receiving food stamps decreased by 1.3 million. We need to be concerned that the nutritional needs of the other 950,000 children are not being met. Just as the decline in the welfare rolls does not by itself show that people are no longer poor, the decline in Food Stamp rolls in no way means that children and families are no longer hungry. Increasingly, low-income working families are relying on emergency food services. Across the country, demand for emergency food services has increased by as much as 50% in some places. Many food banks find themselves unable to meet the increased requests for help. Only two days ago, the Chicago Sun-Times published an article entitled ``Hunger--a growing concern in suburbs,'' describing increasing demand for emergency food in some of Chicago's most affluent neighborhoods. A November 1998 study by Project Bread and Tufts University found that 49% of emergency food providers in Massachusetts reported increased need among families with children over the previous year. Of those requesting assistance, 33% of food bank clients were children, and 27% of Massachusetts adults requesting emergency food assistance were employed. Although our strong economy and historically low unemployment rate have helped many families get back on their feet, there is no question that many families are working hard and still cannot make ends meet. By simplifying Food Stamp eligibility rules and improving access to the program, we can reduce hunger and malnutrition, and help working families live healthier, more fulfilling lives. No one in this country should go hungry. This is a problem we can solve. We must not become indifferent to the message that hunger indeed has a cure. The Hunger Relief Act repeals many of the 1996 welfare reform law's restrictions on access to food stamps for legal immigrants. For 30 years prior to the welfare reform law, Food Stamps were available to legal immigrants. The 1996 welfare reform law made them no longer eligible. That law also created substantial uncertainty among eligible groups as to whether they qualify. Last year, Congress restored food stamp eligibility to some legal immigrants--children, seniors, and disabled persons--who were in the United States before August 1996. This was an important step, but it helped fewer than a third of those who were adversely affected by the 1996 law. Hunger among legal immigrants predictably increased after 1996, although many legal immigrants held low-income jobs and paid taxes. Children continue to be denied benefits because they arrived in the U.S. after 1996 or because exclusion of their parents directly results in decreased access to food stamps. Our laws recognize that legal immigrants need access to employment, education, and health care programs. Yet all of these efforts are compromised when legal immigrants are denied access to adequate nutrition. The Hunger Relief Act ensures that all those who need food stamps can obtain them. In addition, the Hunger Relief Act helps low-income families by relaxing federal limits on the value of a vehicle that a family can own and still be eligible for food stamps. The current federal limit is $4,650, which has risen only $150 since 1977. Because low-income parents commonly need a vehicle to get to work and to safely transport their children, many states have adopted vehicle allowance standards for their state assistance programs that are more generous than the federal standard. The conflicting and complex rules that govern state programs and the Food Stamp Program complicate access to food stamps for working families, as confirmed by GAO's July 1999 report. By giving states the option of using their state vehicle standards instead of the federal standard, the Hunger Relief Act gives states the flexibility to ensure that their nutritional needs are met. It also promotes work and child safety. The case of a single parent of three young children in Northeastern Massachusetts illustrates the need for this provision. The mother's income recently dropped to $928 per month, but she is denied food stamps because the value of her car exceeds $4650. Massachusetts would be unlikely to reject her application under state law, but the federal law requires her pleas for help to be rejected. Our Hunger Relief Act will change that. The Hunger Relief Act also enables families to qualify for food stamps when they have to spend more than 50% of their income on housing costs. Low-income families must often pay high rent for substandard housing in many cities today. According to a recent report by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, demand for public housing is rising, while the supply of affordable apartments and houses is declining. Between 1996 and 1998, the number of affordable apartments fell by more than 1 million. Nearly 1 million low-income families are now waiting for public housing units across the country. They may wait as long as 8 years in New York City to be placed. HUD compares finding affordable housing to an ominous game of musical chairs in which only the lucky find seats. In Boston, the average rent for a two bedroom apartment rose by 58% between 1990 and 1998 to $1,350 after adjusting for inflation. The Women's Educational and Technical Union has documented that single parents with one infant pay an average rent of $839 in Boston, $709 in Worcester, and $578 in Pittsfield. All of these figures far exceed half of a minimum wage worker's income. Present law permits some shelter costs to be deducted when determining Food Stamp eligibility, but the deduction is capped too low. In 1996, 950,000 people received reduced food stamp benefits due to the shelter cap. Over 880,000 of those affected were families with children. The Hunger Relief Act raises the cap from $275 to $340, and then indexes it to inflation, increasing access to food stamps for approximately 1.25 million people. For example, a family from Centerville, Massachusetts consisting of a working mother and three children, survives on $1,433 in income each month. Yet their shelter costs exceed $1,200. This family cannot possibly meet these children's nutritional needs on $233 each month, even if the family spends money on nothing besides shelter and food. The Hunger Relief Act is intended to keep families like this from having to choose between heating and eating. Finally, the Hunger Relief Act increases federal support for emergency food programs. Sharp increases in requests for help from food pantries and soup kitchens have occurred over the past year, despite steep declines in food stamp participation. The U.S. Conference of Mayors, and America's Second Harvest has independently documented a 15 to 20% increase in need over 1998. A recent survey of 30 cities by the National Governors Association found that a growing number of low- income working parents rely on food banks to feed their children. 