Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. And Senator Kennedy had reauthorized that.

Mr. KENNEDY. The bill has no amendments pending at the moment.

Mr. KENNEDY. It is open for amendment; is that correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if I could ask the Chair--I appreciate the opportunity to address the Senate--what is the pending matter?

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. Under the SAMHSA program?

Mr. KENNEDY. I hope the Senator from Utah will refer specifically to what provisions in his legislation refer to mental health, because we have not been able to find them. If he has them there, I would like to hear from him on it.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will speak briefly in support of the Robb amendment. Later, I intend to participate in the debate on the Robb amendment and other provisions underlying the legislation. Over the next few days, we will have the opportunity to consider how we can best respond to the anxieties and concerns of families and children across this country. In the wake of the tragedies that have affected a number of our schools over the past few years, it is appropriate that the Senate consider violence and its impact on children and families. As we begin this debate and discussion in the Senate, we should understand that, in just a few days, we cannot develop a silver bullet capable of responding to all of the complex issues raised by the tragedies that have occurred in Colorado, Paducah, and other communities and other schools across this country. But even having noted that these are complex issues, we have to ask ourselves: Can we at least evaluate some things that have been done in the fairly recent past that have been helpful to students, that have been helpful to parents, that have been helpful to schools, and that have been helpful to communities? Quite clearly the answer to this is yes. I am not one of those who says that we don't have all the answers and, therefore, we don't have any of the answers. No one could say that, coming from the City of Boston where we have seen dramatic reduction in youth homicide and youth violence in the country. It has been within the last probably 4 years. Boston has approximately 128 schools. We had only one youth homicide involving a firearm during a 2.5 year period. As we look at the underlying bill in terms of youth violence, it is appropriate that we also look at the current record to see if there are some ideas that might be of some value and some use. I think issues dealing with the media--perhaps the various excessively violent video games and others are going to take some time, but these are issues that we must consider. We have a chance to see what has been working out there, and to see whether those efforts should be supported, perhaps enhanced, and if they can be shared in other parts of the country. That is what we are trying to do with the Robb amendment. There are two important parts to this amendment. One is to establish a resource center that will be a place where either parents or schools or school districts or communities are able to go to find out what is working in other communities around the country. It will be an evaluation of information. It will have a collection of what is working in urban areas and what is working in rural communities, and what the results have been and how communities utilize these efforts. There have been a number of efforts. Some might be particularly appropriate to Boston. Others might be different and better suited in terms of dealing with the problems in Pocatello. There may be some development of efforts that have involved law enforcement, some that have involved the schools, some that have involved the parents, some that have involved the students in terms of mentoring, programs of reconciliation. A number of different initiatives that are out there may just have some application in terms of different schools across the country, and those communities might be interested. In the Robb amendment, we have a proposal for this clearinghouse that will be a resource available to schools, a resource available to communities, a resource available to parents, a resource that will be available to students who have responsibility in their schools, a resource that will be available to the law enforcement officials. It will have other functions such as having available individuals who might be able to respond if there is an immediate danger of violence. This all makes a good deal of sense. A second provision of the Robb amendment deals with the resources that are out there within the community, within the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education. It is called the Safe Schools/Healthy Students initiative. This was developed in a nonpartisan effort to try to bring together a number of different programs that have a positive impact on reducing youth violence which the schools will be able to draw upon. This program includes aspects to develop a safe school environment, including partnerships with the local law enforcement; it includes aspects to enhance security measures for those schools where it is necessary; it includes aspects to redesign school facilities to get into smaller school units where teachers know the names of every student in the school, and every student knows the name of every teacher. We have this program being implemented in a number of different communities. In Boston it is being developed in a number of different schools. It has been tried and is being utilized in a number of different communities. It is very interesting and exciting, and we have seen positive results. Prevention programs and early intervention, in terms of alcohol and drugs--bringing in the mental health, preventive treatment and intervention services that exist in the SAMHSA program which deals with mental health and assistance and targeting help and assistance for children--have been particularly effective. We know almost a third of all the children who go to the schools in the inner city of Boston, for example, come from completely dysfunctional homes--either with substance abuse or violence, and these children are facing the most extraordinary set of circumstances. We have to understand being young, being a child, and being at school today is no picnic. They are faced with enormous challenges. We don't have, generally, health care centers in these schools; a few of them do, but not many. The importance of mental health counselors, psychologists and nurses working with the early childhood psychological, social and emotional development services have been included in the second phase of this program. This was basically the result of a very extensive review done by the Department of Justice working with HHS, and the Department of Education, and the resulting recommendations. This evaluation shows that this kind of approach, with law enforcement and the preventive aspect, has provided some very important help and assistance to the schools. I look forward to working with a number of our colleagues--Senator Boxer, Senator Schumer, Senator Durbin, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Feinstein and others--in terms of responsible ownership regarding weapons. I think that is certainly very important. We ought to expect responsibility in terms of manufacturers making safe guns. We ought to expect dealers are not going to sell to adolescents. We have to expect responsibility of parents in storing their guns separate from the ammunition. We will keep rapid automatic weapons out of the hands of children, extend the Brady bill, and include the background checks at the gun shows. We will have a chance to debate all of those. We can reduce the occasions when these violent impulses reflect themselves in the use of weapons. One of the most disturbing factors is the continued growth and explosion of youth suicides. Handguns are too easily accessible and available. We will have a chance to debate some of those issues. It comes back to the recognition that the first responsibility for all of these matters rests in the home and with the parents, or with a single parent, working to provide the guidance to children who need guidance. What we see in this chart is very disturbing, a gradual decline of the time mothers are spending with their children. This is the percentage of time parents eat dinner with their children from ages 5 to 17 every day. We see the gradual decline in terms of the time mothers are spending with their children; and also the time fathers are spending. The fact is, generally speaking, in the last 15 years there is a third less quality time being spent with parents. Some of that is the result of people working harder and working longer in order to maintain their own income, a tragic reality for those at the lower economic line that have to work one, two, or even three jobs--receiving minimum wage--in order to keep the family together. It is very difficult to see how those people are able to spend any time at all with their family. Some of that is the result of choice, some of that is out of necessity. On this chart is the percentage of parents in the home who have private talks with their children ages 5-17 almost every day. The number has been cut in half by fathers, and there is an important reduction in terms of the mothers. Again, we are talking about parental responsibilities. This is a blowup of ``A Guide To Safe Schools''. Every school in America has a copy of this particular publication. It was sent out by Secretary Riley and Secretary Reno. It contains a variety of early warning tips for the