Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield that time.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Nation is making extraordinary progress in biomedical research. The National Institutes of Health will have developed a working draft of the entire human genome by next spring. Comprehensive knowledge of the genetic sequence will enable researchers to identify large numbers of mutations associated with disease. Understanding the molecular basis of hereditary diseases will expedite the search for more effective treatments and cures. The benefits for patients are likely to be unparalleled in the history of medicine. But this new scientific knowledge also raises a number of ethical, legal, and social questions. The National Institutes of Health is dealing with many of these challenges through programs funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute. Congress also has a key role to play in this process, especially in dealing with genetic discrimination, which is an increasingly serious problem in health insurance and the workplace. A 1996 study in ``Science and Engineering Ethics'' documented more than 200 cases of discrimination against individuals with genetic predispositions to certain diseases, even though the individuals have no symptoms of the disease as yet. For example, some employers have used genetic screening to identify African Americans with the gene mutation for sickle cell anemia. Those with the sickle cell gene mutation were denied jobs, even though many were only carriers of the mutation and would never become ill themselves. In other cases, persons at risk for Huntington's disease have been denied health insurance and have lost their jobs. Similar concerns are arising in the wake of research showing a genetic basis for breast cancer. Ethnic groups who were participants in research to identify disease-related genes are increasingly concerned about the adverse effects on their insurance coverage and their jobs. Even at the National Institutes of Health, 32% of women offered a test for a genetic mutation related to breast cancer refused to take the test, citing concerns about possible discrimination and the loss of privacy. To deal with this issue, Senator Daschle, Senator Harkin, Senator Dodd, and I are introducing legislation to ban genetic discrimination by both health insurers and employers. Our proposal is the culmination of years of work and debate over genetic discrimination. The proposal that we are introducing today is based on our belief that neither your health insurer nor your employer should be able to discriminate against you based upon your genetic information. In this era, when many people obtain their health insurance through their employer, it is especially critical that both health insurers and employers are prohibited from disclosing genetic information to each other. Proposals that do not address both the insurance and the employment aspects of the issue will not truly prevent genetic discrimination. Our legislation prohibits health insurers from setting premiums and defining eligibility on the basis of genetic information. Because we believe that genetic testing is a decision that patients should make with their physicians, our bill prohibits insurers from suggesting or requiring patients to undergo genetic testing. Because insurers do not need to know genetic information for most situations, our bill prohibits them from requesting, collecting, or purchasing genetic information. In addition, the bill does not allow health insurers to share genetic information with each other, to disclose genetic information to industry-wide data banks, or to disclose genetic information to employers. We know that employers are beginning to collect genetic information and discriminate against applicants and employees. Many examples illustrate the problem on a personal level, such as the story of Christine, in Milwaukee, WI. One of Christine's parents developed Huntington's disease, which meant that Christine had a 50% chance that she had inherited the mutant gene that would cause her to develop the disease. Christine decided to undergo a genetic test to determine whether she had inherited the mutation. She traveled to the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor for the test, and paid for the test herself. A co-worker in the small firm where Christine worked overheard Christine making the arrangements for the test and told Christine's supervisor. Her supervisor was initially sympathetic and offered to help. Christine then underwent the genetic test and learned that she had indeed inherited the mutation and would therefore eventually develop the disease. When Chistine shared this information with her supervisor, she was fired, despite a series of outstanding job evaluations. Now, because of Christine's experience, none of her siblings are willing to have the genetic test. This type of blatant discrimination must be stopped. Our legislation prohibits employers from collecting genetic information from any source, including health insurers, and from making any type of employment decision based on genetic information. We should all be concerned about genetic discrimination, because we all have mutations in our genes, and medical researchers are discovering new relationships between genes and diseases. Without legislative action, genetic discrimination will intensify as more genes associated with specific diseases are discovered, and as genetic testing becomes more common. Earlier this week, Vice President Gore proposed a challenge to the biomedical research community--to identify all genes associated with cancer by the year 2002. Our legislation is supported by the Alliance to Genetic Support Groups, the National Partnership for Women and Families, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Hadassah. Congress should act quickly to pass legislation to ban genetic discrimination in health insurance and the workplace, so that we can benefit from those research advances without the threat that people will lose their jobs or their health insurance. I ask uninamous consent that their letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Nation is making extraordinary progress in biomedical research. The National Institutes of Health will have developed a working draft of the entire human genome by next spring. Comprehensive knowledge of the genetic sequence will enable researchers to identify large numbers of mutations associated with disease. Understanding the molecular basis of hereditary diseases will expedite the search for more effective treatments and cures. The benefits for patients are likely to be unparalleled in the history of medicine. But this new scientific knowledge also raises a number of ethical, legal, and social questions. The National Institutes of Health is dealing with many of these challenges through programs funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute. Congress also has a key role to play in this process, especially in dealing with genetic discrimination, which is an increasingly serious problem in health insurance and the workplace. A 1996 study in ``Science and Engineering Ethics'' documented more than 200 cases of discrimination against individuals with genetic predispositions to certain diseases, even though the individuals have no symptoms of the disease as yet. For example, some employers have used genetic screening to identify African Americans with the gene mutation for sickle cell anemia. Those with the sickle cell gene mutation were denied jobs, even though many were only carriers of the mutation and would never become ill themselves. In other cases, persons at risk for Huntington's disease have been denied health insurance and have lost their jobs. Similar concerns are arising in the wake of research showing a genetic basis for breast cancer. Ethnic groups who were participants in research to identify disease-related genes are increasingly concerned about the adverse effects on their insurance coverage and their jobs. Even at the National Institutes of Health, 32% of women offered a test for a genetic mutation related to breast cancer refused to take the test, citing concerns about possible discrimination and the loss of privacy. To deal with this issue, Senator Daschle, Senator Harkin, Senator Dodd, and I are introducing legislation to ban genetic discrimination by both health insurers and employers. Our proposal is the culmination of years of work and debate over genetic discrimination. The proposal that we are introducing today is based on our belief that neither your health insurer nor your employer should be able to discriminate against you based upon your genetic information. In this era, when many people obtain