Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are all deeply saddened by the sudden loss of our colleague and friend, John Chafee. He was a very special Member of the Senate who embodied the noblest traditions of this institution. He would fight with great vigor and passion for the principles he believed in, trying to persuade colleagues to adopt his point of view. But his devotion to a cause never made him intransigent or unwilling to consider competing ideas. John Chafee had a unique ability to build consensus, and he was forever searching to find common ground across partisan and ideological battlelines. He was a student of history, and he knew that principled compromise was essential if the legislative process is to serve the public interest. He understood that a Congress mired in gridlock could not solve the Nation's problems. He cared far too deeply about the country he served to accept political stalemate. Because of his deep commitment to these abiding principles, he held the trust and respect of colleagues across the political spectrum, and he was often able to find that common ground when others could not. John Chafee's 23 years in the Senate have truly made a difference. The American people enjoy cleaner air and cleaner water because of his tireless and skillful efforts to protect the environment. Foster children are treated more humanely because he assumed the role of their legislative guardian. Poor families who must depend on Medicaid have more secure access to health care because of his concern for their well-being. While John Chafee was a skilled consensus builder, he was never reluctant to speak out on controversial issues. His gentle and gracious manner was accompanied by a very strong will. His political courage was evident on a broad range of issues--from his outspoken advocacy of banning the manufacture and sale of handguns, to his vigorous defense of abortion rights, to his steadfast support for nuclear weapons control. He was a man of principle, whose strength was evident to all who knew him. I will always remember his extraordinary efforts in 1993 and 1994 to enact health insurance coverage for all Americans. Through that battle, John Chafee never gave up and never gave in. He showed great perseverance under exceptional pressure, and great commitment to a cause he believed in deeply. His ideals and patriotism was shaped as a young soldier in combat on Guadalcanal and Okinawa during World War II and in the Korean conflict. Tom Brokaw has called John Chafee's generation ``The Greatest Generation.'' In his well-known book by that name, Mr. Brokaw wrote: They came of age during the Great Depression and the Second World War and went on to build modern America--men and women whose everyday lives of duty, honor, achievement, and courage gave us the world we have today. John Chafee symbolizes those eloquent words. As a state legislator, as Governor of Rhode Island, as Secretary of the Navy, and as a four- term United States Senator, John Chafee devoted his entire adult life to public service. He gave our nation not only length of service, but service of the highest caliber. He believed in the capacity of government to improve the lives of its citizens, and he worked every day to make it so. His distinguished service will leave a lasting legacy. We all feel his loss today. But it will be felt even more deeply by the Senate as time passes. We will miss his wise counsel, we will miss his political courage, and we will miss his extraordinary ability to build bridges across partisan and ideological divides. I extend my deepest sympathy to John's wife, Virginia, and to his children and grandchildren. Our Senate family truly shares your loss.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object. I reserve the right to object, Mr. President.

Mr. KENNEDY. Further reserving the right to object, and I will not at this time, I think this legislation is of enormous importance. We are very hopeful we will get an early conference on it and we will get a favorable resolution. This has passed 99-0 in our body. It is a good bill that came out of the House. It is legislation we ought to complete before we adjourn. I have no objection.

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator from Pennsylvania is the acting leader, could he give us some indication of when we will go to conference on that legislation? It is the most important piece of legislation affecting the disabled in this country. We have passed the legislation 99-0. It has been in the House of Representatives for several months. I hope at the time we are announcing we are going to appoint conferees, we would have at least some indication from the leadership as to when we are going to get to conference. I know millions of disabled Americans across this country will want to know what the intention of the leadership is on this legislation. Can the Senator give us some idea?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for the fifth time in the past two years, the Republican leadership has chosen to debate and vote on legislation that President Clinton has vetoed twice and that numerous courts have ruled unconstitutional. No matter how often the Senate votes, the facts will remain the same. This bill is unconstitutional--it's a violation of the Supreme Court's decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and the Senate should oppose it. The Roe and Casey decisions prohibit Congress from imposing an ``undue burden'' on a woman's constitutional right to choose to have an abortion at any time up to the point where the developing fetus reaches the stage of viability. Congress can constitutionally limit abortions after the stage of viability, as long as the limitations contain exceptions to protect the life and the health of the woman. This bill fails that constitutional test in two clear ways. It clearly imposes an undue burden on a woman's constitutional right to an abortion in cases before viability. In cases after viability, it clearly does not contain the constitutionally required exception to protect the mother's health. Supporters of this legislation are flagrantly defying these constitutional requirements, and they know it. Similar laws have been challenged in 21 of the 30 states where they have been passed, and the results are clear. In 20 states, laws have been blocked or severely limited by the courts or by state