parents. It has a whole page of action steps for the students. It has suggestions for parents. It has suggestions for teachers. It has suggestions for school boards. It has a series of ideas: what to look for, what to do, early warning signs--it is enormously comprehensive. It is the result of the work of a number of different organizations that came together and spent weeks and months in developing this publication. If anyone would take the time to go through it, it has an enormous wealth of information from which those involved in schools across the country can benefit. It is a very, very instructive and positive document. It is a guide for schools, students, parents, about some of the concerns they might have. We may never fully understand the complex factors that led Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold to kill 13 members of the Columbine High School community, but there is one thing we do know--we must do more to prevent future tragedies. The deaths that have occurred at the hands of young people in Littleton, Colorado, Jonesboro, Arkansas, Pearl, Mississippi, and other communities, are national tragedies. They are also a call to action--a call that America must answer. We have a responsibility to listen to our constituents, to answer the calls for help by our children, and do more to protect the health and welfare of the nation's youth. Children may make up one-eighth of the population, but they are 100 percent of our nation's future. We know that there is no single, simple solution to this complex problem. The mindless, heartless cruelty in Littleton is symptomatic of the problems that exist in communities throughout America, and we need to find more effective ways to deal with them. This latest tragedy is another wakeup call to the nation. We have an opportunity to work together to prevent youth violence, and reduce the likelihood of future tragedies like Littleton. We can do more to make schools safer. We know that school violence is a continuing festering problem. In 1996, 5 percent of all 12th graders reported being injured with a weapon during the previous 12 months while they were at school. Another 12 percent reported that they had been injured at school in an incident that did not involve a weapon. An increasing number of students report feeling unsafe at school, and avoid one or more places at school for fear of their own safety. Clearly, children cannot learn in this kind of environment. We need to ask difficult questions about our society, the media, parenting, peer pressure, and other social forces. We have a shared responsibility as parents, teachers, role models, and concerned, caring adults, Fifty million school children are now in their formative years. We need to think about what kind of society we want these children to grow up in. In too many cases, television is raising far too many of the nation's children. On a daily basis, close to 20 percent of 9-year-olds watch 6 or more hours of television. Much of what they see is a steady stream of violence and aggression that is presented as legitimate and justified entertainment. By the time children leave elementary school, they will have seen 8,000 murders and more than 100,000 other acts of televised violence. Violent video games which glorify killing are increasingly popular. The negative influences of violent programming and violent video games are growing stronger, because positive influences--families, schools, churches, synagogues, and communities--are becoming weaker. Parents are the most important influence in their children's lives, but they are being stretched to the limit. We know the importance of strong parental guidance and support for healthy development. Spending time together is a basic ingredient for building strong parent-child relationships. Yet time together is increasingly scarce. Research indicates that parents are eating fewer meals and having fewer conversations with their children. Between 1988 and 1995, a significant drop took place in parent-child activities. Sixty-two percent of mothers reported eating dinner with their child on a daily basis in 1988, but only 55 percent reported doing so in 1995. Fifty percent of fathers ate a daily dinner with their child in 1988, but this rate dropped to 42 percent in 1995. Parents and families want to spend more time together, but there simply aren't enough hours in the day. We must pursue initiatives to give parents the opportunity to spend more time with their children, and ensure that all parents have the skills they need to be strong mentors, role models, and caregivers for their children. We should support family-friendly work policies and flexible work hours, so that parents can eat dinner with their children, and talk to their children. Yesterday, I spent time in Boston talking to students about youth violence and the tragedy in Colorado to try and get some insight into what is going on with our youth. I asked them for a show of hands of how many of them feel that their parents are too busy to talk to them-- over \3/4\ths of the students raised their hands. This is lack of communication is unacceptable and the American people agree. A recent Newsweek poll asked ``How important is it for the country to pay more attention to teenagers and their problems.'' 89 percent of those polled replied that it is very important. If we as parents are not raising our children, then we must worry about who is. In the coming days, we will have a unique opportunity to begin to reverse the culture of youth violence. There are no quick fixes to this problem--no easy solutions. We need a long-term strategy, and we must work together to find appropriate remedies. To meet this challenge, we must consider provisions that (1) promote healthy children and youth in safe communities; (2) help parents with parenting skills from birth through adolescence; (3) equip teachers and school officials with tools to intervene before violence occurs; (4) give law enforcement the tools needed to keep guns away from children; and (5) promote responsible media programming for children and youth. There are also immediate steps that we can take. Congress has a responsibility to act, to stop allowing the NRA to dictate what is right and what is wrong on guns. Surely, without threatening the activities of honest sports men and women, we can agree on ways to make it virtually impossible for angry children to get their hands on guns. We can give schools the resources and expertise they need to protect themselves, without turning classrooms into fortresses. We can make gun dealers responsible for selling guns to adolescents, and make gun owners responsible for locking up firearms in their homes. We can insist that gun manufacturers be smart enough to develop ``smart'' guns with effective child safety locks. We can do more to dry up the interstate black market in guns. We can crack down harder on assault weapons. Surely, we can take sensible steps like these to reduce the tragedy of gun violence. America does more today to regulate the safety of toy guns than real guns--and it is a national disgrace. When we see and hear what gun violence has done to the victims in Pearl, MS--West Paducah, KY--Jonesboro, AR--Edinboro, PA--Fayetteville, TN-- Springfield, OR--and now Littleton, CO, we know that action is urgently needed. Practical steps can clearly be taken to protect children more effectively from guns, and to achieve greater responsibility by gun owners, gun dealers and gun manufacturers. The greatest tragedy of the Columbine High School killings is that these earlier tragedies did not shock us enough into doing everything we can to prevent them. By refusing to learn from such tragedies, we have condemned ourselves to repeat them. How many wake-up calls will Congress and the nation continue to ignore? We can act now to provide communities and schools with more information and resources to prevent these tragedies. We can provide the training needed to recognize the daily warning signs, long before actual violence occurs. Last year the Departments of Education and Justice jointly created a ``Guide to Safe Schools--Early Warning: Timely Response.'' This guide has extensive helpful information to assist parents, children, schools, and communities in keeping children and young people safer. The guide tells what to look for, and what to do. It lists Characteristics of Schools that are Safe and Responsive for all children. It has Tips to Schools, Tips to Parents, and Tips to Children. This guide is part of an overall effort to make sure that every school in the nation has a violence prevention plan in place. This guide is available to every school, every parent, and every community leader. You can download it from the Internet if you go to www.usdoj.gov, and click on to ``early warning, timely response'' We also need to invest in services that ensure Safe Schools and Healthy Students. That means quality after-school programs, accessible mental health services for youth, and grassroots models that successfully target youth violence. Results occur when there is a cooperative effort. Boston has a remarkable program that has enabled the city to go from July 1995 to December 1997 with only one juvenile death that involved a firearm. This program works because it involves the entire community-- police and probation officers, community leaders, mental health providers, and even gang members themselves. The strategy is based on three components: (1) tough law enforcement; (2) heavy emphasis on crime prevention (including drug treatment); and (3) effective gun control. The Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative can make such initiatives a reality in many more communities. This cooperative effort by the Departments of Education, Justice, and Health and Human Services draws on the best practices of the education, law enforcement, social service, and mental health communities to achieve a realistic framework for communities to prevent youth violence. We must answer the call that children across the nation are so desperately making. We have the knowledge, the skill, and the resources to make a difference. The nation's children need us. And they need us now. We cannot afford to let them down. If we are to remain the strongest and fairest nation on earth, we must deal with these festering problems. We cannot afford to abandon children to despair and depression. We can no longer allow children to have virtually unrestricted access to guns. We must reduce the tide of violent images washing over children on a daily basis. We must lead this nation into the next century by providing a safe, secure, and gun free environment for children to grow and learn and thrive. Our mission is clear. Let us work together to save our children, and by so doing, we will save our nation too. Privilege Of The Floor Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Heather Bullock, Connie Garner, Kathleen Curran, David Goldberg, David Pollack, and Angela Williams, fellows in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor during the course of the debate.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as the Senator from Virginia has pointed out, this particular proposal reflects a total of less than a billion dollars. It will be another $722 million. It has in it the National Resource Center for School Safety and it also has the Safe Schools and Healthy Students Program. There are Members of this body who think the solution to the challenges we are facing in our schools can be solved by putting more kids in prison and keeping them there. That may be the view of some Members of this body, but it is not the view of those law enforcement officials who are working in school districts across the country who are making meaningful progress. We have not heard from those people in the Judiciary Committee because they have not been asked to testify. We ought to at least be willing to look at the results of some of the cities and communities across this country that have reduced violence, not only in schools, but in the communities and ask them what has worked. That might be a useful test around here for a change. That is just what Senator Robb and I have done. We have asked what has worked, and we have tried to make a recommendation to this body about programs that work, that are supported by students, supported by parents, supported by teachers, and supported by law enforcement officials. If this body does not want to invest in those programs, if it thinks that we can just provide more cops and they are going to provide the answers to the problems in our schools, vote this amendment down. But if you want to look at the experiences of cities and communities like we have seen in our own city of Boston where there has been only one youth homicide with a gun in the last 2\1/2\ years in 128 schools--that is the record--these are the programs that are working. It is very easy to listen to our colleagues talk about bureaucracy, saying: we don't want to have programs; we don't want to deal with all these other issues; let's just throw them in jail and throw away the key. One of the most profound comments I heard yesterday in the Jeremiah Berg School in Boston, MA, is one of common sense and one that everybody in this body understands: You either pay for it early on or you pay for it later on. That is the question: Are we going to support those programs that are tried and tested and are working in our schools and working in our communities, or are we going to say, no, we are just going to dismiss them because they deal with mental health, because they deal with violence protection, because they deal with mediation, because they deal with things that are happening in schools that can make a difference in reducing violence. The proposal we have offered, with the Leahy proposal and the one that Senator Robb has suggested, tries to combine those programs that are going to be effective in law enforcement, as well as those that are going to be supporting children. I have heard a number of young people in the last several days say, ``We are not interested in someone telling us and yelling at us. We want parents and we want our teachers to talk with us, to listen to us and to give us an opportunity to work with counselors to provide for some of the needs of people in our schools and in our communities.'' This particular amendment is targeted. It is based on an evaluation of programs that are working. The Safe Schools and Healthy Students Program provides for 50 school districts. We have expanded it to 200. I think we can expand it further. One may say, why 200? Because that is the judgment we made based upon the quality of applications we have had in the Justice Department. That is how we reached these figures. I reject the arguments made by the Senator from Utah about this program. I reject the suggestion that we are going to solve all these problems just by law enforcement alone, because that is the alternative. I think that is a viewpoint that has been demonstrated to be a vacant attitude based upon where the progress has been made in recent times in the communities that have done something about youth violence. I hope we will accept the Robb amendment. I withhold the time. How much time do we have?

Mr. KENNEDY. How do you think we administer SAMHSA? We are using existing programs. We are not creating new programs. This is the SAMHSA authorization, SAMHSA funding.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with all respect to my friend and colleague, I do not believe that the Senator from Utah can decide if Senator Robb's amendment can be brought up. It is my understanding that Senator Robb is perfectly entitled to bring it up.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am having difficulty hearing my colleague and friend.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join with my friends and colleagues, the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Roth; and the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords; and my colleague from New York, Mr. Moynihan, in urging the Senate to move ahead with this excellent piece of legislation which has been described by the Senator from Delaware and which I will summarize at the conclusion of my remarks. Once in a while the Members of this body get together and try to exercise a judgment which is going to have an important and dramatic impact on improving the quality of life of the people of this country. This is such an undertaking. The reason it is so powerful is because it reflects the best judgment of the disability community in its entirety--not only those who are affected by some particular kind of challenge--it has the input of parents; it has the input of the medical profession, both the doctors, nurses and the caretakers; it has the input of those who have worked in this field for many, many years. It is the result of the extraordinary work over a period of some 18 months, tireless work of the members of the community--not Democrat or Republican, not just the four of us here today, but so many others on our committees and off our committees who are so strongly committed toward providing this kind of opportunity for those who have a disability to participate in the economy in our country. This body took monumental steps a number of years ago when we passed the Americans With Disabilities Act. However, we were reminded after the passage of that act that we were no longer going to permit discrimination against those with disabilities in our country, those who had the ability to be able to perform in the areas of employment. That was a major, major step forward. What we found out very quickly is that there was another barrier for those who had disabilities. That was the fact that if individuals who had disabilities could work, wanted to work, were able to gain entry into the employment in the country, they were going to lose because of the cutoff in terms of cash payments or lose, in terms of their medical health and assistance, the kind of help and assistance in terms of health care and in terms of their income that would put them at enormous risk. What was worked out in this amendment and in this legislation understands that. That effectively says to those who have a disability or a challenge that they can go on out and be a part of the American dream, a part of the American economy, and that we are working in a process that will continue to make the health insurance available and affordable when a disabled person goes to work or develops a significant disability while working, and it will gradually phase out the loss of cash payments as the incomes rise, instead of the unfair sudden cutoff which so many workers with disabilities face today. It will give people with the disabilities greater access to the services they need to become successfully employed. I think many in this body and across the country think that ``disabled'' applies to individuals who are born with some disability. In fact, this occurs in only about 15 percent of those who are disabled. This is a challenge that is out there every single day, for every member of this body, for every citizen in this country. We are an accident away from having the kind of physical or mental