their health insurance through their employer, it is especially critical that both health insurers and employers are prohibited from disclosing genetic information to each other. Proposals that do not address both the insurance and the employment aspects of the issue will not truly prevent genetic discrimination. Our legislation prohibits health insurers from setting premiums and defining eligibility on the basis of genetic information. Because we believe that genetic testing is a decision that patients should make with their physicians, our bill prohibits insurers from suggesting or requiring patients to undergo genetic testing. Because insurers do not need to know genetic information for most situations, our bill prohibits them from requesting, collecting, or purchasing genetic information. In addition, the bill does not allow health insurers to share genetic information with each other, to disclose genetic information to industry-wide data banks, or to disclose genetic information to employers. We know that employers are beginning to collect genetic information and discriminate against applicants and employees. Many examples illustrate the problem on a personal level, such as the story of Christine, in Milwaukee, WI. One of Christine's parents developed Huntington's disease, which meant that Christine had a 50% chance that she had inherited the mutant gene that would cause her to develop the disease. Christine decided to undergo a genetic test to determine whether she had inherited the mutation. She traveled to the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor for the test, and paid for the test herself. A co-worker in the small firm where Christine worked overheard Christine making the arrangements for the test and told Christine's supervisor. Her supervisor was initially sympathetic and offered to help. Christine then underwent the genetic test and learned that she had indeed inherited the mutation and would therefore eventually develop the disease. When Chistine shared this information with her supervisor, she was fired, despite a series of outstanding job evaluations. Now, because of Christine's experience, none of her siblings are willing to have the genetic test. This type of blatant discrimination must be stopped. Our legislation prohibits employers from collecting genetic information from any source, including health insurers, and from making any type of employment decision based on genetic information. We should all be concerned about genetic discrimination, because we all have mutations in our genes, and medical researchers are discovering new relationships between genes and diseases. Without legislative action, genetic discrimination will intensify as more genes associated with specific diseases are discovered, and as genetic testing becomes more common. Earlier this week, Vice President Gore proposed a challenge to the biomedical research community--to identify all genes associated with cancer by the year 2002. Our legislation is supported by the Alliance to Genetic Support Groups, the National Partnership for Women and Families, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Hadassah. Congress should act quickly to pass legislation to ban genetic discrimination in health insurance and the workplace, so that we can benefit from those research advances without the threat that people will lose their jobs or their health insurance. I ask uninamous consent that their letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to an extraordinary man and religious leader, His Holiness Karekin I, Catholicos of All Armenians, who passed away on June 29. I was proud to call His Holiness my friend. He was an inspiration to all who knew him. He was loved and respected by the Armenian people the world over, and his courage, intelligence, wisdom, and compassion were renowned in international religious circles. His Holiness dedicated his life to the Armenian people. He worked skillfully for Armenia's freedom, and had the noble distinction of being the first Catholicos of the Armenian people elected in the newly independent Republic of Armenia. In this era, he has worked tirelessly and effectively for the spiritual revival of the Armenian Apostolic Church in Armenia. He was also a warm and humble man, gifted with wit and humor, who related easily with people from all backgrounds and from all walks of life. His extraordinary life began in the village of Kessab in Syria in 1932. He studied at a seminary in Lebanon in the late 1940s, and entered the celibate order of the Church in 1952. A gifted student, he went on to study theology at Oxford University. Recognized for his leadership qualities, he quickly rose through the clerical ranks, leading church dioceses in Iran and the United States. In 1977 he was elected Catholicos of the Catholicosate of Cilicia, based in Antelias, Lebanon. In 1995, he was elected Supreme Catholicos of the Armenian people, based in Holy Etchmiadzin, Armenia. From July 6 to July 8, Armenia will be holding a period of national mourning in honor of this great man of faith. The Armenian people throughout the world are mourning his death and paying tribute to his extraordinary life. His remarkable legacy will endure for generations to come.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the DeWine amendment. It has been 26 years since the Supreme Court decided the case of Roe versus Wade in 1973. That landmark decision recognized a woman's fundamental constitutional right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. It removed the barriers that for generations had prevented large numbers of American women from obtaining safe and legal medical care to terminate their pregnancies. In recent years, however, the barriers blocking access to abortion have begun to be rebuilt. This amendment to ban abortion coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan is part of that unacceptable effort. Several million women currently serve the federal government in every state of the nation. Many work for modest pay and depend upon federal health benefits for all aspects of their medical care, including reproductive health services. The amendment offered today would deny those women access to a legal, medical procedure--a constitutional right--and subject them to discrimination, simply because they have chosen to work in public service. The anti-choice Republican majority in Congress has failed to undo Roe and make abortion illegal. But, they are doing insidious work to make abortion more difficult and more dangerous for the women of this country. The most important majority in America--the majority of the American people--believe in a woman's right to choose. They understand what the anti-choice leadership in the Republican Party is trying to do, and they oppose it very strongly. We must do everything we can to uphold this basic right of American women against this relentless attack. A ban on abortion coverage under the federal health plan would undermine a woman's ability to make a decision on one of the most personal, private, and difficult medical issues that will ever occur in her life. I urge my colleagues to vote against this ban, and preserve the constitutional right to choose for all women who are federal employees.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I have listened carefully to what the Senator has said. I must say, I am in total agreement with the Senator. As I understand the parliamentary situation, rather than follow the usual procedure, where we have legislation that has passed the House and the Senate, and then we go to the conference, and then the conference comes back and we have an opportunity to evaluate what was in the conference, but then we have at least some resolution to the issue, this process and this parliamentary gymnastics, which the leadership on both sides, evidently, were a part of, effectively, as I understand what the Senator is saying, if I understand the parliamentary situation, basically undermines in a very significant and important way the work that was done here in the Senate in terms of trying to help families deal with the problems of violence in their communities, violence in their schools, and also to deal with the law enforcement issue in terms of the gun show loophole. I believe I am correct, am I not, in understanding what the Senator has represented here this afternoon? Am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. I see on the floor our friend and colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, who made a gallant fight on the floor of the Senate in terms of reducing the availability and the accessibility of guns to children in this country and also to those of the criminal element. It was a hard-fought