79% of Massachusetts food pantries funded through Projected Bread reported serving more working poor in 1998, and 72% reported helping more families with children. To ensure that emergency food needs are met, the Hunger Relief Act increases federal funding for The Emergency Food Assistance Program by 10%. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the total cost of the Hunger Relief Act will be $2.5 billion over the first 5 years. This amount will increase our support for the Food Stamp Program by just over 2% each year, a relatively small price to repair the most serious problems in the nation's core nutrition program. Americans overwhelmingly recognize that hunger is also closely linked to problems in health, education, and the workplace. Adequate nutrition should be available to all. Over three hundred national, regional, and local organizations support the Hunger Relief Act. Even before welfare reform was enacted, a January 1996 poll found that 55% of Americans believe hunger is worsening in our country, and 74% felt that more should be done to combat hunger in America. I request unanimous consent that a letter signed by over 300 organizations in support of the Hunger Relief Act may be printed in the Congressional Record following my statement. Millions of low-income working families, like the Jenkins family of Royalston, Massachusetts will be helped by this bill. Although Terry Jenkins' husband works in two jobs, after their mortgage payments, car payments, utilities and clothing expenses for four children are paid, they often cannot afford enough food for their family. As a result, Terry worries that her children cannot concentrate during their classes. Her concern is legitimate. Students who are hungry or at-risk of hunger are twice as likely to have academic, social and psychological problems as children from similar low-income families who are not hungry. By improving the Food Stamp Program, the Hunger Relief Act will reduce the suffering for millions of families like the Jenkins. Now, while the economy is strong, we must actively fight hunger and ensure that the most basic needs of children and families are met. I welcome the support of Senators Specter, Leahy and Jeffords in this bipartisan effort and I look forward to early action in the Senate to pass this needed legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I join with my colleagues, Senator Frist, Senator Jeffords, Senator Mikulski, Senator Murray, Senator Durbin, and Senator Cochran to introduce the ``Clinical Research Enhancement Act of 1999''. Our goal is to enhance support for clinical research, which is central to biomedical research. Major advances in basic biological research are opening doors to new insights into all aspects of medicine. As a result, extraordinary opportunities exist for cutting- edge clinical research to bring breakthroughs in the laboratory to the bedside of the patient. Clinical research is essential for the advancement of scientific knowledge and the development of cures and treatments for disease. In addition, the results of clinical research are incorporated by industry and used to develop new drugs, vaccines, and health care products. These advances in turn strengthen the economy and create jobs. Unfortunately, the number of physicians choosing careers in clinical research is in serious decline. Between 1994 and 1998, the number of physicians applying for first-time NIH grants decreased by 21 percent. Studies by the Institute of Medicine, the National Research Council, the National Academy of Sciences, and the National Institutes of Health have all highlighted the significant problems faced by clinical researchers, including lack of grant support, lack of training opportunities, and the heavy debt burden from medical school. The legislation we are introducing today seeks to enhance clinical research by addressing these issues. Our bill will provide research support and training opportunities for clinical researchers at all stages of their careers, as well as the necessary infrastructure to conduct clinical research. The bill establishes several research grant awards. The Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Career Development Awards will support clinical investigators in the early phases of their independent careers by providing salary and other support for a period of supervised study. The Mid-Career Investigator Awards in Patient-Oriented Research will provide support for mid-career clinicians, to give them time for clinical research and to act as mentors for beginning investigators. To encourage the training of clinical investigators at various stages in their careers, the bill establishes several programs. The NIH will support intramural and extramural training programs for medical and dental students. For students who want to pursue an advanced degree in clinical research, the bill provides support for both students and institutions to create training programs. For post-graduate education, NIH will support continuing education in such research. Our legislation also creates a clinical research tuition loan repayment program to encourage recruitment of new investigators. Student debt is a major barrier to clinical research. Young physicians graduate from medical school with an average debt of $86,000. Because of the limited financial opportunities in clinical research to repay their large debts, many young physicians are under great pressure to choose more lucrative fields of medical practice. NIH has acknowledged this problem, and has established an intramural loan repayment program to encourage the recruitment of clinical researchers to NIH. Our legislation expands the current program, so that researchers throughout the country will be eligible. A solid infrastructure is essential to any research program. In clinical research, that infrastructure is provided, in part, by the general clinical research centers at academic health centers throughout the country. Our bill provides statutory authority for those clinical research centers. In the past, support for these centers was once provided largely by academic health centers. However, academic health centers today are confronted with heavy competition from non-teaching institutions and are increasingly emphasizing patient care over research to minimize costs. In the face of these changes, clinical researchers have become much more dependent on NIH for infrastructure support. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this important legislation through Congress. Our bill is supported by over 70 biomedical associations and organizations. I commend the American Federation for Medical Research for its support of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill, the American Federation for Medical Research's letter of support, and a list of supporters be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I join with my colleagues, Senator Frist, Senator Jeffords, Senator Mikulski, Senator Murray, Senator Durbin, and Senator Cochran to introduce the ``Clinical Research Enhancement Act of 1999''. Our goal is to enhance support for clinical research, which is central to biomedical research. Major advances in basic biological research are opening doors to new insights into all aspects of medicine. As a result, extraordinary opportunities exist for cutting- edge clinical research to bring breakthroughs in the laboratory to the bedside of the patient. Clinical research is essential for the advancement of scientific knowledge and the development of cures and treatments for disease. In addition, the results of clinical research are incorporated by industry and used to develop new drugs, vaccines, and health care products. These advances in turn strengthen the economy and create jobs. Unfortunately, the number of physicians choosing careers in clinical research is in serious decline. Between 1994 and 1998, the number of physicians applying for first-time NIH grants decreased by 21%. Studies by the Institute of Medicine, the National Research Council, the National Academy of Sciences, and the National Institutes of Health have all highlighted the significant problems faced by clinical researchers, including lack of grant support, lack of training opportunities, and the heavy debt burden from medical school. The legislation we are introducing today seeks to enhance clinical research by addressing these issues. Our bill will provide research support and training opportunities for clinical researchers at all stages of their careers, as well as the necessary infrastructure to conduct clinical research. The bill establishes several research grant awards. The Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Career Development Awards will support clinical investigators in the early phases of their independent careers by providing salary and other support for a period of supervised study. The Mid-Career Investigator Awards in Patient-Oriented Research will provide support for mid-career clinicians, to give them time for clinical research and to act as mentors for beginning investigators. To encourage the training of clinical investigators at various stages in their careers, the bill establishes several programs. The NIH will support intramural and extramural training programs for medical and dental students. For students who want to pursue an advanced degree in clinical research, the bill provides support for both students and institutions to create training programs. For post-graduate education, NIH will support continuing education in such research. Our legislation also creates a clinical research tuition loan repayment program to encourage recruitment of new investigators. Student debt is a major barrier to clinical research. Young physicians graduate from medical school with an average debt of $86,000. Because of the limited financial opportunities in clinical research to repay their large debts, many young physicians are under great pressure to choose more lucrative fields of medical practice. NIH has acknowledged this problem, and has established an intramural loan repayment program to encourage the recruitment of clinical researchers to NIH. Our legislation expands the current program, so that researchers throughout the country will be eligible. A solid infrastructure is essential to any research program. In clinical research, that infrastructure is provided, in part, by the general clinical research centers at academic health centers throughout the country. Our bill provides statutory authority for those clinical research centers. In the past, support for these centers was once provided largely by academic health centers. However, academic health centers today are confronted with heavy competition from non-teaching institutions and are increasingly emphasizing patient care over research to minimize costs. In the face of these changes, clinical researchers have become much more dependent on NIH for infrastructure support. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this important legislation through Congress. Our bill is supported by over 70 biomedical associations and organizations. I commend the American Federation for Medical Research for its support of this legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today Senators Specter, Leahy, Jeffords, and I are introducing the Hunger Relief Act of 1999. Our goals in this legislation are to promote self-sufficiency and the transition from welfare to work, and to eradicate childhood hunger by increasing the availability of food stamps to low-income working families. Republicans and Democrats share these goals, and it deserves broad bipartisan support. Improving Food Stamp accessibility is a central part of helping low- income working families feed their children and achieve self- sufficiency. A strong Food Stamp Program, along with a higher minimum wage and an adequate Earned Income Tax Credit, gives low-income families the stability they need to build a brighter future. With the unemployment rate at a 30-year low and record, economic growth, this is a time of broad economic prosperity for most Americans. But that is not true for the poorest Americans. In 1998 the poverty rate declined from 13.3% to 12.7%, but this still surpasses rates in the 11% range recorded throughout the 1970's. The safety net provided by food stamps has weakened since the 1970's, and hunger among working families in America has grown. In July 