legal action. Eighteen courts have issued temporary or permanent injunctions preventing the laws from taking effect because of constitutional defects. One court and one attorney general have limited enforcement of the law. Of the states where the laws have been blocked, six have statutes identical to the Santorum bill. Recently, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that laws in three states under its jurisdiction--Arkansas, Iowa, and Nebraska--were unconstitutional. In the opinion on the Nebraska law, the court specifically held that, ``Under controlling precedents laid down by the Supreme Court, [the] prohibition places an undue burden on the right of women to choose whether to have an abortion.'' The conclusion is obvious. The supporters of the Santorum bill would rather have an issue than a law. They have rejected compromise after compromise. They have ignored President Clinton's plea to add an exemption for ``the small number of compelling cases where selection of the procedure, in the medical judgment of the attending physician, was necessary to preserve the life of the woman or avert serious adverse consequences to her health.'' In doing so, the Republican leadership has chosen to ignore the Constitution. They are also ignoring the large number of medical professionals who oppose this legislation, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Nurses Association, and the American Medical Women's Association. The American Medical Association--which once endorsed the bill--no longer supports it. The AMA withdrew its support after independent investigators hired by the organization concluded that, ``rather than focusing on its role as steward for the profession and the public health . . . the board . . . lost sight of its responsibility for making decisions which, first and foremost, benefit the patient and protect the physician-patient relationship.'' Most important, in its effort to pass this legislation, the Republican leadership has ignored the tragic situations in which some women find themselves--women like Eileen Sullivan, Erica Fox, Vikki Stella, Tammy Watts, and Viki Wilson. Women like Coreen Costello, who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and told us that she consulted with numerous medical experts and did everything possible to save her child. She later had the procedure that would be banned by this legislation, and, based on that experience, she told the Committee the following: I hope you can put aside your political differences, your positions on abortion, and your party affiliations and just try to remember us. We are the ones who know. We are the families that ache to hold our babies, to love them, to nurture them. We are the families who will forever have a hole in our hearts. . . . please put a stop to this terrible bill. Families like mine are counting on you. For all of these reasons, I oppose the Santorum bill. We should stand with Coreen Costello and others like her, who with their doctors' advice, must make these tragic decisions to protect their lives and their health.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, civil rights is still the unfinished business of America. It is unconscionable that Congress would signal that the Federal Government has no role in combating hate crimes in this country. Yet, that is exactly the signal the Republican leadership has sent by eliminating the Senate-passed provisions on hate crimes from the final report of the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations Act. Since just after the Civil War, Congress has repeatedly recognized the special Federal role in protecting civil rights and preventing discrimination. This Federal responsibility, based on the 14th amendment to the Constitution, is reflected in a large body of Federal civil rights laws, including many criminal law provisions. These laws are aimed at conduct that deprives persons of their rights because of their membership in certain disadvantaged groups. The Federal criminal law, among other prohibitions, bars depriving individuals of housing rights, destroying religious property because of religious bias, and committing violent acts because of racial hatred. The point of these laws is not to protect only certain people from violence--we all deserve to be protected. The point is to recognize this special Federal responsibility to stop especially vicious forms of discrimination, and penalize it with the full force of Federal law. Hate crimes legislation recognizes that violence based on deep-seated prejudice, like all forms of discrimination, inflicts an especially serious injury on society. These crimes can divide whole nations along racial, religious and other lines, as are seen too often in countries throughout the world. These crimes send a poisonous message that the majority in society feels free to oppress the minority. The strongest antidote to that unacceptable poison is for the majority to speak out strongly, and insist that these flagrant acts of violent bigotry will not be tolerated. That is why it is essential for hate crimes legislation to be endorsed by our nation and our communities at every level--Federal, State, and local. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999, that so many of us support, is bipartisan. It is endorsed by a broad range of religious, civil rights and law enforcement organizations. It takes two needed steps. It strengthens current laws against crimes based on race, religion, or national origin. And it adds gender, sexual orientation, and disability to the protections in current law. Earlier this year, the Senate added these important provisions to the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations Act. But last Monday evening, the Senate-House conferees approved a conference report that does not contain the hate crimes provision. Behind closed doors, the conferees dropped the provisions. As a result, Congress is now MIA--missing in action on this basic issue of tolerance and justice and civil rights in our society. Clearly, we must find a way to act on this important issue before the session ends. The Federal Government should be doing all it can to halt these vicious crimes that shock the conscience of the nation. State and local governments are doing their part to prevent hate crimes, and so must Congress.