battle. The Senate expressed its will. That is the way this body should act. Now, with a parliamentary maneuver, the leadership that was strongly opposed to those provisions has been basically able, at least for the time being, to undermine what has been debated, discussed, and acted on here in the Senate. I thank the Senator from Vermont for bringing this matter to our attention. I thank, again, the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from California, both of whom I am sure share our frustration with this parliamentary maneuver. I think at some time in the Senate, a body that has a very proud tradition of permitting people to express their judgment and to make a determination to deal with public business, at some time we are going to learn the lesson that you can't constantly undermine what is the regular order, which is the reason why this body was established; that is, for Senators to be able to express their will. I think we are seeing another way and means of corrupting the purpose that the Founding Fathers intended. I think it is enormously regrettable. I assure the Senator from Vermont, we will work very closely with him to try to remedy this situation in any way that we can. I thank the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am just wondering if the Senator could give us some insight. It took us 9 days to work out an agreement with the Republican leadership in order to permit the Senate to consider what we know as the Patients' Bill of Rights when we return from the Fourth of July recess, to dispose of that. What we saw during that time was every type of parliamentary maneuver in order to deny the will of the Senate on that particular issue. Now we have, as a result of the leadership, both the majority and minority leadership, an opportunity to address those issues when we return. It seems to me we are seeing a similar effort by the leadership to deny the Senate the ability to express itself on an issue that is affecting children, an issue affecting violence in our schools and our local communities. Effectively, the rules of the Senate are being used in order to deny the Senate the reasonable chance to express itself. Is that basically the bottom line, when all is said and done; we are seeing a parliamentary maneuver to try and effectively undermine what has been the considered judgment of this body? We are being put back, effectively, to ground zero in terms of this issue?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it has been 71 days--71 days --since the tragic shooting at Columbine High School. There are 69 days left before school children in Massachusetts and other states go back to school. It is time for Congress to finish the job we began last month and pass juvenile justice legislation. Communities across America are waiting for our answer. We need to provide communities with the assistance they need to reduce youth violence. We need to help parents struggling to raise their children from birth through adolescence. We need to help teachers and school officials recognize the early warning signals and act before violence occurs. We need to assist law enforcement officers in keeping guns away from children. We need to close the gun show loophole. We need to require the sale of safety locks with all firearms. The Senate passed such legislation with overwhelming support last month. The House of Representatives passed its own version of this legislation earlier this month. It is time to appoint House and Senate conferees to write the final bill and send it to the President, so that effective legislation is in place as soon as possible. Everyday we delay, this critical problem continues to fester. Children are under assault from violence and neglect--from the break-up of families--from the temptations of alcohol, tobacco, and drug abuse-- from violence in the media. These are not new problems, but they have become increasingly serious problems, and Congress cannot look the other way and continue to ignore them. We must support youth, parents, educators, law enforcement authorities, and communities. The public overwhelmingly supports more effective steps to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and juveniles. We cannot accept ``no'' for an answer from the National Rifle Association. It is long past time for Congress to face up to this challenge. The tragedy at Columbine High School is an urgent call to action to every member of Congress. Will we finally do what it takes to keep children safe, or will we continue to sleepwalk through this worsening crisis of gun violence in our schools and our society. We have a national crisis, and common sense approaches are urgently needed. If we are serious about dealing with youth violence, the time to act is now. There is no reason why this Congress can not pass a comprehensive juvenile justice bill before the August recess. The citizens of this country deserve better than what Congress has given them so far. The lack of action is appalling and inexcusable. We cannot continue to whistle past the graveyards of Littleton and the many other communities scarred by juvenile gun violence in recent years. Each new tragedy is a fresh indictment of our failure to act responsibly.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join in sponsoring The Time for Schools Act of 1999, and I commend Senator Murray for her impressive leadership. This legislation will provide parents with much- needed assistance as they struggle to balance the needs of their children and the demands of their jobs. Six years ago, the Family and Medical Leave Act became the first bill signed into law by President Clinton. Workers covered by the law can take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave a year in order to care for a newborn or adopted child, or a seriously ill family member, and know that their jobs will be there when they get back. By any measure, the Family and Medical Leave Act has been a resounding success. Over 89 million Americans--70% of the workforce-- are covered by the law, and millions of workers have been able to take the time they need to care for their families. The vast majority of covered employers--over 90%--have found the law relatively easy to administer, according to the bipartisan Commission on Family and Medical Leave. Now it is time to take another step, and extend that success to enable parents to take up to 24 hours of unpaid family leave a year to be involved in their children's academic activities at school. I am proud that, under state law, parents in Massachusetts know they can take care of their children's school needs without losing their jobs. We should give all parents across the nation that right under federal law, too. Parents play a crucial role in their children's lives. But too often, society offers them only barriers and blame as they try to raise their children. While we hear a lot of talk about family values, the test is whether we genuinely value families. If we do, then we must adopt better policies to help working parents balance the competing demands of the workplace and their responsibility to care for their children. We know that working parents want to be more involved in their children's lives. In a study by the PTA, two-thirds of employed parents with children under 18 felt they did not have enough time to spend with their children. Forty percent felt they weren't devoting enough time to their children's education. Almost a quarter reported that attending teacher-parent conferences created problems at work. We know that involved parents increase the likelihood of a child's success at school. According to some studies, it may be the single most important factor in student learning. One study showed that the involvement of both parents in their child's school was significantly associated with the child's academic achievement. The Time for Schools Act will give working parents up to 24 hours of leave a year to participate in their children's school activities, such as attending parent-teacher conferences, taking part in classroom educational activities, or selecting the right school for their children. Responsible employers know that flexible family workplace policies mean better, more productive workers. These policies are good for families, and good for business. In 1998, survey by the Families and Work Institute reported that the overwhelming majority of employers-- 84%--agree that the benefits of family or medical leave offset the costs. The advantage of this legislation to employers are clear. A mother or father worried about how a child is doing at school is a less effective employee. The 24 hours of leave granted under this Act will be counted towards the 12 weeks of leave already provided under the Family and Medical Leave Act. In addition, workers must give employers a week's notice, except in emergencies. As a result, the legislation will have only a minimal impact on employers. The tragedies we have witnessed at schools in recent years demonstrate how important it is for parents to pay attention to how children are doing at school. When this bill becomes law, workers will know they don't have to stop being parents when they go to work. They can be good parents at school, as well as after school. Again, I commend Senator Murray for her leadership on this important measure, and I look forward to working with her to enact it as soon as possible this year.