1999, the Department of Agriculture reported that 6.6 million adults and 3.4 million children live in households that suffered from hunger in 1998, and that 36 million people comprising 10% of the nation's households lack secure access to enough food for an active healthy life. In the same month, the Congressional General Accounting Office reported that of the 14 million U.S. children who live in poverty, the proportion who receive food stamps dropped from 94% in 1995 to 84% in 1997. During 1997 alone, the number of children living in poverty decreased by 350,000--but the number receiving food stamps decreased by 1.3 million. GAO's report concludes, ``children's participation in the Food Stamp Program has dropped more sharply than the number of children living in poverty, indicating a growing gap between need and assistance.'' In January 1999, the Urban Institute released the results of a study of former welfare recipients and reported that 33% have to skip or reduce meals due to lack of food. This result is corroborated by independent studies in Wisconsin and South Carolina, and by NETWORK's National Welfare Reform Project. In 1998, surveys of emergency food providers conducted by the U.S. Conference of Mayors and America's Second Harvest independently documented that the need for emergency food services increased 15 to 20% over the previous year, and that almost 40% of emergency food clients live in households in which an adult is employed. The Community Childhood Hunger Identification Project conducted surveys of over 5,000 low-income families between 1992 and 1994--the most comprehensive study of childhood hunger ever undertaken in the U.S.--and found that approximately 4 million children under age 12 were hungry, and 9.6 million were at risk of hunger. Far too many working parents still struggle to feed their families. If our national values cannot persuade us to fight hunger now, while the economy is strong, when will we ever do so? If we need economic reasons to fight hunger in America, we need only consider the effects of hunger on children. Hunger and undernutrition are serious problems for people of all ages, but their effects are particularly damaging to children. Over 14 million children live in households that suffer hunger. Hungry and undernourished children are more likely to become anemic, and to suffer from allergies, asthma, diarrhea, and infections. They are also more likely to have behavioral problems and difficulty in learning. When children arrive at school hungry, they cannot learn. If we do not address this problem, our considerable investments in education and early learning activities will not have the full positive impact that they should. Hunger and under-nutrition injure our greatest national resource--our children. In the past three decades, food stamps have grown into the nation's most comprehensive and trusted way to end hunger. The news that participation in the Food Stamp Program has declined 27% over the past three and a half years would be welcome--if poverty had declined by a comparable amount. But the poverty rate declined by only 7% over this time. Six million more poor people are without food stamps today than in 1995. GAO reported that in 1997 alone, while the number of children living in poverty decreased by just 350,000, the number of children receiving food stamps decreased by 1.3 million. We need to be concerned that the nutritional needs of the other 950,000 children are not being met. Just as the decline in the welfare rolls does not by itself show that people are no longer poor, the decline in Food Stamp rolls in no way means that children and families are no longer hungry. Increasingly, low-income working families are relying on emergency food services. Across the country, demand for emergency food services has increased by as much as 50% in some places. Many food banks find themselves unable to meet the increased requests for help. Only two days ago, the Chicago Sun-Times published an article entitled ``Hunger--a growing concern in suburbs,'' describing increasing demand for emergency food in some of Chicago's most affluent neighborhoods. A November 1998 study by Project Bread and Tufts University found that 49% of emergency food providers in Massachusetts reported increased need among families with children over the previous year. Of those requesting assistance, 33% of food bank clients were children, and 27% of Massachusetts adults requesting emergency food assistance were employed. Although our strong economy and historically low unemployment rate have helped many families get back on their feet, there is no question that many families are working hard and still cannot make ends meet. By simplifying Food Stamp eligibility rules and improving access to the program, we can reduce hunger and malnutrition, and help working families live healthier, more fulfilling lives. No one in this country should go hungry. This is a problem we can solve. We must not become indifferent to the message that hunger indeed has a cure. The Hunger Relief Act repeals many of the 1996 welfare reform law's restrictions on access to food stamps for legal immigrants. For 30 years prior to the welfare reform law, Food Stamps were available to legal immigrants. The 1996 welfare reform law made them no longer eligible. That law also created substantial uncertainty among eligible groups as to whether they qualify. Last year, Congress restored food stamp eligibility to some legal immigrants--children, seniors, and disabled persons--who were in the United States before August 1996. This was an important step, but it helped fewer than a third of those who were adversely affected by the 1996 law. Hunger among legal immigrants predictably increased after 1996, although many legal immigrants held low-income jobs and paid taxes. Children continue to be denied benefits because they arrived in the U.S. after 1996 or because exclusion of their parents directly results in decreased access to food stamps. Our laws recognize that legal immigrants need access to employment, education, and health care programs. Yet all of these efforts are compromised when legal immigrants are denied access to adequate nutrition. The Hunger Relief Act ensures that all those who need food stamps can obtain them. In addition, the Hunger Relief Act helps low-income families by relaxing federal limits on the value of a vehicle that a family can own and still be