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr President, the Indonesian Parliament acted wisely today in ratifying the overwhelming vote of the East Timorese people for independence and recognizing the right of self-determination for these people. The militias that have terrorized the East Timorese people since the historic August 30 referendum should end their campaign of violence. From their bases in West Timor, the militias have continued to act with impunity against East Timorese refugees in camps in West Timor. Through intimidation tactics, they have undermined the efforts of international humanitarian agencies to provide assistance and to facilitate repatriation. Many of us have been alarmed by persistent reports that the Indonesian military has continued to aid and abet the militias. On October 11, the commander of the international peace keeping force in East Timor demanded a formal explanation from the Indonesian government as to whether any Indonesian soldiers or police officers were involved in a militia attack against the international peacekeepers on October 10. Officials from the peacekeeping force said that uniformed soldiers and police officers had escorted the militias and did nothing as militia members opened fire on the peacekeepers. I urge the Indonesian military and security forces to sever all links with the militias. I welcome the establishment by the United Nations Human Rights Commission of a commission of inquiry to investigate the atrocities that occurred in East Timor following President Habibie's decision to hold the referendum on East Timor's status. The Indonesian government must end collaboration with the militias if this investigation of the atrocities is to be credible. In the coming weeks, the United States should do all it can to see that the transition to independence is accomplished peacefully and that those responsible for atrocities are brought to justice.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, violent acts of bigotry based on race, religion, ethnic background, sexual orientation, gender, and disability continue to plague the nation. These vicious crimes are a national disgrace and an attack on everything this country stands for, and it is essential for Congress to act against them. Earlier this year, the Senate added important provisions to combat hate crimes to the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations Act. This afternoon, Senate-House conferees will meet to vote on a conference report that does not contain the hate crimes provision. Behind closed doors, the conferees have tentatively decided to drop the provision, and I urge them to reconsider. It is essential for Congress to take a stand against bigotry, and do all we can to end these modern-day lynchings that continue to occur in communities across the country. Many of us are aware of the most highly-publicized incidents, especially the brutal murders of James Byrd in Jasper, Texas, and Matthew Shepard in Laramie, Wyoming. But these two killings are just the tip of the iceberg. Many other gruesome acts of hatred have occurred this year: January 14, 1999, El Dorado, California--Thomas Gary, 38, died after being run over by a truck and shot with a shotgun. The assailant claimed that Mr. Gary had made a pass at him. January 17, 1999, Texas City, Texas--Two black gay men, Laaron Morris and Kevin Tryals, were shot to death and one of the men was left inside a burning car. February 7, 1999, Miami, Florida--Three young women stalked, beat and stabbed a gay man while yelling anti-gay epithets. February 19, 1999, Sylacauga, Alabama--Billy Jack Gaither, a gay man, was abducted, beaten to death with an ax handle, and set on fire on burning tires in a remote area. February 24, 1999, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.--A black woman, Jody-Gaye Bailey, died after being shot in the head by a self-proclaimed skinhead. Minutes before the shooting the perpetrator reportedly boasted of wanting to go out and kill a black person. Bailey and her boyfriend, who is Caucasian, were stopped at a red light when the killer fired at Bailey seven times. The boyfriend was uninjured. February 1999, Yosemite National Park, California--An individual charged with the murder of four women--one of whom was a 16-year old girl--in Yosemite National Park told police investigators that he had fantasized about killing women for three decades. March 1, 1999, Richmond, Virginia--A gay, homeless man was killed and his severed head was left atop a footbridge in James River Park near a popular meeting place for gay men. May 1999, Kenosha, Wisconsin--A 27-year-old man intentionally swerved his car onto a sidewalk to run over two African-American teens. After hitting the two cyclists, he left the scene and kept driving until stopped by police. Eight years earlier the same man rammed his car twice into a stopped van carrying five African-American men and drove away. June 2, 1999, West Palm Beach, Florida--Two teenagers admitted that they beat a gay man, Steven Goedereis, to death on April 27, 1998 because he called one of them ``beautiful.'' June/July 1, 1999, Northern California--Three synagogues in the Sacramento area were destroyed by arson. Two brothers, who have links to an organized hate group, are suspects in the arson as well as the shotgun murders of two gay men in Redding, Calif., Winfield Scott Mowder and Gary Matson. July 4th weekend, 1999, Illinois/Indiana--An indiviudal associated with a racist and anti-Semitic organization, Benjamin Smith, killed an African-American man, Ricky Byrdsong, and wounded six orthodox Jews in Chicago before killing a Korean student, Won-Joon Yoon, in Bloomington, Ind. July 24, 1999, San Diego, California--Hundreds of people were tear- gassed when a military style tear-gas canister was released near the Family Matters group at the San Diego gay pride parade. The 70-person group included small children and babies in strollers. August 10, 1999, Los Angeles, California--A former security guard for a white supremacist organization, Buford O. Furrow, wounded five individuals, including young children, at a Los Angeles Jewish community center, and later killed a Filipino-American postal worker, Joseph Illeto. Clearly, the federal government should be doing more to halt these vicious crimes that shock the conscience of the nation. Dropping the bipartisan Senate provisions from the DJS conference report is a serious mistake. For too long, the federal