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I just want to join in expressing real reservations about the Brownback proposal that effectively would provide discretionary provisions to the President of the United States. Obviously, it has been represented by a number of those who have spoken on this issue that the U.S. does have interests in this particular part of the world. But it does seem to me, as someone who has followed this situation closely over a number of years, for the United States now to be in a position where we are seeing a significant alteration of the balance of power by taking unilateral action, rather than trying to add to a resolution of the dispute, I think, only makes it more complicated, more difficult to try to reach some real chance for peace. I think in many different parts of the world, ultimately, the people who do have responsibility, authority, and power have to be willing to come to the negotiating table and be prepared to make tough and difficult decisions. To think that the United States, by somehow changing and altering its position in terms of effectively siding with one side in this, thinks that we can really advance the cause for peace in that area, I think, is shortsighted. I think it really misunderstands the region and the historical and significant political forces at play in that region. All of us see there is a different opportunity in that part of the world currently. As we have seen the change in history in different parts of the world, whether in Northern Ireland, or perhaps even today in terms of the Middle East, or in other parts of the world, we have seen, with the change of circumstances by outside forces, progress made. But for the United States now to be in a position where it moves unilaterally in terms of its interests, I don't feel it really advances the cause of peace. There are those who have advanced different options about moving this whole political process forward, who can advance the country's interest in that part of the world in a positive and constructive way. But I fail to see how this change will advance that interest. I don't believe it does. I strongly support the position my friend and colleague, Senator Sarbanes, has mentioned. We find out now there are indirect contacts that are available and accessible. We have the private sector already engaged. There are indirect lines of support to Azerbaijan at the present time. But for the United States now to be in a position which effectively would commit itself to one side in this, after all of the various situations and the current situations, I think would be enormously counterproductive. So I certainly hope we will not take that action at this time. I don't think it is warranted. It is not justified, and I think it would be counterproductive in terms of the interests of the people in that region. There have been initiatives for the cause of peace in that part of the world. The Armenians have indicated a willingness to move that process forward, and those have been rejected, as I understand it, by the Azerbaijanis. For the U.S., under these circumstances, to be in a situation where we could effectively--and we understand what is really at the bottom of this, and that is effectively coming down on one side--I think there fails to be a persuasive argument about trying to advance this process for peace and real prosperity, and freeing that region from the kinds of tensions it has faced in the past. I hope when the Senate comes to deal with this issue, we will maintain what I think has been a sound policy in the past and, with the new initiatives out there in terms of advancing peace, try to find ways to move the process forward rather than interfering in these negotiations by favoring one side over another.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment to the Silk Road Strategy Act. I support the many worthwhile provisions in the Act, but I oppose the waiver of Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act, which was enacted by Congress in 1992. Section 907 restricts U.S. assistance to Azerbaijan because of Azerbaijan's continuing economic blockade of Armenia. This blockade has led to great suffering by the people of Armenia, who have had to endure years of shortages of vital commodities. Azerbaijan's cut off of fuel supplies had a devastating effect on Armenia's industry. Factories were unable to operate, throwing tens of thousands of people out of work. Malnutrition increased because of the shortage of food. Schools and hospitals had to shut down or operate under dire circumstances for only a few hours a day. Over the years, the humanitarian needs have been so great in Armenia. The 1988 earthquake, followed by the blockade, has resulted in continuing devastating circumstances for the people of Armenia. I can remember talking to doctors about the humanitarian needs of the Armenia people. I worked with the Department of Defense airlifting goods donated by the people of Massachusetts and other states to help alleviate the suffering. Although conditions are somewhat better today than they were a few years ago, Armenia still suffers from the effects of this blockade. It continues to obstruct Armenia's ability to import food, fuel, medicine and other important commodities and items. Unfortunately, the Silk Road Strategy Act contains no provision requiring Azerbaijan to lift this blockade as a condition of receiving additional U.S. aid. It makes no sense to reward Azerbaijan while that nation continues this inhumane blockade. Azerbaijan already receives $24 million a year in indirect U.S. assistance. Current law allows the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency to provide support to the private sector, and USAID is authorized to provide humanitarian aid and democracy-building assistance to Azerbaijan. Section 907 is an important incentive for Azerbaijan to come to the negotiating table to resolve the continuing controversy between Azerbaijan and Armenia. The amendment offered by Senator McConnell, Senator Abraham, and Senator Sarbanes will retain this essential lever of sanctions, and I urge the Senate to adopt it. Unless the waiver of Section 907 is removed, it would be a serious mistake for the Senate to approve the Silk Road Strategy Act.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the United States Conference of Mayors recently gave its ringing endorsement to an increase in the minimum wage. On June 15, at their annual conference in New Orleans, the mayors unanimously adopted a resolution calling for such an increase. The resolution was sponsored by Mayor Thomas M. Menino of Boston, who is renowned for his leadership on behalf of working families in our city, and I commend Mayor Menino for this important and constructive initiation. Thanks to the leadership of Mayor Menino, the Conference of Mayors has highlighted the needs and concerns of America's workers. The adoption of the Mayors' resolution makes it all the more important for Congress to act, and to act this year. Mayors are on the front lines at the local level. They know the day- to-day realities of the lives of working Americans. They have seen firsthand how the decrease in value of the minimum wage leaves workers unable to support their families. By next year, the real value of the minimum wage will have dropped by $2.50 an hour from its peak 30 years ago. For a generation, we have allowed the value of the minimum wage to decline unfairly at the expense of millions of hard working American men and women and their families. The unfortunate reality is that in 1999, large numbers of Americans work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, yet still can't support their families. Their wages don't enable them to put food on the table or a reasonable roof over their heads. A minimum wage worker earns $10,712 a year--$3,100 below the poverty line for a family of three. Every day, working families across the country are forced to turn to emergency food assistance to supplement their diets, and then to emergency shelters for a