eligible for food stamps. The current federal limit is $4,650, which has risen only $150 since 1977. Because low-income parents commonly need a vehicle to get to work and to safely transport their children, many states have adopted vehicle allowance standards for their state assistance programs that are more generous than the federal standard. The conflicting and complex rules that govern state programs and the Food Stamp Program complicate access to food stamps for working families, as confirmed by GAO's July 1999 report. By giving states the option of using their state vehicle standards instead of the federal standard, the Hunger Relief Act gives states the flexibility to ensure that their nutritional needs are met. It also promotes work and child safety. The case of a single parent of three young children in Northeastern Massachusetts illustrates the need for this provision. The mother's income recently dropped to $928 per month, but she is denied food stamps because the value of her car exceeds $4650. Massachusetts would be unlikely to reject her application under state law, but the federal law requires her pleas for help to be rejected. Our Hunger Relief Act will change that. The Hunger Relief Act also enables families to qualify for food stamps when they have to spend more than 50% of their income on housing costs. Low-income families must often pay high rent for substandard housing in many cities today. According to a recent report by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, demand for public housing is rising, while the supply of affordable apartments and houses is declining. Between 1996 and 1998, the number of affordable apartments fell by more than 1 million. Nearly 1 million low-income families are now waiting for public housing units across the country. They may wait as long as 8 years in New York City to be placed. HUD compares finding affordable housing to an ominous game of musical chairs in which only the lucky find seats. In Boston, the average rent for a two bedroom apartment rose by 58% between 1990 and 1998 to $1,350 after adjusting for inflation. The Women's Educational and Technical Union has documented that single parents with one infant pay an average rent of $839 in Boston, $709 in Worcester, and $578 in Pittsfield. All of these figures far exceed half of a minimum wage worker's income. Present law permits some shelter costs to be deducted when determining Food Stamp eligibility, but the deduction is capped too low. In 1996, 950,000 people received reduced food stamp benefits due to the shelter cap. Over 880,000 of those affected were families with children. The Hunger Relief Act raises the cap from $275 to $340, and then indexes it to inflation, increasing access to food stamps for approximately 1.25 million people. For example, a family from Centerville, Massachusetts consisting of a working mother and three children, survives on $1,433 in income each month. Yet their shelter costs exceed $1,200. This family cannot possibly meet these children's nutritional needs on $233 each month, even if the family spends money on nothing besides shelter and food. The Hunger Relief Act is intended to keep families like this from having to choose between heating and eating. Finally, the Hunger Relief Act increases federal support for emergency food programs. Sharp increases in requests for help from food pantries and soup kitchens have occurred over the past year, despite steep declines in food stamp participation. The U.S. Conference of Mayors, and America's Second Harvest has independently documented a 15 to 20% increase in need over 1998. A recent survey of 30 cities by the National Governors Association found that a growing number of low- income working parents rely on food banks to feed their children. 79% of Massachusetts food pantries funded through Projected Bread reported serving more working poor in 1998, and 72% reported helping more families with children. To ensure that emergency food needs are met, the Hunger Relief Act increases federal funding for The Emergency Food Assistance Program by 10%. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the total cost of the Hunger Relief Act will be $2.5 billion over the first 5 years. This amount will increase our support for the Food Stamp Program by just over 2% each year, a relatively small price to repair the most serious problems in the nation's core nutrition program. Americans overwhelmingly recognize that hunger is also closely linked to problems in health, education, and the workplace. Adequate nutrition should be available to all. Over three hundred national, regional, and local organizations support the Hunger Relief Act. Even before welfare reform was enacted, a January 1996 poll found that 55% of Americans believe hunger is worsening in our country, and 74% felt that more should be done to combat hunger in America. I request unanimous consent that a letter signed by over 300 organizations in support of the Hunger Relief Act may be printed in the Congressional Record following my statement. Millions of low-income working families, like the Jenkins family of Royalston, Massachusetts will be helped by this bill. Although Terry Jenkins' husband works in two jobs, after their mortgage payments, car payments, utilities and clothing expenses for four children are paid, they often cannot afford enough food for their family. As a result, Terry worries that her children cannot concentrate during their classes. Her concern is legitimate. Students who are hungry or at-risk of hunger are twice as likely to have academic, social and psychological problems as children from similar low-income families who are not hungry. By improving the Food Stamp Program, the Hunger Relief Act will reduce the suffering for millions of families like the Jenkins. Now, while the economy is strong, we must actively fight hunger and ensure that the most basic needs of children and families are met. I welcome the support of Senators Specter, Leahy and Jeffords in this bipartisan effort and I look forward to early action in the Senate to pass this needed legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to commend City Year, a community service program which began eleven years ago in Boston. This landmark program became the prototype for AmeriCorps, which celebrates its own 5th anniversary this week. City Year has an impressive history of working closely with Boston's Mayor Menino to support