challenge where we could even be affected or impacted by this legislation. Just look at the number of people in the workforce every single year who experience hazards and difficulties. Accidents happen. This is not just dealing with something in the past, this is something about America today and America in the future. We have the expanding economy, the growing economy which is offering such hope and opportunity for millions of Americans with the exception of those who have some kind of disability. With this legislation, we are guaranteeing now for the first time, one, that they will not be discriminated against in terms of employment; second, that they will be able to get the training, be able to gain the employment, and be able to have useful, productive, and contributing lives and be part of the whole process and system. That is the kind of opportunity this legislation means for so many of our citizens. I thank all who have been a part of this, including the leadership of Senator Jeffords, who has been strongly committed to this legislation, and our Human Resource Committee, that has worked so hard in the development of the legislation, so many of the other members of our committee, Republican and Democrat alike, and to the members of the Finance Committee, the chairman, who I have mentioned--Senator Roth, who has been enormously committed to it--and our colleague and friend, Senator Moynihan. This has passed virtually unanimously in our Human Resources Committee, it has that degree of support; and 16 to 2 in the Finance Committee. We ought to be about the business of calling this legislation up, considering it and passing it. Every day that goes by we are denying these opportunities to individuals; every day, every week, every month that goes by. We have been through the legislative process. I daresay the four of us are prepared to agree, as we have uniquely so in other situations, on sort of a ``no amendment'' strategy. We feel, since we have tried to gain input from so many of those who have been involved in this process, this legislation could pass in a relatively short time, in the time of a couple of hours, and still it would reflect the best judgment of so many of those in so many different parts of the country. We are strongly committed. With the overwhelming support we have, 73 Members reflecting every possible viewpoint in the Senate, and the overwhelming need, this is legislation that needs to pass, should pass, must pass. I hope we can do it in the next few days. It should not take much time. The disability community deserves it. Mr. President, to reiterate, I strongly support the Work Incentives Improvement Act, and I urge Senator Lott to bring the bill to the floor and allow the Senate to complete action on this important bipartisan legislation before the Memorial Day recess. Last month, under the impressive leadership of Senator Roth and Senator Moynihan, the act passed in the Senate Finance Committee by a 16-2 vote. Today, 75 Members of the Senate stand behind this bill, which removes the barriers that present so many of our citizens with disabilities from living independent and productive lives. As former Majority Senator Bob Dole stated in his eloquent testimony to the Finance Committee, ``this is about people going to work--it is about dignity and opportunity and all the things we talk about, when we talk about being an American.'' We know that a large proportion of the 54 million disabled men and women in this country want to work and are able to work. But they are denied the opportunity to do so. Removing barriers to work will help disabled Americans to achieve self-sufficiency. It will also contribute to preserving the Social Security Disability Trust Fund. For too long, Americans with disabilities have faced unfair penalties if the take jobs and go to work. They are in danger of losing their medical coverage, which could mean the difference between life and death. They are in danger of losing their cash benefits, even if they earn only modest amounts from work. Too often, they face the harsh choice between buying a decent meal and buying their medication. The Work Incentive Improvement Act will remove these unfair barriers facing people with disabilities who want to work. It will continue to make health insurance available and affordable when a disabled person goes to work, or develops a significant disability while working. It will gradually phase out the loss of cash benefits as income rises--instead of the unfair sudden cut-off that so many workers with disabilities face today. It will give people with disabilities greater access to the services they need to become successfully employed. Many leaders in communities throughout the country have worked long and hard and well to help us reach this milestone. They are consumers, family members, citizens, and advocates. They see everyday that the current job programs for people with disabilities are failing them and forcing them into poverty. They have spent many months helping to develop effective ways to right that wrong. And to all of them I say, thank you for helping us to prepare this needed legislation. it truly represents legislation of the people, by the people and for the people. When we think of citizens with disabilities, we tend to think of men and women and children who are disabled from birth. But fewer than 15 percent of all people with disabilities are born with their disabilities. A bicycle accident or a serious fall or a serious illness can disable the healthiest and most physically capable person. This legislation is important because it offers a lifeline to large numbers of our fellow citizens. A disability need not end the American dream. That was the promise of the Americans With Disabilities Act a decade ago, and this legislation dramatically strengthens our commitment to that promise. We know that disabled citizens are not unable. Our goal in this legislation is to reform and improve the existing disability programs, so that they do more to encourage and support every disabled person's dream to work and live independently, and be a productive and contributing member of their community. That goal should be the birthright of all Americans--and when we say all, we mean all. The road to economic prosperity and the right to a decent wage must be more accessible to all Americans. That is our goal in this legislation. For too long, our fellow disabled citizens have been left out and left behind. This bill is the right thing to do, and it is the cost effective thing to do. And now is the time to do it. I especially commend Senators Jeffords, Senator Roth, and Senator Moynihan for their bipartisan leadership on this legislation. Now is the time to enact this long overdue legislation and free up the enterprise, creativity, and dreams of millions of fellow Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, we are introducing a bill to bring mental health and substance abuse treatment services into the next century. I commend Senator Frist for his effective leadership on this issue. We have worked closely together on this important legislation to define the types of mental health and substance abuse treatment and services research that deserve to be funded, and to improve the process of accountability for clinical outcomes. The bill also contains a number of provisions to address the alarming increase in violence in our schools and communities and the traumatic consequences of such violence. The legislation emphasizes a number of programs to prevent and reduce the impact of mental disorders and substance abuse in children and adolescents. The tragic events in Colorado earlier this month are a reminder of how much more we need to help families, to protect children, and to make our schools and communities safer. This legislation provides new support for children who are witnesses and survivors of domestic and community violence. Too often, these children are at great risk for long term psychological problems, including developmental delays, psychiatric symptoms such as anxiety or depression, and even the risk that these traumatized individuals will grow up to become perpetrators of violence themselves. Another major feature of this bill is the attempt to address a number of concerns that were not apparent when we established the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration in 1992. We need to do more to help states identify the kinds of assistance that are most relevant to the persons they are currently serving and to do so in the most efficient and effective ways. Our bill accomplishes this by streamlining the services, and helps assure that the right services are going to those who most need them. We also intend to address the needs of persons with both mental disorders and substance abuse. We must give greater priority to programs that support the mental health and substance abuse treatment needs of patients in primary care clinics. I look forward to working closely with my colleagues to enact this legislation. We know that we can deal more effectively with the serious problems of substance abuse and mental illness, and enable far more of our fellow citizens to lead fulfilling and productive lives. Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Tennessee, Senator Frist, in introducing the ``Youth Drug and Community-Based Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Act.'' I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation that will reauthorize the very important work conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). I want to commend Senator Frist for his valuable leadership in this effort. Substance abuse affects us all. Many of us have a close friend or family member who is a substance abuser or living in recovery, and persons with mental illness continue to needlessly face obstacles to their successful treatment that can, and should be eliminated. SAMHSA's role is to improve access to quality mental health and substance abuse services in the nation. It carries out this responsibility to the tremendous advantage of States, local governments, and communities across the nation. This reauthorization bill will improve access and reduce barriers to high quality, effective programs and services for individuals who suffer from, or are at risk for, substance abuse or mental illness, as well as for their families and communities. It strengthens SAMHSA's national leadership in ensuring that knowledge, based on science and state-of-the-art practice, is effectively used for the prevention and treatment of addictive and mental disorders. SAMHSA fosters Federal-State partnerships by supporting State and local community mental health and substance abuse programs. SAMHSA's budget of $2.3 billion is distributed through grants to states, local communities, private organizations, and schools. This reauthorization will increase flexibility for the States and for the Secretary in the provision of these services. This bill will repeal and/or make optional several existing requirements, and instead allows the States to use the grant funds to better serve their particular mental health and substance abuse populations. It dramatically reduces the administrative burden of federal mandates and allows the States greater flexibility to coordinate programs to develop a seamless system of care. This flexibility necessitates a need for increased accountability. This bill improves the way States are held accountable for their use of Federal funds. Under the current system, States are required to spend certain amounts on certain populations and their success is determined on whether they have spent the required amount of funds. Not on whether they are accomplishing program goals. We will change these programs to focus on performance and results as Congress has done with other programs. I would now like to speak about what I see as the most important provisions of this bill. The first is the Title I provisions relating to services for children and adolescents. It is critical that we focus on treatment for youth. The substance abuse treatment system in this country is focused primarily on adult addicts. A system of care for adolescents is not routinely available. And yet the statistics show that adolescents are more frequently using drugs than they did five years ago. This reauthorization facilitates a system of care that addresses their needs. The events of Littleton, Colorado have made us all keenly aware of the mental health of children in dealing with violence. The provision on Children and Violence in this bill pulls together the abilities of the Departments of Health and Human Resources, Education and Justice to support programs to address children and violence issues at the community levels. Mental health professionals, educators, and law enforcement officials can collaborate so that at-risk youths with disorders can be diagnosed early and moved into the proper treatment setting. School districts will implement the wide range of early childhood development, early intervention and prevention, and mental health treatment services that appear to have the greatest likelihood of preventing violence among children. To ensure the availability of funding for emergencies, the bill establishes an emergency response fund to allow the federal government to support communities which have experienced trauma due to teen violence. To help youth and adolescents cope with violence and emergency crises, the bill establishes grants for developing knowledge with regard to best practices for treating psychiatric disorders resulting from emergency crisis. This is an approach that I understand is supported by both the research and service communities. It makes sense to me and I know that such programs will be helpful in every community in America. I must also point out that this bill includes the formula compromise included in last years's omnibus appropriations bill for the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant funds. This is an issue of paramount importance to small and rural states, and I am pleased that this legislation ratifies last year's agreement. Mr. President, this is an important bill that will greatly improve the quality of substance abuse and mental health treatment in this nation. I look forward to considering this bill in the near future in committee, and then I hope it will receive the full attention of the Senate. I would like to once again thank Senator Frist for putting so much time and effort into crafting legislation that will benefit so many American families.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join in commending our colleague from Delaware on reaching this major milestone in his brilliant Senate career. For nearly three decades, he has done an outstanding job serving the people of Delaware and the Nation in the Senate. He has been an effective leader on a wide range of issues in both domestic policy and foreign policy. It has been a special privilege for me to serve with our distinguished colleague on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I particularly commend his leadership over the past quarter century on the many law enforcement challenges facing the nation. It is a privilege to serve with Senator Biden--and I am sure he will compile an equally outstanding record on his next 10,000 votes.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, we are introducing a bill to bring mental health and substance abuse treatment services into the next century. I commend Senator Frist for his effective leadership on this issue. We have worked closely together on this important legislation to define the types of mental health and substance abuse treatment and services research that deserve to be funded, and to improve the process of accountability for clinical outcomes. The bill also contains a number of provisions to address the alarming increase in violence in our schools and communities and the traumatic consequences of such violence. The legislation emphasizes a number of programs to prevent and reduce the impact of mental disorders and substance abuse in children and adolescents. The tragic events in Colorado earlier this month are a reminder of how much more we need to help families, to protect children, and to make our schools and communities safer. This legislation provides new support for children who are witnesses and survivors of domestic and community violence. Too often, these children are at great risk for long term psychological problems, including developmental delays, psychiatric symptoms such as anxiety or depression, and even the risk that these traumatized individuals will grow up to become perpetrators of violence themselves. Another major feature of this bill is the attempt to address a number of concerns that were not apparent when we established the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration in 1992. We need to do more to help states identify the kinds of assistance that are most relevant to the persons they are currently serving and to do so in the most efficient and effective ways. Our bill accomplishes this by streamlining the services, and helps assure that the right services are going to those who most need them. We also intend to address the needs of persons with both mental disorders and substance abuse. We must give greater priority to programs that support the mental health and substance abuse treatment needs of patients in primary care clinics. I look forward to working closely with my colleagues to enact this legislation. We know that we can deal more effectively with the serious problems of substance abuse and mental illness, and enable far more of our fellow citizens to lead fulfilling and productive lives. Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Tennessee, Senator Frist, in introducing the ``Youth Drug and Community-Based Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Act.'' I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation that will reauthorize the very important work conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). I want to commend Senator Frist for his valuable leadership in this effort. Substance abuse affects us all. Many of us have a close friend or family member who is a substance abuser or living in recovery, and persons with mental illness continue to needlessly face obstacles to their successful treatment that can, and should be eliminated. SAMHSA's role is to improve access to quality mental health and substance abuse services in the nation. It carries out this responsibility to the tremendous advantage of States, local governments, and communities across the nation. This reauthorization bill will improve access and reduce barriers to high quality, effective programs and services for individuals who suffer from, or are at risk for, substance abuse or mental illness, as well as for their families and communities. It strengthens SAMHSA's national leadership in ensuring that knowledge, based on science and state-of-the-art practice, is effectively used for the prevention and treatment of addictive and mental disorders. SAMHSA fosters Federal-State partnerships by supporting State and local community mental health and substance abuse programs. SAMHSA's budget of $2.3 billion is distributed through grants to states, local communities, private organizations, and schools. This reauthorization will increase flexibility for the States and for the Secretary in the provision of these services. This bill will repeal and/or make optional several existing requirements, and instead allows the States to use the grant funds to better serve their particular mental health and substance abuse populations. It dramatically reduces the administrative burden of federal mandates and allows the States greater flexibility to coordinate programs to develop a seamless system of care. This flexibility necessitates a need for increased accountability. This bill improves the way States are held accountable for their use of Federal funds. Under the current system, States are required to spend certain amounts on certain populations and their success is determined on whether they have spent the required amount of funds. Not on whether they are accomplishing program goals. We will change these programs to focus on performance and results as Congress has done with other programs. I would now like to speak about what I see as the most important provisions of this bill. The first is the Title I provisions relating to services for children and adolescents. It is critical that we focus on treatment for youth. The substance abuse treatment system in this country is focused primarily on adult addicts. A system of care for adolescents is not routinely available. And yet the statistics show that adolescents are more frequently using drugs than they did five years ago. This reauthorization facilitates a system of care that addresses their needs. The events of Littleton, Colorado have made us all keenly aware of the mental health of children in dealing with violence. The provision on Children and Violence in this bill pulls together the abilities of the Departments of Health and Human Resources, Education and Justice to support programs to address children and violence issues at the community levels. Mental health professionals, educators, and law enforcement officials can collaborate so that at-risk youths with disorders can be diagnosed early and moved into the proper treatment setting. School districts will implement the wide range of early childhood development, early intervention and prevention, and mental health treatment services that appear to have the greatest likelihood of preventing violence among children. To ensure the availability of funding for emergencies, the bill establishes an emergency response fund to allow the federal government to support communities which have experienced trauma due to teen violence. To help youth and adolescents cope with violence and emergency crises, the bill establishes grants for developing knowledge with regard to best practices for treating psychiatric disorders resulting from emergency crisis. This is an approach that I understand is supported by both the research and service communities. It makes sense to me and I know that such programs will be helpful in every community in America. I must also point out that this bill includes the formula compromise included in last years's omnibus appropriations bill for the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant funds. This is an issue of paramount importance to small and rural states, and I am pleased that this legislation ratifies last year's agreement. Mr. President, this is an important bill that will greatly improve the quality of substance abuse and mental health treatment in this nation. I look forward to considering this bill in the near future in committee, and then I hope it will receive the full attention of the Senate. I would like to once again thank Senator Frist for putting so much time and effort into crafting legislation that will benefit so many American families.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the combination of Medicare payment cuts and the growth of managed care has become a devastating one-two punch against many of the nation's most respected academic health centers. A front-page article in today's New York Times documents what is happening. Teaching hospitals across the country are losing money and facing the prospect of cutting back the research, the teaching and training, and the advanced medical care that have made American medicine the envy of the world. These centers are also major safety-net institutions that provide extensive care for the uninsured. Every American depends for quality health care on doctors trained in the nation's teaching hospitals. Research conducted at these hospitals is the basis for much of the astounding progress that we are making in medical science, and these institutions are indispensable in bringing advances in the laboratory to the bedside of the patient. For the most serious and intractable illnesses, teaching hospitals are the caregivers of last resort. They have the newest and most sophisticated equipment. The physicians who practice there are on the cutting edge of new treatments, and they see the largest number of such cases. It would be an American tragedy if, as a result of short-sighted Medicare payment policies and equally short-sighted pressures for HMO profits, academic health centers are forced to close their doors or to curtail the research, training, and advanced care that make them such indispensable components of modern American health care. I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times article be printed in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to review it carefully. It is becoming increasingly clear that this Congress has an obligation to act before irreparable damage is done to these essential institutions.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, one of America's greatest leaders for our cities and metropolitan areas over the past half century has been Robert C. Wood. All of us who know Bob Wood have enormous respect for his ability, his leadership, and his brilliant service to the country. He was an outstanding Under Secretary and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for President Lyndon Johnson in the 1960's, and he pioneered the development of many of the nation's most important programs to enhance the vitality of our cities and improve the quality of life in metropolitan areas across the country. In Massachusetts, we have special respect and affection for Bob Wood because of all that he has done for our state, especially for his service as a past chairman of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority and as a past Superintendent of the Boston Public Schools, and also for his brilliant academic leadership both at M.I.T. and the University of Massachusetts. In an excellent column by Martin F. Nolan in yesterday's Boston Globe, Bob Wood reflected on his remarkable career of service to Massachusetts and the nation. I believe the column will be of interest to all of us in Congress who know and admire Bob, and I ask that it be printed in the Record. The article follows. [From the Boston Globe, May 5, 1999] A Thinker and a Doer on America's Cities (By Martin F. Nolan) When he first put his ideas into practice, America was asking, ``Can cities be saved?'' That question today would sound preposterous during reflections on a 50-year career in public service from an eyrie high above Boston Harbor, where piers once rotted and urban dreams died. ``Cities were written off too soon,'' says Bob Wood. ``Their commonality with suburbs is increasing, and people are realizing that a strategy against sprawl is not a direct assault on local governments.'' Battling sprawl is nothing new for Wood. When President Lyndon Johnson created task forces on housing and urban policy in 1964, ``Charlie Haar and I flew down every Saturday morning at 7:30. He headed the president's task force on environment, and I was chairman of the task force on urban problems, so we became very good friends during those weekends. He became assistant secretary of metropolitan development and I became the first undersecretary of housing and urban development.'' Wood later became HUD secretary. In the Great Society's efforts to save American cities, Cambridge played a major role. Haar taught at Harvard Law School, and Wood was the first chairman of the political science department at MIT. ``Sprawl was recognized in the '60s legislation,'' he recalls. ``The idea of metropolitan development was to go hand in hand with urban renewal and what we were doing with the Model Cities program. It was explicit, but given Vietnam and the budget, we couldn't fund it and do well. We only did pieces of it.'' ``Vietnam took so much energy, time, money, and political capital,'' Wood remembers. Next week, when Lady Bird Johnson will be hostess at a Texas reunion of LBJ's Cabinet, Wood will not be eager to greet former Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara ``and the rest of `the best and the brightest.' '' Wood sees similarities between Vietnam then and Yugoslavia today: ``It's underclared, slowly escalating, with an assumption of falling dominoes.'' Wood does not praise President Clinton or Vice President Gore for tackling sprawl, crediting economic forces with highlighting the problem: ``The Clinton administration had no real interest in tough decisions on urban issues or any other. Clinton took his polls from Dick Morris. But the country grew faster than predicted, and the cost of suburban development in housing, schools, and land became increasingly high. In the `80s, the recession had killed building development. In the '90s, with prosperity, people are building mansions in the suburbs. Overwhelmingly, political power is in the suburbs.'' In 1958, long before he moved from Lincoln to the Boston waterfront, Wood popularized ``Suburbia'' with a book by that title in which he wrote that ``transportation is the central reality of the metropolitan community.'' After his tensure at HUD he got a chance to put his ideas into action locally. ``When I can back from working for LBJ and got declared a war criminal by students at MIT, Governor Frank Sargent thought it would be a good idea for me to be chairman of the MBTA. It seemed a natural,'' he says. One of his proudest achievements is ``the basic transformation of Somerville. Because of the Red Line extension, we got Davis Square as we know it. That's why Tufts is blossoming and why Somerville is where grad students from Harvard and elsewhere settle. That's what transit can do. It happened in Quincy, too.'' Wood has also been Boston school superintendent and president of the University of Massachusetts. A graduate of Princeton with degrees from Harvard, he was also director of Joint Center for Urban Studies at Harvard and MIT. In 1949, this veteran of the 76th Army Infantry Division in World War II became associate director of Florida's Legislative Reference Bureau. He got to know and like politicians, which is why Robert Coldwell Wood, at 75, is unsurpassed as a thinker and a doer.