place to sleep. A 1998 U.S. Conference of Mayors survey found that 61% of people requesting emergency food assistance were families--parents and their children. The majority of cities also reported an increase in requests for emergency shelter by homeless parents with children. As the Mayors' survey emphasized, these are working Americans, yet they are not earning enough to make ends meet. The majority of minimum wage workers are adults struggling to achieve a decent standard of living. Instead of enabling workers to reach this goal that all families deserve, today's minimum wage tramples on that dream for a better life. Now is the time to raise the minimum wage. The country's economy is soaring to new heights and setting new records for growth and prosperity. The economy is the best in decades, and yet millions of America's hardest workers are not sharing in this prosperity. The Dow Jones Average is touching 11,000. The highest compensated CEO in 1998 was paid $117 million. But minimum wage workers still can't lift their families out of poverty. Minimum wage workers deserve better. They serve our food, take care of our children, clean our office buildings, and perform countless other basic jobs. When hard working Americans put in a full day's work year round, they deserve a fair share of the nation's prosperity. Over 11 million workers would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage. They should not have to rely on food aid or shelters. Mayor Menino and mayors across America want action, Congress should heed their call to action and raise the minimum wage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of Mayor Menino's resolution, adopted unanimously by the Conference of Mayors, be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join in sponsoring The Time for Schools Act of 1999, and I commend Senator Murray for her impressive leadership. This legislation will provide parents with much- needed assistance as they struggle to balance the needs of their children and the demands of their jobs. Six years ago, the Family and Medical Leave Act became the first bill signed into law by President Clinton. Workers covered by the law can take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave a year in order to care for a newborn or adopted child, or a seriously ill family member, and know that their jobs will be there when they get back. By any measure, the Family and Medical Leave Act has been a resounding success. Over 89 million Americans--70% of the workforce-- are covered by the law, and millions of workers have been able to take the time they need to care for their families. The vast majority of covered employers--over 90%--have found the law relatively easy to administer, according to the bipartisan Commission on Family and Medical Leave. Now it is time to take another step, and extend that success to enable parents to take up to 24 hours of unpaid family leave a year to be involved in their children's academic activities at school. I am proud that, under state law, parents in Massachusetts know they can take care of their children's school needs without losing their jobs. We should give all parents across the nation that right under federal law, too. Parents play a crucial role in their children's lives. But too often, society offers them only barriers and blame as they try to raise their children. While we hear a lot of talk about family values, the test is whether we genuinely value families. If we do, then we must adopt better policies to help working parents balance the competing demands of the workplace and their responsibility to care for their children. We know that working parents want to be more involved in their children's lives. In a study by the PTA, two-thirds of employed parents with children under 18 felt they did not have enough time to spend with their children. Forty percent felt they weren't devoting enough time to their children's education. Almost a quarter reported that attending teacher-parent conferences created problems at work. We know that involved parents increase the likelihood of a child's success at school. According to some studies, it may be the single most important factor in student learning. One study showed that the involvement of both parents in their child's school was significantly associated with the child's academic achievement. The Time for Schools Act will give working parents up to 24 hours of leave a year to participate in their children's school activities, such as attending parent-teacher conferences, taking part in classroom educational activities, or selecting the right school for their children. Responsible employers know that flexible family workplace policies mean better, more productive workers. These policies are good for families, and good for business. In 1998, survey by the Families and Work Institute reported that the overwhelming majority of employers-- 84%--agree that the benefits of family or medical leave offset the costs. The advantage of this legislation to employers are clear. A mother or father worried about how a child is doing at school is a less effective employee. The 24 hours of leave granted under this Act will be counted towards the 12 weeks of leave already provided under the Family and Medical Leave Act. In addition, workers must give employers a week's notice, except in emergencies. As a result, the legislation will have only a minimal impact on employers. The tragedies we have witnessed at schools in recent years demonstrate how important it is for parents to pay attention to how children are doing at school. When this bill becomes law, workers will know they don't have to stop being parents when they go to work. They can be good parents at school, as well as after school. Again, I commend Senator Murray for her leadership on this important measure, and I look forward to working with her to enact it as soon as possible this year.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I withdraw my objection.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join in commending the two leaders for propounding this unanimous consent request. These past days have been hard fought in establishing a procedure which would be fair and permit the opportunity for the Senate to debate fully some of the important measures I think are included in the Patients' Bill of Rights. I think the leaders have outlined a process and the Senate has been willing to accept that procedure. Both leaders do deserve credit. I want to underscore what both leaders have said; that is, we are going into this whole process on the basis of good faith. I join with the Senator from South Dakota in feeling we can do the business of the Senate on this issue in that time. But it is also preserved, if for some reason there is not the kind of constructive and positive attitude we have heard this evening, that there is going to be the denial of that opportunity, that rights will be reserved for Members to raise these issues at another time. I am hopeful we can follow what has been outlined here and in good faith have a full and fair debate on these issues. The real fireworks are going to be after the Fourth of July this year. I look forward to engaging in this debate. I again thank my leader and the majority leader for moving this whole extremely important piece of legislation to the point where it will be center stage in the Senate. I thank the leader for his efforts.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object, do I understand from the leaders we would have the normal kind of days that we have traditionally had in terms of the workings of the Senate? If the majority leader could give some indication of that.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join in this tribute to Rabbi Moshe Sherer. To all of us who knew him and worked with him, Rabbi Sherer was a great friend, a great leader, and a great champion of democracy and freedom. Rabbi Sherer was an inspiration to all of us, especially in his work on immigration and religious freedom. He worked skillfully and tirelessly to free prisoners of conscience in the former Soviet Union, to reunite divided families, and to protect freedom of religion across the globe. Even in the darkest hours of communism, Rabbi Sherer was an eloquent advocate for the right of the oppressed to leave the Soviet Union. He had an enduring belief that the freedom to emigrate to escape persecution is one of the most basic and fundamental human rights. As the President of Agudath Israel of America for over three decades, Rabbi Sherer was instrumental in developing that organization into a powerful force for justice in our nation and across the world. He inspired us all with his generous spirit of tolerance, his extraordinary knowledge and understanding, and his deep commitment to human rights and religious freedom. We are fortunate to have worked with Rabbi Sherer, and we mourn his loss. His brilliant legacy will continue to be an inspiration for future generations. We miss his leadership and we miss his friendship.