his work in developing youth leadership, protecting public health, and building stronger local communities. City Year also works closely with the Boston Superintendent of Schools, Tom Payzant, and other educational leaders to develop innovative curriculum-based service learning projects. City Year has also engaged area business in supporting its efforts, so that each year they have been able to increase its membership and its effectiveness. Today, City Year organizations are found in eleven cities across the country. Each local corps is dedicated to offering 17-24 year olds a challenging year of full-time service, leadership development and community involvement. The founders of City Year--Michael Brown and Alan Khazei--has a vision that individuals working together could solve almost any problem. My brothers, President Kennedy and Senator Robert Kennedy, shared that vision. Today, that spirit of idealism is transforming communities across the country and inspiring thousands of young men and women to become involved in helping others. A recent article in the Philadelphia Inquirer Magazine eloquently describes the extraordinary achievements of City Year, and I ask that it be printed in the Record. The article follows. Corps Values (By Melissa Dribben) ``Have you heard Robert F. Kennedy's theory about ripples?'' asks Kelly Dura. She tries to summon up the quote. ``It's something like `If you strike out against oppression with ripples of hope . . .' '' She frowns. ``Wait,'' she says, ``it's much better than that. I don't want to guess. I'll get it for you in a minute.'' Dura, with a shag of red hair, looks at you straight on, through eyes big and clear as cat's-eye marbles. She wants to get this right. She wants to get everything right. She's 24. A fervent idealist and veteran volunteer with City Year, an urban community service program, which is a division of the national Americorps. If she can't rattle off the quotation verbatim, Dura clearly gets the gist. The words were spoken by Kennedy in a speech about the effect a single person can have on the monumental problems of society. For Dura, as well as the 130 other young men and women who will serve this year in Philadelphia, inspirational quotations are sustenance. They help feed the corps' enthusiasm through what is a frequently difficult, but rewarding, time. The work is hard, and the relationships intense. ``A lot of optimists come in, wanting to change everything right away,'' says Dura. ``You just can't. Change takes time.'' City Year volunteers, who receive a small stipend for their work, spend the year in teams of 10, mentoring elementary school students, distributing books to literacy centers and teaching children how to resolve conflicts without the use of knuckles or steel-toe boots. They spend time listening, really listening, to senior citizens in nursing homes, ladling out chicken and noodles in soup kitchens, rebuilding homes with Habitat for Humanity, painting murals on tenement walls and cleaning up weeds and old tires along SEPTA's train tracks. While they are in the program, volunteers must promise not to spew any profanity in public, jaywalk, pierce any part of their face or wear Walkmen while out on the street (in case someone wants to ask them a question about the program). ``It's a sacrifice for a good cause,'' says Nikki Owens, 20, a senior corps member, who has had to postpone putting a stud below her lower lip. The volunteers wear uniforms--white polo shirts, khaki pants, work boots and scarlet jackets--provided by Timberland, the program's national sponsor. Locally, their work is supported by corporations, who donate $70,000 or more each year for the City Year projects, a sum matched by federal grants. The program, which is in its 10th year, was started in Boston by two Harvard Law School grads. There are now City Year teams in nine cities, plus Rhode Island. Three years ago, it landed in Philadelphia, where it has been one of the most successful--with the fastest growing membership in the country. Some of the volunteers, like Dura, come from comfortable homes in the suburbs. Some are college graduates trying to find themselves before moving on with their lives and careers. Some are the daughters of drug addicts who grew up in the city's worst neighborhoods, or teenage fathers, or high school dropouts who were floundering until they bumped into a City Year recruitment officer. Dion Jones, 22, had been ``sitting around for a couple of years'' after finishing high school in North Philadelphia. Last year, he was in the Gallery with his 2-year-old son, Saadiq, when the boy saw some balloons at a table and asked his father to get him one. At the table was a representative from City Year, doling out information and application forms. Jones filled one out. ``I didn't know what kind of job it was,'' he says. ``But I needed a paycheck.'' A few weeks later, he got a call to come in for an interview. He missed the appointment. And the next. But after the City Year staff called a third time, he showed up. ``I did service in my own neighborhood,'' he says, rubbing the heavy ankh ring on his pinkie. ``The one thing that gives me hope is the kids. They're happy to see you. ``Seeing them smile--it changed me. I've had to be more empathetic. I can't holler or curse. I'm being a role model for my son, 24 hours a day.'' At the annual convention, held in Washington, D.C., at the end of May, each city competes for an award--the Cup of Idealism. This year, Philadelphia won. The huge silver cup sits gleaming on a table covered by a red plastic tablecloth in the City Year offices at 23d and Chestnut. A tour takes less than five minutes. There are a few offices and a lot of snapshots of volunteers. I step into the elevator. ``Hold it!'' It is Dura, sprinting down the hall. ``I found the quote.'' ``Let no one be discouraged by the belief there is nothing one man or one woman can do against the enormous array of the world's ills. * * * Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends a tiny ripple of hope, and, crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.''