government has been forced to fight hate crimes with one hand tied behind its back. Congress must speak with a united voice against hate-based violence. All Americans deserve to know that the full force of federal law will be available to punish these atrocities. Congress has a responsibility to act this year. The continuing silence of Congress on this festering issue is deafening, and it is unacceptable. We must stop acting as if somehow this fundamental issue is just a state and local problem. It isn't. It's a national problem, and it's an outrage that Congress has been missing in action for so long. I urge the conferees to reconsider their action, and include a strong provision on hate crimes in the conference report. Mr. President, I make these remarks because the timeliness of them is so important. I see my friend and colleague from Oregon, who shares these concerns. Again, we wanted to address this issue, which will be before the conference committee on the State-Justice appropriations this afternoon. We will be faced with this issue in a conference report in these next 2, 3 days. It is regarding the inclusion or exclusion of the hate crimes legislation. We passed hate crimes legislation as part of the State-Justice- Commerce appropriations. It is in conference at a time when this country has been faced with a series of acts that have been violent on the basis of bigotry--based on race, religion, ethnic background, sexual orientation, gender, and disability. These challenges continue to plague the Nation. These vicious crimes are a national disgrace and an attack on everything for which this country stands. It is essential for Congress to act against them. Just in the very recent times, we have seen the brutal murders of James Byrd in Jasper, TX, and Matthew Shepherd in Wyoming. These two killings are the tip of the iceberg. Many other gruesome acts of hatred have occurred this year. On January 14, Thomas Gary died after being run over by a truck and shot with a shotgun. The assailant claimed that Mr. Gary had made a pass at him. On January 17, 1999, Texas City, TX, two black gay men, Laaron Morris and Kevin Tryals, were shot to death, and one of the men was left inside a burning car. On February 7, 1999, three young women, stalked, beat, and stabbed a gay man while yelling antigay epithets. On February 24, in Fort Lauderdale, a black woman, Jody-Gaye Bailey, died after being shot in the head by a self-proclaimed skinhead. Minutes before the shooting, the perpetrator reportedly boasted of wanting to go out and kill a black person. In February 1999, Yosemite National Park, California, an individual charged with the murder of four women--one of whom was a 16-year-old girl--in Yosemite National Park, told police investigators that he had fantasized about killing women for three decades. The list goes on and on, and that is happening in communities all across the country. This legislation has been taken into consideration. A number of the points have been raised by Members over the last 3, 4 years. The statistics are very clear. This kind of problem is escalating, not decreasing. All we are asking is, in the very selected cases that would qualify under this legislation, that we not deny the Federal Government from participating with the State and local prosecutors in order to be able to solve these problems. These crimes are not just crimes against individuals, they are rooted in bigotry and hatred so deep that they have an important and dramatic and horrific affect upon a community. We will see the opportunity, hopefully, for that Commerce Committee conference this afternoon to vote on these issues. We should at least have a vote on these matters and, hopefully, the Commerce Committee will not disappoint America's march toward justice.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I am happy to.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I am happy to.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator has stated it well and accurately. These kinds of crimes, as I mentioned very briefly, rip at the heart and soul of all Americans. No one could read about these extraordinary acts of violence directed toward specified groups, such as those that took place in Yosemite, where that individual had in his mind one purpose and one purpose only, and that was to kill women. That was it. It wasn't against someone with whom he had a difference. That is the kind of vicious intent we have seen. We have seen that regarding race, religion, and sexual orientation. All we are saying is, in the prosecution of those crimes, we are not going to fight it with one hand behind our backs. We are not going to deny it in the very selective numbers that will be in--I think you are looking at each group, and there are something like maybe 20, 30 cases a year--probably even less--in the testimony of those who represent the Justice Department in any of these areas. But they are so vicious and so horrific that we are going to say we are not going to permit that to take place in this country. We have the opportunity to make a positive commitment in that area in our conference before we leave this year, and we don't want to lose that opportunity. The Senator from Oregon has been a leader on this issue, and our friend and colleague from New York, Senator Schumer, and Senator Specter have been strong leaders. This has been a bipartisan effort for a long period of time. We don't want to deny the chance of having success.