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Corporation for National Service recently announced the first winners of the National Service-Learning Leader Schools program, a Presidential initiative to recognize outstanding schools for their achievements in the field of service- learning. Learn and Serve America, one of the three national service programs of the Corporation for National Service, is sponsoring the Leader Schools initiative. In this, its pilot year, the program is honoring 70 high schools in 41 states and the District of Columbia for thoughtfully and effectively integrating community service into the lives of students. The goals of the program are to promote civic responsibility, improve school and student performance, and strengthen local communities. Four schools from Massachusetts--Drury High School in North Adams, Hudson High School, Phillips Exeter Academy, and Sharon High School have been leaders in our state on service-learning, and were honored by this designation. I commend them for the important work that they have accomplished in making community service an integral part of school life. These schools are impressive models for Massachusetts and for the nation. The Leader Schools program is not simply an awards program. The schools being honored today are also making a two year commitment to help other schools include service-learning in their curriculum. In May 1996, President Clinton announced his intention to identify and honor the schools that have done the best job of encouraging, organizing, and leading the service-learning movement. He said, ``We should make service to the community a part of every high school in America and a part of the life of every dedicated citizen in the United States. Many of us have seen local service-learning programs in action and the inspiring way that students of all ages respond and work together to improve their communities. The Corporation for National Service also administers AmeriCorps, the domestic Peace Corps that is engaging over 40,000 Americans in intensive, service activities. In addition, it administers the National Senior Service Corps, which is involving nearly half a million Americans age fifty-five and older to share their time and talents to help solve local problems. These three outstanding programs are all achieving great success under the strong leadership of our former colleague in the Senate, Harris Wofford, who is the chief executive officer of the Corporation. I also commend Carol Kinsley, a member of the Corporation's Board of Directors, for her strong commitment and leadership in the field of service-learning. The dedication of citizens like Carol are contributing immensely to the success of our national service programs. I ask unanimous consent that the list of Leader Schools be printed in the Record. These seventy schools were honored in a ceremony held at the Kennedy Center last week. These schools are leaders in education reform, and I commend them for all they are doing so well for our country and its future.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just a week ago efforts were made by Members on this side of the aisle to try to encourage our Republican leadership to schedule what is known as the Patients' Bill of Rights legislation, which Senator Daschle has introduced and many of us have cosponsored. The underlying point of the Patients' Bill of Rights is very basic and simple: to make sure that medical decisions are going to be made by the trained medical professionals and the patients, and not by accountants or insurance companies. That is basically the concept behind that legislation. We have tried over the past week to have that legislation before the Senate. There are differences with the membership here on various provisions. During March of this year, we had an opportunity in our Health and Education Committee to have a discussion and debate on some of these matters, and the committee itself reported out legislation. At that time, we had more than 20 different amendments dealing with a range of different issues. Those were handled in a relatively reasonable period of time. People were familiar with the subject matter, as I think they are here in this body. We had that legislation reported out more than three months ago. I think many of us expected that, given the statements that were made by the majority leader in January of this year on several different occasions, the Patients' Bill of Rights would be brought up before the Senate by now for an opportunity to debate and discuss it. We have not had that opportunity to do so. We had hoped that was going to be the case last week when we discussed it, and we hoped, at least if we were unable at that time to have this measure actually laid down before the Senate on Tuesday or Wednesday, that the Republican leadership would indicate that we would have the chance to bring it up and debate it now. It seemed that we might have the chance to bring it up today, with the opportunity to offer amendments, and conclude the legislation by the end of the week, prior to the Fourth of July recess. In the meantime, it seemed that the Democratic leader had given strong assurances that he would do everything he possibly could in urging the Members on this side to work in every possible way to expedite the consideration of various appropriations bills. I think he spoke for all the Members--I am sure he did--on this side on this issue. There are some particular items and some of those measures that should be brought to the Senate for resolution. I thought that when he had indicated he thought it was reasonable that we could conclude a number of the appropriations bills and conclude this legislation, that was a very reasonable suggestion to the leadership. Now, Mr. President, as those who follow this issue know, this is not the first time the Senate has been effectively closed down--closed down--closed down over their refusal to consider this legislation. That is effectively what is happening here. We will have some procedural kinds of votes, but the American people ought to understand what is really happening here--that these procedural votes that we are going to have later this afternoon really have nothing to do with the underlying legislation; that is, the four different appropriations bills. It is basically an attempt by the leadership to prohibit the debate and discussion on the Patients' Bill of Rights. The American people are beginning to understand that more clearly. I found when I was back in Massachusetts over this past weekend, talking with various groups, more people are focused on this, more people are paying attention, more people are aware of what is being attempted by the Republican majority--that is, denying us the opportunity for even a reasonable debate and discussion on the Patients' Bill of Rights--than most other issues. I have taken the time of the Senate before--and I won't take it again this afternoon--to review where we were a little over a year ago. Over a year ago, we were in the exact same position. We were denied the opportunity to bring this measure up for consideration of the Senate. The Republican leadership at that time said that the Democrats were not going to dictate what the agenda will be. The only problem with that is that it isn't the Democrats who are attempting to dictate the agenda. It's the American people. It's every health care organization that has taken a position in favor of the proposal introduced by Senator Daschle and against the one introduced by Senator Frist and the Republican leadership. Virtually all leading patient and medical groups have supported the Democratic proposal, Senator Daschle's proposal. We could understand why, if we had an opportunity to actually debate these issues. These groups do not care whether Democrats or Republicans are on a piece of legislation; they just want a strong bill. And virtually every single leading medical group in our country supports ours. None support theirs. You would think that at some time in this body, on a matter that affects all of the families of this country, we would have an opportunity to have some decisionmaking and be ready to call the roll. Of course, if the ramifications weren't so serious, many of us would have been amused by the statements that were made last week by the assistant majority leader when he said: We are not going to let the Members on our side vote because their