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, John Hume's career is surely one of the most distinguished in Irish history, or in any nation's history, and all of us in America who care about Ireland are greatly in his debt. Last week, this distinguished leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party celebrated 30 years of public service. His accomplishments are many, as was recognized last year when he shared the Nobel Peace Prize for extraordinary leadership in producing the Good Friday Peace Agreement. One detail about that prize speaks volumes about John Hume-- he donated the entire cash prize to charities in Northern Ireland. I welcome this opportunity to extend my warmest congratulations to John Hume on his 30 years of service to peace and the people of Northern Ireland, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from the Irish Times of April 29 on the celebration in Belfast last week of his brilliant service. There being no objection; the article was ordered to be printed in

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, Senator Leahy and I are introducing the Crime Victims Assistance Act. For too long, our criminal justice system has neglected the hundreds of thousands of victims of crime whose lives are shattered by violence or threats of violence each year. Clearly, the rights of victims deserve better from our criminal justice system. Too often, the system does not provide adequate relief for victims of crime. They are not given basic information about their case--such as the status of the case, scheduling changes in court proceedings, and notice of a defendant's arrest, bail status and release from prison. Victims deserve to know about their case. They deserve to know about hearings and other court proceedings. They deserve to know when their assailants are being considered for parole. And they certainly deserve to know when their attackers are released from incarceration. But there is a right way and a wrong way to protect victims' rights. The wrong way is to amend the Constitution. One of the guiding principles that has served the nation well for two hundred years is that if it is not necessary to amend the Constitution, it is necessary not to amend it. We have amended the Constitution only 17 times in the two centuries since the adoption of the Bill of Rights. We should consider such amendments only in rare instances, when the enactment of a statute is clearly inadequate. The right way to protect victims' rights is by statute, not by constitutional amendment. One of the most obvious provisions of such a statute is additional resources for courts and prosecutors. These resources can be used to establish better notification, provide better training to deal with victims' needs, and to take all the other steps required to see that the criminal justice system deals fairly with the victims of crime. If Congress is truly committed to victims rights, we can act quickly by statute. Senator Leahy and I are proposing a victims rights statute--not a constitutional amendment, because we believe it accomplishes the needed goals. It provides protection for victims now--this year. We do not have to wait for a constitutional amendment that may take years for the States to ratify. Chief Justice Rehnquist also opposes amending the Constitution. He has specifically stated that a statute, rather than a constitutional amendment, ``would have the virtue of making any provisions in the bill which appeared mistaken by hindsight to be amended by a simple act of Congress.'' Crime victims must be treated with dignity, compassion and understanding. Being victimized by crime is traumatic enough. We must do all we can to see that victims of crime are not victimized again by the criminal justice system. At the federal level, the system has become more victim friendly. I am proud to have sponsored the Sentencing Reform Act of 1994, which vastly expanded the authority of the courts to order defendants to pay restitution to the victims. Subsequent laws have given victims the right to be heard at sentencing. This legislation we are introducing today assures victims of a greater voice in decisions on the detention and prosecution of criminals. It contains a series of provisions to assist victims of state crimes, and to ensure that victims participate in the criminal justice process to the maximum extent. For example, it provides grants to fund victim- witness advocate positions. It provides training for judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement. It establishes our ombudsman programs. Legislation on victims' rights deserves high priority in this Congress. I urge the Senate to act swiftly to accomplish the goal we share of genuine protections for victims rights.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, Senator Leahy and I are introducing the Crime Victims Assistance Act. For too long, our criminal justice system has neglected the hundreds of thousands of victims of crime whose lives are shattered by violence or threats of violence each year. Clearly, the rights of victims deserve better from our criminal justice system. Too often, the system does not provide adequate relief for victims of crime. They are not given basic information about their case--such as the status of the case, scheduling changes in court proceedings, and notice of a defendant's arrest, bail status and release from prison. Victims deserve to know about their case. They deserve to know about hearings and other court proceedings. They deserve to know when their assailants are being considered for parole. And they certainly deserve to know when their attackers are released from incarceration. But there is a right way and a wrong way to protect victims' rights. The wrong way is to amend the Constitution. One of the guiding principles that has served the nation well for two hundred years is that if it is not necessary to amend the Constitution, it is necessary not to amend it. We have amended the Constitution only 17 times in the two centuries since the adoption of the Bill of Rights. We should consider such amendments only in rare instances, when the enactment of a statute is clearly inadequate. The right way to protect victims' rights is by statute, not by constitutional amendment. One of the most obvious provisions of such a statute is additional resources for courts and prosecutors. These resources can be used to establish better notification, provide better training to deal with victims' needs, and to take all the other steps required to see that the criminal justice system deals fairly with the victims of crime. If Congress is truly committed to victims rights, we can act quickly by statute. Senator Leahy and I are proposing a victims rights statute--not a constitutional amendment, because we believe it accomplishes the needed goals. It provides protection for victims now--this year. We do not have to wait for a constitutional amendment that may take years for the States to ratify. Chief Justice Rehnquist also opposes amending the Constitution. He has specifically stated that a statute, rather than a constitutional amendment, ``would have the virtue of making any provisions in the bill which appeared mistaken by hindsight to be amended by a simple act of Congress.'' Crime victims must be treated with dignity, compassion and understanding. Being victimized by crime is traumatic enough. We must do all we can to see that victims of crime are not victimized again by the criminal justice system. At the federal level, the system has become more victim friendly. I am proud to have sponsored the Sentencing Reform Act of 1994, which vastly expanded the authority of the courts to order defendants to pay restitution to the victims. Subsequent laws have given victims the right to be heard at sentencing. This legislation we are introducing today assures victims of a greater voice in decisions on the detention and prosecution of criminals. It contains a series of provisions to assist victims of state crimes, and to ensure that victims participate in the criminal justice process to the maximum extent. For example, it provides grants to fund victim- witness advocate positions. It provides training for judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement. It establishes our ombudsman programs. Legislation on victims' rights deserves high priority in this Congress. I urge the Senate to act swiftly to accomplish the goal we share of genuine protections for victims rights.