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. In 1996, the unions spent $50 million; the corporations, $501 million. So we are talking 1997, 1998, 1999. That figure may still be consistent with the 10 to 1 or 11 to 1 figure. I don't find that there would be any inconsistency if that were the figure being spent. I was interested to hear our good friend from Idaho, Senator Craig, talking about people worrying at the dinner table about these issues. He mentioned people are much more concerned about what is happening down the street or near the school with regard to a shooting incident. I say that is right. And it is very interesting that I was not able to get a report, as a member of the conference committee on the juvenile violence act, that deals with the availability and the accessibility of guns to children in our society and of the criminal element. That has been locked up now for some 6 weeks. I don't think anyone on this floor is prepared to say the National Rifle Association doesn't have something to do with that. He talked about taxes--people are concerned about taxes. People are concerned about tax loopholes as well. How do the tax loopholes get into the Internal Revenue budget? We have $4 trillion of what are called tax expenditures in the IRS at the present time. That is the fastest growing expenditure we have in the Federal budget, the expansion of tax expenditures, tax loopholes. We don't have any debate on it. Many of us have said, let's do for tax expenditures what we do for direct expenditures--when we are cutting back on education and health care; let what is good for the goose be good for the gander. Do you think you can get those issues raised here on the floor of the Senate? Of course not. We all understand why. It is kind of interesting that those who have been the strongest spokespersons against this proposal also raise incidents in terms of what is on people's minds. It comes back, in many instances, to what the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Wisconsin have talked about. This country has waited long enough for campaign finance reform. The current system is shameful, benefiting only the big corporations and lobbyists who have seemingly bottomless barrels of money to spend, while the voice of average citizens goes unheard in the special interest din. I commend Senator McCain and Senator Feingold for their consistent leadership on this issue. Their commitment to reform gives us an opportunity to join the House of Representatives and cleanse our campaign financing system of special interest abuses. The House took effective action earlier this year, transcending partisan differences to adopt long overdue reforms. The large margin by which the Shays- Meehan bill passed, 252 to 177, demonstrates that the public feels strongly about the need for reform. The Senate should act now to support the McCain-Feingold proposal and give the country clean elections in the years to come. Effective reform must include a ban on soft money. The McCain- Feingold bill does just that. Soft money contributions are increasing at alarming rates, while hard money contributions are barely rising. In the 1992 Presidential election cycle, both parties raised a total of $86 million in soft money. Compare this to the $224 million total raised in the 1998 election cycle--a 150-percent increase of soft money contributions in only 6 years. A more recent survey shows figures from January to June 1999, soft money contributions totaled $46.2 million-- and $30.1 million of that total was given by corporations and business interests. In the 1996 elections, the consumer credit industry alone gave $5.5 million in soft money. True reform means closing this flagrant loophole that allows so many special interests to bypass legal limits on giving money directly to candidates. Until we close it the special interests will continue to strengthen their hold on the political process. The House reforms also ended other serious abuses in campaign financing. It ends the sham of the so-called issue ads loophole, which permits special interests to spend big money on campaign advertising obviously designed to support a candidate, as long as the ads do not specifically call for the candidate's election. The House bill treats these ads as the campaign ads they really are, and rightly subjects them to regulation under the campaign finance laws. The Senate should learn from the House, and join in ending these abuses that make a mockery of our election laws. Instead, the Senate Republican leadership is bent on preserving the status quo. They oppose campaign finance reform because they do not want to lose the support they currently receive from their special interest friends. Our Republican friends say they want to help working families--but their support of the Paycheck Protection Act demonstrates their antilabor bias, because that measure is designed to silence the voice of the American workers and labor unions in the political process. It is revenge, not reform--revenge for the extraordinary efforts by the labor movement in the 1996 and 1998 election campaigns. It imposes a gag rule on American workers, and it should be defeated. The act's supporters claim they are concerned about union members' right to choose whether and how to participate in the political process. But we know better. The Paycheck Protection Act should really be called the Paycheck Destruction Act. It is part of a coordinated national antilabor campaign to lock American workers and their unions out of politics. And who is behind this campaign? It is not the workers, unhappy with the use of their union dues for political purposes. It is businesses and their allies, anxious to reduce the role of labor. It is organizations like Americans for Tax Reform, which supports Social Security privatization, vouchers for private schools, and huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. It is think tanks such as the American Legislative Exchange Council and the National Center for Policy Analysis, which support so-called right-to-work laws, the TEAM act, the flat tax, private school vouchers, medical savings accounts, and other antiworker legislation. And it is right-wing Republicans in Congress and in the states. We know that unions and their members are among the most effective voices in the political process. They support raising the minimum wage, protecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, improving education, and ensuring safety and health on the job. Silencing these voices of working families will make it easier for those with antiworker agenda to prevail. Sponsors of this legislation support prevatizing Social Security. They favor private school vouchers instead of a healthy public school system. They would undermine occupational safety and health laws, end the 40-hour work week and permit sham, company-dominated unions. They oppose the Family and Medical Leave Act. They want to restrict Medicare eligibility and deny millions of workers an increase in the minimum wage. They are not trying to help working Americans. To the contrary--they are trying to silence the workers' participation in the political process so they can implement an agenda that workers strongly oppose. Campaign abuses abandon other issues as well. The tobacco industry has made extensive PAC and soft money contributions, and the Senate Republican leadership has rejected much needed antitobacco legislation. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids reports that in the last 10 years, Senators who voted consistently against tobacco reform legislation took far more money from the industry--four times more--than those who supported the bill. The dabate on the Patients' Bill of Rights is another vivid example of the obstructionist influence of industries and special interests. Since 1997, the health insurance industry has been making huge political contributions to Republicans. Blue Cross/Blue Shield and its state affiliates made $1 million in contributions in the 1997-1998 cycle, with four out of every five dollars going to Republicans. Managed care PACs--including the American Association of Health Plans, the Health Insurance Association of America, and Blue Cross/Blue Shield--gave $77,250 to leadership political action committees. According to the Center on Responsive Politics, all but $1,500 went to the Republican majority. These contributions bought the industry at least 2 years worth of stall and delay tactics in Congress. And, when the Senate finally passed legislation this year, it was not what patients needed, but an industry bill that places HMO profits ahead of patients' health. Contributions from the credit card and banking industries have had a similar effect on the bankruptcy reform debate. Master Card, Visa, and others doubled, tripled, or even quadrupled their spending to encourage passage of the bill they wanted. Visa increased its 1998 lobbying to $3.6 million from $900,000 in 1997. Master Card wasn't far behind-- their lobbying expenses rose from $430,000 in 1997 to $1.8 million in 1998. In the 1997-1998 election cycle, commercial banks and financial service companies gave $20.8 million in large individual contributions, PAC money and soft money to candidates-- and two-thirds of that total went to Republicans. The result? Legislation that House Committee Chairman Henry Hyde described as ``pages and pages and pages of advantages [for] the creditor community * * *'' Honest campaign finance reform does not include phony proposals that seek to eliminate political expression by average families. It does include eliminating the flagrant abuses that enable big corporations and special interests to tilt the election process in their favor. Real reform means giving elections back to the people and creating a level playing field on which all voters are equal, regardless of their income. Broad campaign finance reform is within the Senate's reach. We should follow the example set for us by the House. The greatest gift the Senate can give to the American people is clean elections. Over the course of debate, we have learned what the other side is against. We rarely learn what they are for. Senator McCain and Senator Feingold have laid out something I think we should be for. In the next few days, hopefully, the American people will speak through their representatives and support those efforts. One of the provisions we heard a good deal about, again from my friend from Idaho, was the whole question about workers and whether they have control over their dues. Of course, what exists in the McCain-Feingold provision is an incorporation of the Beck decision, which permits workers to check off, at the time they pay their dues, that they are not interested in the political process. Today, evidently, they want something that is going to be harsher on working men and women. Those forces that are pressing to restrict the voice of working men and women are actually the major interest groups that are strongly opposed to the agenda of working families, whether it has been an increase in the minimum wage, whether it has been HMO reforms, whether it has been education and increasing the education budget. These groups are opposed to workers participating because, in many instances, the workers have been the ones to try to advance these interests on our national agenda. I think it is important. I don't know how many of us are getting the communications from workers on these particular issues. Yet we have seen what has happened over this past year, whether it has been on the HMO reform--the change in expenditures by the insurance companies at the time when this body was debating whether doctors are going to be the ones who are going to make the decisions on health care for the particular patients, rather than the accountants and insurance industry. Nobody could deny when we were debating those issues that the contributions and expenditures by the insurance companies skyrocketed dramatically, escalated significantly. This is the kind of thing that we are talking about in terms of the impact that campaign finance reform can have.

Mr. KENNEDY. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, in 1996, $60 million; 1994, $48 million; 1992, $48 million. On the corporations, $677 million in 1996; $492 million in 1994; and $447 million in 1992. That is total contributions. It works out to a ratio of 11 to 1 in 1996, 10 to 1 in 1994, and 9 to 1 in 1992.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, briefly, without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will put in the Record the excellent summaries of total contributions according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That is a nonpartisan watchdog group. We can talk about numbers here and numbers there. However, I think it is important for the Record that we have summaries from the nonpartisan groups that have assessed the contributions by unions and corporations--hard money/soft money. As the Senator from Nevada, the Senator from Wisconsin, and others have pointed out, the ratio is about 11 to 1. You can slice it any way you want but the fact remains--it is basically the difference between the contributions, according to nonpartisan groups. Others have other ways of adding and subtracting figures; all well and good. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the summary provided by the Center for Responsive Politics because I think it is helpful to have the findings of those who have no ax to grind.

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, I only planned to speak for 15 or 20 minutes. I think what the Senator from Kentucky has proposed will certainly be agreeable, if that is all right.