votes might be misconstrued for political purposes. That would be laughable if it did not relate to an issue as important as the Patients' Bill of Rights. Imagine a political leader saying they are refusing to permit Members to vote because their votes may be interpreted in ways which might be misconstrued. I think most of us feel that we can stand on our own two feet in facing various votes. I always appreciate their leadership in trying to protect our various interests. But we are not talking about some narrow special interests, we are talking about the people's interests. As I have mentioned before, this matter is important because it is a children's issue. Virtually every major children's health group in our country--all those that advocate for children's health--has supported and recognized the importance of our legislation in protecting the interests of children. They haven't gotten a single organization that is committed to the advancement of the interests of children on their side. We have all of them. We have all of them because of some very important reasons. One of the most obvious ones is that we insist that a child who has some special need is not only going to have a pediatrician--but is also going to have a specialist trained in the area of the particular need of that child. If the child has cancer, the child should be treated by a pediatric oncologist. A doctor that specializes in children and also children's cancer. When our colleagues on the other side say: We don't understand why the Democrats are talking about specialists because we guarantee specialists; they say, ``We guarantee that a sick child will see a pediatrician.'' But that is not the issue. The question is will a child with a specific need for specialty care have access to a pediatric specialist, meaning a pediatric cardiologist, or a pediatric surgeon, or a pediatric oncologist. Under the Republican bill, the answer is no. Under our bill, the answer is yes. This is a children's bill. The children's groups have spoken passionately, actively, and enthusiastically in support of our program. This is a women's issue. The women in this country--the groups that have specialized in women's health generally, and particularly those that have been most concerned about issues, for example, of breast cancer--know the importance of having access to OB/GYN professionals, and to be able to designate that OB/GYN as the primary care doctor for women. We have had voluminous testimony about the importance of that. It makes sense. Women also understand, particularly those who may be afflicted by the devastation of breast cancer, the importance of clinical trials. When they are talking with their doctor, and the doctor says: Well, we know that there is a clinical trial out there that can make a difference in terms of your survival. We know when that patient then asks to be enlisted in that clinical trial--and the doctor says I can't because your HMO won't permit me to do it, the HMO has overridden my judgment on that--that denying access to it is not in the health interest of that woman. It is not in the health interest of her family, and it puts her at greater risk. These are not tales. We had the testimony. We have given the examples of what is happening out there. This isn't a diminishing threat. To the contrary, the system is becoming more of a threat to women. Women understand that. This is an enormously important issue with regard to women. That is why virtually all of the major women's groups and organizations support our legislation. This legislation is also enormously important to those who have some physical or mental disability. We don't necessarily like to use the word ``disability'' because it implies that people may not be able--and we know that those who do have some challenge are able, and in many instances gifted and talented in many different ways. But they often need specialized attention, treatment, and medicine. Prescription drug formularies can deny access to critically important medications. Yet we find that, while you can always go off the particular HMO's formulary, you may have to pay exorbitant prices for the treatment. I listened to the handful of those who spoke on the other side in the period last week who said: Oh, they can always go off the formulary. Of course they can--and pay an additional arm and a leg. I think most families in this country understand what the problem is in terms of prescription drugs. They sign up for health insurance--and the HMO takes their premium--and when the time comes for them to get the kind of treatment that they need, the HMO denies it. We understand how important that is. We want to be able to debate these measures, and these matters. We had an excellent amendment by the Senator from California talking about ``medical necessity.'' Let us use the best definition in terms of ``medical necessity.'' Let's include in the various HMO plans what is going to be necessary in terms of treatment and what is going to represent the best in terms of medical practice. That seems to make sense. That is not a guarantee today. I read in the Record last week about some of the various HMOs and their definitions of what was going to be included and what was going to be excluded. Listen to what is in the Republican bill, as offered in an amendment by the majority leader last week. On page 27, it says only that HMOs have to provide a description of the definition of ``medical necessity'' used in making coverage determinations by each plan--each plan. Do we understand that? It isn't what is the best in terms of health care. It is whatever each plan decides. So any of the HMOs can effectively develop whatever they want to use as a definition for ``medical necessity.'' Your doctor might say to you: This is what the best medicine is to save your life, or your child's life, or your wife's life, or your husband's life. And the medical plan will say: No way, Joe Smith. You signed our contract. You signed that contract. And in that contract, we say that treatment is not medically necessary. Make no mistake, the Republican bill says ``a description of the definition of medical necessity'' will be a determination by your plan. That is the HMO. Come on. Don't we think this body should be able to make a decision as to whether you want the Republican plan, which on page 27, line 20, provides patients with ``a description of the definition of medical necessity used in making coverage determinations by each plan,'' or, on the other hand, you want medical decisions to be dictated by the best medical practice in the United States of America? That is what is in the Feinstein amendment. Why shouldn't we be able to have 1 hour of debate on that, and have a rollcall in here and make a decision? Where are the Republican principles? Why is it that they are denying the American people the chance to hold their elected Representatives accountable? That is what they are doing. We can't hold them accountable because the other side won't permit us to get a vote on that particular issue. That is what is going on here. We should have the chance. We will have the chance to go through that legislation. Remember all of last week they were talking about a description of ``medical necessity''--the definition of medical necessity used to make coverage determinations is decided by each such plan under the Republican leadership's bill. That ought to chill every Member of the opposite side--to think that is the position that they are stuck with. That is in their Republican bill. What we are trying to do with the amendment of the Senator from California is to change that to make sure that decisions of medical necessity will be based on the best that we have in terms of treatment, and in terms of the opinions of trained individuals and research. Let's let the American people understand who is on our side on this particular issue, and who is on the side of the insurance companies. The HMOs are fundamentally the ones that refuse to use the best medical science in terms of their definitions. This is just one example. It is a very powerful one, but I believe that if we had been able to get on this legislation last week when the Feinstein amendment was actually brought up, we would have been on the appropriations bill this week. We might have concluded several of those various appropriations bills. Instead the whole of last week has passed without any progress, and we are starting over again evidently in anticipation of this week's activity. Now, apparently, we are going to take a good part of this week just to deny the Senate the opportunity of making a judgment on whether medical decisions should be made by doctors and patients, or by HMO accountants. They won't permit a number of amendments. They won't even permit Members a chance to debate and conclude this in five days. We took 7 to 9 days on the Y2K legislation to try and deal with some anticipated problem regarding the computer industry, but we won't be able to take the few days necessary to protect the American people. I yield the floor. Cloture Motion