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the National Security Archives recently released an additional selection of declassified documents from the State Department, Defense Department, and the CIA on U.S. relations with Chile between 1970 and 1973, when the democratically-elected government of President Allende was overthrown by General Pinochet. The release of these documents is part of the Administration's ongoing ``Chile Declassification Project,'' an effort begun following the arrest of General Pinochet last year. According to the President's directive, U.S. national security agencies are directed to ``review for release * * * all documents that shed light on human rights abuses, terrorism, and other acts of political violence during and prior to the Pinochet era in Chile.'' On October 24, the Washington Post carried two articles which emphasized the need for full disclosure by the CIA of its documents related to its covert operations in Chile during this period. The release of these documents will facilitate a full understanding of this period in U.S.-Chile relations. I believe that these articles will be of interest to all of us in Congress concerned about this issue, and I ask unanimous consent that they may be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in reading that particular article, you will see that they make the point that the money that is actually used or actually received by minimum wage workers is spent and adds to the economy. Take a State such as Oregon, that has the highest minimum wage in the country. Since Oregon went to a higher minimum wage more people are working, because it brought people who work back into the labor market because they were able to provide meaningful income to themselves and to their families. It provided an additional boost to the economy. That concept has been supported by the Card and Krueger studies that have been referred to in other debates on the minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage is an issue of fundamental and basic fairness, fairness and justice for men and women who are working at the lower economic rungs of the economic ladder. These are people working as assistants to school teachers in many of the schools across the country. These are people who are working as assistants in nursing homes that are looking after our parents and grandparents. These are men and women working in the great buildings in our major cities cleaning up after long days. These buildings effectively would not be functioning unless people were willing to provide that kind of work. This issue, as I have said many times, is a women's issue because the majority of individuals will benefit from increasing the minimum wage are women. This is an issue of civil rights because one-third of minimum wage workers are men and women of color. This is a children's issue because more than 80 percent of families earing the minimum age are headed by women. Providing for the children in these families is directly related to the incomes that people have, and many have not just one job but the two jobs held down by many minimum wage workers who are heads of households. We hear a great deal about family values. How are parents going to be able to spend their time with their children when they are out there working on two different jobs trying to put food on the table, a roof over their heads, and trying to clothe their children? It is amazing to me when we have this greatest economic boom in the history of this country, this body is going to be begrudging to men and women who work hard, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year, and who value work. How many speeches did we hear on the other side of the aisle that we honor work, and we want them to go out and work? People are out there working, and you refuse to give them the kind of income they need so that they can work in dignity and not live in poverty. I know we have a lot of important pieces of legislation. This isn't a very complicated issue. Every Member in this body knows these issues. Everybody knows this issue. We are not talking about a complicated policy question. It is just a question of whether we are prepared to stand up and speak for those individuals who have fallen further behind economically than any other group--any other group in our society. They are the minimum wage workers. They haven't even been able to maintain the purchasing power of their wages, they have fallen further and further behind and continue to do so. With all respect to all the other items we have in the Senate in terms of public policy questions, certainly the issue of fairness to our fellow citizens is something the American people understand. The obstinacy of the Republican leadership in refusing to permit a limited period of time for us to vote on this issue, I think, is a real tragedy for these families. It certainly is. But they have refused and refused and refused with these tired, old arguments. We cannot get this issue on the agenda. They say we are the majority and we will set the agenda. Let us have an opportunity to vote on those issues. We saw our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say: Well, all right; if we are going to find an increase in the minimum wage for 2 years, we are going to require $35 billion in unpaid tax breaks that are going to swell to $100 billion over ten years. If you want to look after the working poor, Senators, they say, you are going to have to provide $100 billion in tax breaks--not related to small businesses, not related to minimum wage individuals, but to the highest paid 10 percent of taxpayers in this country who will get over 90% of the benefit from those tax breaks. Still we can't even have a chance to debate, they refuse us the time even to debate that. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. The last time we provided an increase in the minimum wage was the first time we added all the tax goodies. Now the Republican leadership understands they have a train coming along the tracks, and they are piling up and piling up. They may consider doing $1 over 3 years. We have already delayed a year--2 years now. They refused to let us bring up the issue up last year, and they are refusing to let us bring it up this year. They want to spread it out three more years. That won't even keep up in terms of inflation for those working families. And to be able to do even that, you have to tag on $100 billion over a 10-year period of tax goodies, unpaid for. If these individuals end up contributing and paying taxes, they will be paying some of their taxes to try to offset the increase that the Republican leadership wants in these tax breaks. We may see another hour that goes by without facing the minimum wage issue. We