Mr. KENNEDY. Without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I notice other colleagues wanting to address the Senate. I would hope and ask consent--I see my colleague on the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as we reach the end of this session of Congress, it's essential that we act on the Patients' Bill of Rights before we adjourn. In passing the Norwood-Dingell bill two weeks ago, a solid, bipartisan majority of the House of Representatives voted for strong protections for patients against abuses by HMOs. Despite an extraordinary lobbying and disinformation campaign by the health insurance industry, the House approved the bill by a majority of 275- 151. Sixty-eight Republicans as well as almost every Democrat in the House stood up for patients and stood firm against industry pressure. Last Friday, the Senate appointed its conferees. Speaker Hastert has said that the House will appoint its conferees this week. Prompt action on strong reforms is clearly within our grasp. But a series of recent statements and actions provide ominous signs that the insurance industry and its friends in the Republican leadership are at it again. Their emerging strategy seems once again to be to delay and deny the relief that American families need and that the House overwhelmingly approved. The House vote was a major milestone toward enacting needed reform. It came after the Senate passed legislation with only sham protections by a narrow, partisan majority. It came after years of delay and denial by the Republican leadership in both Houses of Congress, working hand-in-hand with the health insurance companies and HMOs to block reform. Patients and doctors won a clear victory in the House. But now, the insurance industry and their allies in the House and the Senate Republican leadership are once again mobilizing to deny patients and doctors the protections they deserve. The ink is barely dry on the dramatic House vote, and opponents of reform are already talking about a new strategy of delay and denial--a strategy once again to put HMO profits first and patient protections last. The first part of this emerging strategy is to delay the work of the House-Senate conference committee as long as possible. A precondition for appointing conferees and beginning the conference is formal transmission of the House-passed bill to the Senate. That process normally takes a day or two at most. In fact, of 252 bills passed by the House in this Congress, the overwhelmingly majority were delivered to the Senate the day they were passed or the day after they were passed. Except for a few bills passed just before the beginning of a long recess, every bill passed by the House had been received by the Senate by the sixth day after passage. Yet, on the seventh day after the passage of the Norwood-Dingell bill, the legislation was still being held in the House of Representatives. Only after the release of a CRS study documenting the extraordinary delay in transmission of the legislation was the bill forwarded to the Senate and Senate conferees appointed. According to the Los Angeles Times, Senator Lott's response to passage of the House bill was that ``House-Senate conferences on other legislation have a higher priority and that resolving differences on this bill would take some time.''' According to the Baltimore Sun, Senator Lott also indicated that Congress might not have time to work out the differences and approve a final bill before it adjourns for the year. According to the New York Times, aides to Senator Nickles said that ``the conference committee will probably not begin serious work until early next year.'' And just this past Friday, CongressDaily reported that ``a Senate GOP aide said . . . Republicans do not plan to start the conference before the end of this year's session, despite the appointment of conferees.'' Some Republicans are already beginning to lay the groundwork for a failed conference. Comparing the Senate and House bills, Congressman Bill Thomas said, ``You don't see many cross-breeds between Chihuahuas and Great Danes walking around.'' And, of course, the fingerprints of Republican-industry collaboration are there to see for anyone who cares to look. As Bruce Josten of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce put it, ``To see nothing come out of the conference is my hope. The best outcome is no outcome.'' Even if the strategy of delay and denial fails, the Republican leadership once again has an alternative to try to weaken the House bill as much as possible. As the Baltimore Sun reported, ``House Majority Whip Tom DeLay suggested that the Republican-dominated House conference would not fight vigorously for the House-approved measure in the Conference Committee.'' Mr. DeLay said, ``Remember who controls the conference: the Speaker of the House.'' A conference that produces legislation that looks like the Senate Republican bill would break faith with the American people, make a mockery of the overwhelming vote in the House of Representatives, and cause unnecessary suffering for millions of patients. That is why more than 300 groups representing patients, doctors, nurses, and other caregivers, and families support the Norwood-Dingell bill, but only the insurance industry supports the Senate proposal. For every patient right in the Senate Republican bill, there is an industry loophole. If the truth in labeling law applied to legislation, every page of the bill would flunk the test, because every promise of patient protection comes with loopholes to protect HMOs and health insurers. The promise to patients is always broken. At its most basic level, the decision before Congress is whether critical medical decisions will be made by doctors and patients, or HMO accountants. It is time to protect families against abuses by a faceless insurance bureaucracy that can rob average citizens of their savings and their peace of mind, and often their health and their very lives. For the millions of Americans who rely on health insurance to protect them and their loved ones when serious illness strikes, the Norwood- Dingell bill is a matter of life and death, and deserves to be passed by Congress. Every day we delay in passing these reforms means that more patients will suffer and die. Congress has an obligation to act and to act now. The abuses that take place every day should have no place in American medicine. Every doctor knows it. Every nurse knows it. Every patient knows it. The American people know it--and it is time the Republican leadership heeded their views. The first test of the sincerity of the Republican leadership will come this week when the House conferees are appointed. Will a majority of the House conferees come from those who supported the Norwood- Dingell bill, not just on final passage, but on the critical vote to replace it with the leadership-backed alternative? The second test will come in the conference itself. The danger is that the process will go into slow motion so that nothing happens until Congress adjourns for this session. There is ample time for genuine bipartisan negotiations to produce a strong, bipartisan bill that Congress can pass and the President can sign before the session ends. The issues are well-known. There is no need for the conference to be time-consuming--no need unless the objective is to pass a watered down bill, or nothing at all. The Norwood-Dingell bill received overwhelming bipartisan support in the House of Representatives. The Senate conferees should do the right thing and simply accept that bill. The choice is clear. Prompt action to protect patients and their families--or more delay and denial. Those who profit from the status quo have delayed action long enough. It is time for Congress to provide every family the protection they deserve. Mr. President, Friday, we had the appointment of the conferees to represent the Senate with the House of Representatives on the HMO bill, the Patients' Bill of Rights legislation. We want to let the Senate know we are prepared to meet today, tomorrow, the next day, and every single day to try to get a resolution of that issue because we know that every single day we do not act and have strong legislation, like the House of Representatives, American families are endangered and Americans are being hurt. That is wrong. We have the chance to act. On our side of the aisle, we are prepared to take action. We are prepared to meet. We believe this is one of the most important efforts we will have in this Congress. We will continue to challenge our colleagues on the other side to move ahead and have a conference. We have debated these issues. We have had a long time to debate them. We have had extensive debates in committee and for over a week on the floor of the Senate. Let's get about protecting the American citizens on that Patients' Bill of Rights--letting doctors make decisions rather than accountants. Every day, as I mentioned, that we fail to do so, we fail to protect American families. We want to go about America's business and families' business on health care. We are prepared to meet in conference now and every day in the future. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I express my strong support for the VA/ HUD Appropriations Act for FY 2000, which passed the Senate last Friday. I commend Chairman Bond and Ranking Member Mikulski for their skilled work on resolving the important issues involved in this legislation. We could not have achieved such an excellent measure without their leadership and commitment. I am pleased that the legislation includes significant new funding allocations for some of HUD's most critical programs. We have promised America's citizens to stand up for their priorities, and this legislation is an important part of keeping that promise. The bill includes an additional 60,000 Section 8 vouchers. These vouchers are critical for struggling families across the country, many of whom pay more than half their income in rent. The bill also restores $70 million for Round II Empowerment Zones. This restoration honors our promise to the communities who have worked hard to build partnerships to revitalize their communities, based upon the promise that they would have HUD resources to leverage the funds they have raised in private-sector investments. The City of Boston and many other communities will benefit from this effort, and I am pleased that we support their initiative with these well-deserved resources. I am also pleased that the Community Builders program is supported in the Act. The program provides a single point of contact with HUD for clients and customers, and streamlines access to HUD resources. With these improvements, HUD will be serving citizens more ably and expeditiously, and the preservation of this important program is an essential part of the legislation. These initiatives offer hope to many distressed communities and low income families who are still left behind in this period of extraordinary economic growth. We must never forget our commitment to safe and affordable housing for our neediest citizens. I commend my colleagues for their skillful work which has led to this major legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in the interest of moving this appropriations bill forward, I will withdraw my amendment to increase the funding for the successful GEAR-UP program. However, I urge the conferees to fund this program at $240 million--- $60 million over the Senate bill--so that now needy students can get the support they need to attend college. More than 130,000 students will be denied services if GEAR UP is funded at $180 million rather than at the President's request of $240 million. $154 million is needed just to fully fund continuation grants for this year's grantees. We must uphold our commitment to these students, and extend the opportunity that this program offers to every needy student. This year, 678 applications for both state and local partnerships were received and we were only able to fund 185--only 1 out of 4 applications. We have to do more to help children early so that college is accessible for every child. Many low-income families do not know how to plan for college, often because they have not done it before. We should do more to ensure that schools and communities can provide the academic support, early college awareness activities, and information on financial aid and scholarships so that students and their families can plan for a better future. We must encourage our young people to have high expectations, to stay in school, and to take the necessary courses so that they can succeed in college. We cannot abandon the five-year commitment that we made to these families last year. I commend my colleagues on the appropriations committee for making hard choices between important programs. But, I urge you to give GEAR UP your highest consideration in conference.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. And, that is the measure that is going to be advanced by the leadership, yourself included, to be a part of the Resolution of Ratification?

Mr. KENNEDY. I certainly cannot. The Senator has put his finger on one of the many reasons for supporting the Stockpile Stewardship Program which is to give the necessary assurances that funding for maintaining our weapons stockpile will be there year after year. This was something I noted was a concern during the course of our hearings-- this question about the need for adequate funding. And, the Senator has responded to that concern. There is broad support, certainly on our side or for those who support this treaty, for giving the assurance that funding would be there. It is just one more of the arguments made by those who oppose this treaty that has now been rebutted. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. What assurances will we have that there will be continued funding for the Stockpile Stewardship Program? I imagine that the Senator agrees, if this is indeed a concern, that we would be glad to make funding for the Stockpile Stewardship Program mandatory. And, I doubt that there would be any hesitancy, on the part of our colleagues, to get broad support for this in the Senate, if that was what was needed so that ensuring funding for this important program wasn't an issue or a question. Many of the witnesses at the hearings said: ``How do we know there will be continued funding? They may very well cut back that program.'' Is this another area about which the Senator is concerned, that we don't know whether, year-to-year, the funds will be available for the Stockpile Stewardship Program. Can he give us some insight about his own thinking on how we can give assurances to the lab directors that there will be adequate funding for that program in the future?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. It is about as clear as can be. I see our ranking member of the Armed Services Committee ready to speak, but I welcome again the comments of the Senator from Delaware about the risks to our international position if we fail to ratify or defeat the CTBT in terms of security and stability around the world and the continued possibility of nuclear testing over time. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I am pleased that we held narrowly focused hearings on the many national security implications of this treaty. It is important that we narrowly focused our attention on our own national security issues. But, these broader international security issues are powerful, and in rereviewing and reading again the letters, statements, and editorials sent in opposition to the Treaty, I think the importance of the broader international security issues, of further testing by other countries, and what the implications are going to be has been missed. I know the Senator addressed those, but I hope before we get into the final hours of this debate the Senator from Delaware will review that for the benefit of the membership.