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see the Senator from California back on the floor prepared to offer her amendment on the pending legislation. It is an extremely important amendment. I noted that she was here yesterday morning prepared to offer the amendment, and then in the midmorning, and then at noontime, and then in the early afternoon, midafternoon, and late afternoon. I am very glad we are going to have a brief period of morning business. But, as one Senator, I hope this is really the last time we are going to have a period of morning business and that we can get on to the business and the substance of this legislation. We went through all day yesterday with continuations of morning business, and we had some 16 Members--those who are cosponsors of the Patients' Bill of Rights--who came to the floor prepared to speak on the Patients' Bill of Rights, different features of it. Many of them--I think eight of them--are actually prepared to offer amendments but were unable to do so because we were in continued morning business. I see that the Senator from California is prepared to move ahead and move this whole process forward. I think the American people want us to move ahead on this. I think it is enormously timely that we do, and particularly in the way the Senator from California intends to address the Senate. I know she will speak for herself in a few moments. We can see what happened in the last few hours among the doctors in this Nation. The American Medical Association is voting to try to come together in a way to advance, one, the quality of health care for the American consumer; and, two, to be able to deal with these economic pressures they are under from the HMOs, in order to give assurance to their patients that they are going to be able to receive the best in terms of health care. It just underlines, once again, the importance of Senator Feinstein's amendment in terms of what is going to be defined as medically necessary. That is at the heart of this whole issue on the Patients' Bill of Rights. I think we ought to be about the debate on that during the course of the day. This is a very fundamental, basic difference. I have read carefully-- and it didn't take a great deal of time--the comments of those who spoke yesterday in favor of what I call the ``patients' bill of wrongs'' being submitted by the other side, which was passed out of our Human Resource Committee. There was no real focus and attention on this fundamental and basic issue. We ought to be about it; we ought to debate it and vote on it and move ahead on other pieces of legislation. I find that it appears with the proposal--I see the Senator on her feet at the present time--I listened with great interest to the proposal made by the Republican leadership suggesting how we proceed next week on the Patients' Bill of Rights. The way I looked at their proposal that was going to be offered by the majority leader, it would effectively permit only one Democratic amendment per day and we would have only 4 days, because under the proposal they would have a first-degree amendment, a Republican amendment, and then you could have a second-degree Democratic amendment and a second-degree Republican. That would take 6 hours. Then you would have a first-degree Democrat amendment, a second-degree Republican amendment, a second-degree Democrat amendment. That is 6 more hours. That is 12 hours with one amendment. That is not the Senate, Mr. President. I don't believe that offer deserves to be accepted. We were tied up in morning business for a full day because they did not want to vote on a single proposition of whether the insurance company accountants or the medical profession ought to make the medical decisions. That is a very basic and fundamental one. This body ought to make a judgment and decision on that issue. I see the Senator from California on her feet now, and I hope that after she makes a presentation on this, we will be able to just have the opportunity to commend our colleagues to her position. I have reviewed both her statement and her amendment; it is an excellent one. With the acceptance of her amendment, it will mean that every insurance policy in this country, virtually, will establish a higher standard of treatment for the American patients, for every child, for every member of a family, and that will be the basic standard that will be used. I don't believe that the American families ought to have any less than the best. The Senator from California has an amendment to address that issue. We should listen carefully to it, and then we should move to let the Senate make a judgment on this decision. I look forward to the discussion and debate, and hopefully we can have some resolution of it. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am proud to stand with Senator Jeffords, Senator Lieberman, Congressman Frank, and Congressman Shays to announce the introduction of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1999, which has over 30 co-sponsors in the Senate and over 150 co- sponsors in the House of Representatives. Once this bill becomes law, it will ensure that all Americans have the opportunity to work without fear of reprisal because of their sexual orientation. It is the next important step for civil rights in America. This country has made great progress toward fairness and an end to bigotry in the workplace. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ensures that Americans--without regard to their race, ethnic background, gender, or religion--have the opportunity to obtain and keep a job. The Minimum Wage guarantees a basic standard of living. The Family and Medical Leave Act guarantees that working men and women can balance important family and employment responsibilities without fear of reprisal by their employer. The Americans with Disabilities Act establishes important protections for workers with disabilities. Now, Congress must take steps to achieve the same kind of fairness for gay men and lesbians who encounter blatant discrimination in the workplace. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act will accomplish that goal by prohibiting employers from using sexual orientation as a basis for hiring, firing, promotion, or compensation. The bill is important for what it does, as well as what it doesn't do. It does not require domestic partnership benefits. It does not authorize ``disparate impact'' claims. It does not apply to the Armed Services. It contains a broad exemption of religious organizations. It prohibits quotas and preferential treatment, and bars the EEOC from requiring the collection of statistical information on sexual orientation. A broad coalition of churches, businesses, and civil rights liberties organizations support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. 68 percent of Americans from all regions of the country support its passage. The American people agree that workplace discrimination is wrong, and that clear protections are needed to prevent it. Some states already have such laws, and many businesses have policies similar to our proposal. But this patchwork of protection is inadequate. A national standard is essential for the protection of this basic right. The discrimination that exists today is a stain on our democracy. David Horowitz encountered this bigotry when he applied to be an Assistant City Attorney in Mesa, Arizona. He had graduated near the top of his law school class at the University of Arizona. While employed by a private law firm, he applied for a position with the City Attorney. He was not offered a position, but he was told he was the second choice. Six months later, he was called and interviewed for another job opening. The City Attorney asked David for references and told him that, ``I only ask for references when I'm ready to make someone an offer.'' In the interview, David told the City Attorney that he was openly gay, and the tone of the interview suddenly changed. David was told that his sexual orientation posed a problem, and three weeks later he received a rejection letter. What happened to David Horowitz was wrong, but he had no recourse under State or Federal law against this blatant discrimination. No American should be denied a chance to work because of prejudices. It is long past time to close this loophole in our civil rights law, and I urge the Congress to act this year to close it.