may see another day that goes by without facing the minimum wage issue. But I will tell you, it is inevitable that we will one way or the other bring these measures to the attention of the Senate and try to get accountability. How many times do we have to hear about accountability on the other side of the aisle? We want accountability. We want accountability for this. We want accountability for that. We want accountability for everything except being willing to vote up or down on the increase in the minimum wage. Yet they were quite prepared to vote themselves--all of the Senate, and the House of Representatives--a $4,600 raise. But they won't even permit a vote on the Senate floor on an increase in the minimum wage. Mr. President, maybe that goes over well someplace. But it doesn't seem to me that it will go over well with the American people. We intend to continue to press this issue. Mr. President, I withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments of my time under the bill to talk about a subject I am very hopeful we will be able to address in the very near future. It is a subject matter that has been outstanding during the course of this year and that we have still failed to act on, and that is to try to see an increase in the minimum wage for many of the workers in this country. We have seen in more recent times the Congress move ahead to increase its own salary some $4,600 a year. When we increase the minimum wage, it will mean approximately $2,000 to those who are working the hardest at the lower end of the economic ladder but who perform extraordinarily important jobs that are really, in many respects, at the heart of the engine of the American economy today. I think all of us are mindful that we have had the most extraordinary economic boom in the history of our country. But there are those Americans who have been left out and left behind. There is no group of Americans who have been more disadvantaged than those who are working at the minimum wage level. That is why I was very hopeful we would see fit to address this issue this year because we find that those minimum wage workers are falling further and further behind. I want to remind our colleagues about what has happened on the issue of job growth because the most familiar argument we have in opposition to the minimum wage is that it will somehow dampen the increase in jobs and, secondly, it will add to the rate of inflation. Let's look at what has happened in the most recent times. This chart goes from 1995 up through 1999 and it indicates when the Senate and the Congress actually increased the minimum wage. We increased the minimum wage to $4.75 in 1996, and still we saw job growth continue through 1996 and 1997. We increased the minimum wage then in 1997 up to $5.15. This was a two-step increase of 50 cents and 40 cents, up to what is now $5.15. There were those who warned the Senate of the United States that if we saw this kind of increase, we would lose anywhere from 200,000 to 400,000 or 500,000 jobs in the job market. But what we have seen is a continuation of the expansion of the job market, where we find it going up and up until September of 1999. Past increases in the minimum wage have not meant the loss of jobs. Secondly, if we look at this chart, this is the employment rate. Another way of looking at the issue of jobs is the employment in our country with the increase in the minimum wage. The unemployment rate is at historic lows after a minimum wage increase. On the two steps here, if we look, we find that we went from almost 5.5 percent unemployment, and then in September of 1997 we were just below 5 percent. Since that time, it has continued to decline. So we have seen an expansion of the growth rate and a decline in overall unemployment in this country. Well, you could say there must have been some impact in terms of the rate of inflation. But what we have seen, and as we know, is if you have an increase in productivity and the rise in productivity exceeds the increase in the payment, you don't get the rates of inflation. That is what we have seen. According to labor statistics, we have seen what is represented by this blue line on the chart--an increase in productivity for American workers over the period from 1957 to 1959, up to 1998. This is the annual productivity increase. We have seen a significant increase in the productivity. If we look at what has been the impact of the real minimum wage, the kind of decline here, now the spread between productivity and the purchasing power of the minimum wage is at one of its greatest since the enactment of the increase in the minimum wage. Productivity is up, and we should see an increase in terms of the wages for those workers. If we look at what has happened in terms of the real value of the minimum wage, we see that in 1968 it would be worth $7.49. If we had the minimum wage today in purchasing power of what it was in 1968, it would be $7.49. This is what has happened in terms of real dollars. We are now at this level of $5.15 an hour. Without this increase, it will drop down to $4.80, almost back to where it was at the time we saw the very modest increase 4 years ago. Even with the increase, it would put the real value at $5.73. With two 50-cent increases over the next 2 yours, the purchasing power would still be only $5.73. We are always playing catchup with the millions of American workers who receive the minimum wage. We are delighted to debate these issues with those who continue to give the old, worn-out, tired arguments in opposition: that raising the minimum wage will mean loss of jobs and that it is going to add to inflation. We are glad to debate those issues. But we are being denied by the Republican leadership the ability to consider an increase in the minimum wage. This is a Business Week editorial, May 17, 1999. It is not a Democrat journal. It is not a voice for the Democratic Party. Of course, years ago when we had the increases in the minimum wage, we had bipartisanship. It has been only in recent times when it has become a partisan issue. As Business Week points out, Old myths die hard. Old economic theories die even harder . . . higher minimum wages are supposed to lead to fewer jobs. Not today. In a fast-growth, low-inflation economy, higher minimum wages raise income, not unemployment. I ask unanimous consent that the full article with regard to the minimum wage be printed in the Record.