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Republican ``lockbox'' proposal is deeply flawed, and does not deserve to be adopted. It does nothing to extend the life of the Social Security Trust Fund for future beneficiaries. In fact, it would do just the reverse. This legislation actually places Social Security at greater risk than it is today. It would allow payroll tax dollars that belong to Social Security to be spent instead on risky privatization schemes. And, because of the harsh debt ceiling limits it would impose, this plan could produce a governmental shutdown that would jeopardize the timely payment of Social Security benefits to current recipients. It is time to look behind the rhetoric of the proponents of the ``lockbox.'' Their statements convey the impression that they have taken a major step toward protecting Social Security. In truth, they have done nothing to strengthen Social Security. Their proposal would not provide even one additional dollar to pay benefits to future retirees. Nor would it extend the solvency of the Trust Fund by even one more day. It merely recommits to Social Security those dollars which already belong to the Trust Fund under current law. At best, that is all their so-called ``lockbox'' would do. By contrast, President Clinton's proposed budget would contribute 2.8 trillion new dollars of the surplus to Social Security over the next 15 years. By doing so, the President's budget would extend the life of the Trust Fund by more than a generation, to beyond 2050. There is a fundamental difference between the parties over what to do with the savings which will result from using the surplus for debt reduction. The Federal Government will realize enormous savings from paying down the debt. As a result, billions of dollars that would have been required to pay interest on the national debt will become available each year for other purposes. President Clinton believes those debt savings should be used to strengthen Social Security. Since it is payroll tax revenues which make the debt reduction possible, those savings should in turn be used to strengthen Social Security. I wholeheartedly agree. It is an eminently reasonable plan. But Republican Members of Congress oppose it. Not only does the Republican plan fail to provide any new resources to fund Social Security benefits for future retirees, it does not even effectively guarantee that existing payroll tax revenues will be used to pay Social Security benefits. They have deliberately built a trapdoor in their ``lockbox.'' Their plan would allow Social Security payroll taxes to be used instead to finance unspecified ``reform'' plans. This loophole opens the door to risky schemes to finance private retirement accounts at the expense of Social Security's guaranteed benefits. If these dollars are expended on private accounts, there will be nothing left for debt reduction, and no new resources to fund future Social Security benefits. Such a privatization plan could actually make Social Security's financial picture far worse than it is today, necessitating deep benefit cuts in the future. A genuine ``lockbox'' would prevent any such diversion of funds. A genuine ``lockbox'' would guarantee that those payroll tax dollars would be in the Trust Fund when needed to pay benefits to future recipients. The Republican ``lockbox'' does just the opposite. It actually invites a raid on the Social Security Trust Fund. The Social Security reform proposal put forth by Chairman Archer and Congressman Shaw earlier this week demonstrates that the real Republican agenda is to substitute private accounts for traditional Social Security benefits. That plan would spend the entire Social Security surplus on tax credits to subsidize private accounts. There would be no money left for debt reduction, and thus no debt service savings which could be used to help fund future Social Security benefits. In fact, their plan will ultimately require either enormous new borrowing or drastic program cuts to continue funding the private accounts after the Social Security surplus is exhausted. These costly tax credits would go to subsidize private accounts disproportionately benefiting the most affluent workers. Low and middle income workers would receive little or no net benefit from the Archer plan. Their retirement security would not be enhanced at all. Placing Social Security on a firm financial footing should be our highest budget priority, not further enriching the already wealthy. Two-thirds of our senior citizens depend upon Social Security retirement benefits for more than fifty percent of their annual income. Without it, half the nation's elderly would fall below the poverty line. To our Republican colleagues, I say: ``If you are unwilling to strengthen Social Security, at least do not weaken it. Do not divert dollars which belong to the Social Security Trust Fund for other purposes. Every dollar in that Trust Fund is needed to pay future Social Security benefits.'' The proposed ``lockbox'' poses a second, very serious threat to Social Security. By using the debt ceiling as an enforcement mechanism, it runs the risk of creating a government shutdown crisis. The Republicans propose to enforce their ``lockbox'' by mandating dangerously low debt ceilings. Such a reduced debt ceiling could make it impossible for the federal government to meet its financial obligations--including its obligation to pay Social Security benefits to millions of men and women who depend upon them. The risk is real. It is fundamentally wrong to put those who depend on Social Security at risk in this way. The ``lockbox'' which proponents claim will save Social Security actually imperils it. As Treasury Secretary Rubin has said, ``This legislation does nothing to extend the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund, while potentially threatening the ability to make Social Security payments to millions of Americans.'' While this ``lockbox'' provides no genuine protection for Social Security, it provides no protection at all for Medicare. The Republicans are so indifferent to senior citizens' health care that they have completely omitted Medicare from their ``lockbox''. By contrast, Democrats have proposed to devote 15% of the surplus to Medicare over the next 15 years. Those new dollars would come entirely from the on-budget portion of the surplus. The Republicans have adamantly refused to provide any additional funds for Medicare. Instead, they propose to spend the entire on-budget surplus on tax cuts disproportionately benefiting the wealthiest Americans. I urge my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to reject this ill- conceived proposal. It jeopardizes Social Security and ignores Medicare. It is an assault on America's senior citizens, and it does not deserve to pass.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, communities across America will observe Guillain-Barre Syndrome Awareness Day this Saturday, May 1. Guillain-Barre Syndrome, or GBS, is a paralyzing disorder that can strike any person, regardless of age, gender, or background. Victims often face months of hospital care and long-term disabilities can result. For many years the GBS Foundation International has been renowned for its worldwide leadership in the battle against GBS, and I welcome this opportunity to commend the Foundation for all it has done. The Foundation, established in 1980, provides an effective support network for patients and their families. It also provides educational materials, funds medical research, and conducts symposia. GBS Awareness Day is an important part of educating the public about this potentially catastrophic disease. In Massachusetts, for example, the chapter of the Foundation in Boston is coordinating an event for the entire New England area that will include a fund-raising walk around the New England Rehabilitation Hospital in Woburn, followed by a video presentation and seminars on the medical and psychological aspects of the disease. One of the most disturbing developments in the battle against GBS is the recent scientific research linking this disease to infection by a common food-borne pathogen known as Campylobacter, which is the most common bacterial cause of food-borne illness in the United States. These bacteria frequently contaminate raw chicken. Unfortunately, Campylobacter is also one of a growing number of bacteria that are developing resistance to the antibiotic drugs commonly used to treat the diseases they cause, and these drug-resistant bacteria are now a major public health threat. The health and safety of the American people is one of our top priorities in Congress. Microbial contamination of food is an increasing problem. The association of GBS with Campylobacter infection demonstrates that food-borne illness is a serious national challenge. We need to take more effective action against these threats to families and communities. An important priority of this Congress is to act on legislation that will enhance the nation's ability to deal with contaminated food and antimicrobial-resistant organisms. We in Congress also need to do more to support research into all aspects of the prevention, treatment, and cure of GBS. I welcome GBS Awareness Day this year as an opportunity for all of us in Congress and across the country to become more actively involved in meeting this important public health challenge.