Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Let me just mention a few quotations. This is one of the participants: ``It's getting a little crazier and a little more frequent. It seems to be the boundaries between reality and fantasy are decreasing more and more,'' said Dr. Bernard Yudowitz, a forensic psychiatrist. ``As young people project themselves in virtual relative movies and arcades and get their heads into that, life becomes virtual reality, which is not reality,'' he said. Combine that with the age-old traits of teenagers--strong urges, feelings of aggression and a sense of omnipotence--and you have a dangerous mix Yudowitz said. He said the feeling of omnipotence allows teens to ignore consequences to themselves and others. ``It (adolescence) can be a fun and creative time. But you need a context to provide boundaries,'' he said. * * * * * The real issue is what's causing this behavior, and the fact is kids who pull the trigger have problems getting along with their peers.'' Working parents and school officials don't pay enough attention to the social competence of children. And when children become social outcasts, they're more susceptible to dark media messages. ``A normal, adjusted child who watches violent programming will come away with a different message than a child who lacks the social skills to get along with his peers.'' ``They feel violent programs are in fact endorsing revenge.''

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today Senator Jay Rockefeller and I are introducing the Access to Rx Medications in Medicare Act. This legislation will add a long overdue benefit to Medicare--coverage of prescription drugs. Medicare is a promise to senior citizens. It says ``Work hard, contribute to Medicare during your working years, and you will be guaranteed health security in your retirement years.'' But too often that promise is broken, because of Medicare's failure to protect the elderly against the high cost of prescription drugs. Our legislation will provide every senior citizen or disabled person with Medicare coverage for up to $1,700 worth of prescription drugs a year, and additional coverage for those with very high drug costs. Medicare will contract with the private sector organizations in regions across the country to administer and deliver the new coverage. Beneficiaries in traditional Medicare will select an organization to provide them with the benefit. Beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare+Choice organizations will receive coverage through their plan. Seniors who have equivalent or greater coverage through retiree health plans can continue that coverage or enroll in the new program. The bill will also required private Medigap plans to include supplemental coverage. Fourteen million beneficiaries have no prescription drug coverage. Millions more have coverage that is unaffordable, inadequate, or uncertain. The average senior citizen fills 18 prescriptions a year, and takes four to six prescription drugs daily. Many of them face monthly bills of $100, $200, or even more to fill their prescriptions. The lack of prescription drug coverage condemns many senior citizens to second-class medicine. Too often, they decide to go without the medication essential for effective health care, because they have to pay other bills for food or heat or shelter. These difficult choices will only worsen in the years ahead, since so many of the miracle cures of the future will be based on pharmaceutical products. This legislation is a lifeline for every senior citizen who needs prescription drugs to treat an illness or maintain their health. It assures that today's and tomorrow's senior citizens will be able to share in the medical miracles that we can expect in the new century of the life sciences. It addresses the greatest single gap in Medicare-- and the one that is the greatest anachronism in Medicare today. When Medicare was first enacted in 1965, its coverage was patterned after typical private insurance policies at the time--when only a minority of such policies covered prescription drugs. Today, prescription drug coverage is virtually universal in private plans, but Medicare is still caught in its 1965 time warp. This legislation has been carefully developed to respond to the legitimate concerns of the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry. We have consulted with many leading firms on the development of this plan, and we believe that the industry will work with us to refine it and enact it. The most profitable industry in America has a strong interest in assuring that the miracle cures it creates are affordable for senior citizens. Prescription drug coverage under Medicare will not come cheaply, and I intend to work with my colleagues in Congress to find the fairest way to pay for this benefit. It may well be necessary to allocate a portion of the budget surplus to defray the cost. The hard work of American families has created the surplus. Assuring it should be as high a priority for the Congress as it is for the American people. We know that improper or inadequate use of prescription drugs now costs Medicare an estimated at least $20 billion annually in avoidable hospital and physician costs. Clearly, a well-constructed prescription drug benefit can achieve large savings by reducing these avoidable costs. The bottom line is that there are many possible ways to pay for this benefit. A consensus on the best financing will develop as Congress considers this issue. This legislation is literally a matter of life and death for millions of elderly and disabled citizens served by Medicare in communities throughout America. It is time for Congress to listen to their voices, and the voices of their children and grandchildren, too. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation and accompanying materials be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today Senator Jay Rockefeller and I are introducing the Access to Rx Medications in Medicare Act. This legislation will add a long overdue benefit to Medicare--coverage of prescription drugs. Medicare is a promise to senior citizens. It says ``Work hard, contribute to Medicare during your working years, and you will be guaranteed health security in your retirement years.'' But too often that promise is broken, because of Medicare's failure to protect the elderly against the high cost of prescription drugs. Our legislation will provide every senior citizen or disabled person with Medicare coverage for up to $1,700 worth of prescription drugs a year, and additional coverage for those with very high drug costs. Medicare will contract with the private sector organizations in regions across the country to administer and deliver the new coverage. Beneficiaries in traditional Medicare will select an organization to provide them with the benefit. Beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare+Choice organizations will receive coverage through their plan. Seniors who have equivalent or greater coverage through retiree health plans can continue that coverage or enroll in the new program. The bill will also required private Medigap plans to include supplemental coverage. Fourteen million beneficiaries have no prescription drug coverage. Millions more have coverage that is unaffordable, inadequate, or uncertain. The average senior citizen fills 18 prescriptions a year, and takes four to six prescription drugs daily. Many of them face monthly bills of $100, $200, or even more to fill their prescriptions. The lack of prescription drug coverage condemns many senior citizens to second-class medicine. Too often, they decide to go without the medication essential for effective health care, because they have to pay other bills for food or heat or shelter. These difficult choices will only worsen in the years ahead, since so many of the miracle cures of the future will be based on pharmaceutical products. This legislation is a lifeline for every senior citizen who needs prescription drugs to treat an illness or maintain their health. It assures that today's and tomorrow's senior citizens will be able to share in the medical miracles that we can expect in the new century of the life sciences. It addresses the greatest single gap in Medicare-- and the one that is the greatest anachronism in Medicare today. When Medicare was first enacted in 1965, its coverage was patterned after typical private insurance policies at the time--when only a minority of such policies covered prescription drugs. Today, prescription drug coverage is virtually universal in private plans, but Medicare is still caught in its 1965 time warp. This legislation has been carefully developed to respond to the legitimate concerns of the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry. We have consulted with many leading firms on the development of this plan, and we believe that the industry will work with us to refine it and enact it. The most profitable industry in America has a strong interest in assuring that the miracle cures it creates are affordable for senior citizens. Prescription drug coverage under Medicare will not come cheaply, and I intend to work with my colleagues in Congress to find the fairest way to pay for this benefit. It may well be necessary to allocate a portion of the budget surplus to defray the cost. The hard work of American families has created the surplus. Assuring it should be as high a priority for the Congress as it is for the American people. We know that improper or inadequate use of prescription drugs now costs Medicare an estimated at least $20 billion annually in avoidable hospital and physician costs. Clearly, a well-constructed prescription drug benefit can achieve large savings by reducing these avoidable costs. The bottom line is that there are many possible ways to pay for this benefit. A consensus on the best financing will develop as Congress considers this issue. This legislation is literally a matter of life and death for millions of elderly and disabled citizens served by Medicare in communities throughout America. It is time for Congress to listen to their voices, and the voices of their children and grandchildren, too. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation and accompanying materials be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, Rosa Parks is an enduring symbol of freedom, dignity, and courage for our time and for all time, and she eminently deserves this Congressional Gold Medal. Her momentous decision to quietly and peacefully defy her community's segregation laws nearly half a century ago was a defining moment for the entire civil rights movement in the United States and in many other lands as well. On December 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, Mrs. Parks was a 42 year old seamstress returning home on a city bus after a long and tiring day at work. She refused to give up her seat and move to the back of the bus as the law required, and America would never be the same again. Because of her quiet, simple, eloquent act of courage, she was arrested and fined. As news of her arrest spread, thousands of African Americans in the city quickly rallied to her cause, and four days later, on December 5, 1955, the famous Montgomery Bus Boycott was launched. It took a year, but the Supreme Court declared the Montgomery segregation law unconstitutional. On December 21, 1956, thanks to her unyielding demand for equal justice, Rosa Parks and the African Americans of Montgomery were free to ride on the city buses as full and equal citizens. The Montgomery Bus Boycott touched the conscience of the nation, and focused the attention of citizens across America on the evils of segregation, discrimination, and the notorious Jim Crow laws. The power and justice of the civil rights movement could not be denied. In the decade that followed, Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1964, and America took giant steps toward fulfilling the promise of equal justice under law and full constitutional rights for all Americans. For her historic act of peaceful civil disobedience, Rosa Parks is often called the ``Mother of the Civil Rights Movement.'' She changed the course of America history, and made us a stronger, better, and freer nation. All Americans owe her a deep debt of gratitude for bringing us closer to our ideals, and I am proud to support this bill to award her the Congressional Gold Medal.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today Senator Jeffords, Senator Dodd, Senator Landrieu, and I are proposing legislation to expand and improve quality child care across the country. The provisions are intended to support the full range of child care choices that parents make, including the decision to provide stay-at-home care. Child care is one of the most pressing challenges facing the nation. The need to improve the affordability, accessibility, and quality of child care is indisputable. Across the country, 13 million children under age 6 spend all or part of their day in child care. Every child deserves high quality care. We know that child development, especially in the early years, is dependent on safe, reliable care that offers stable relationships and intellectually stimulating activities. Child care that fulfills these goals can make all the difference in enabling children to learn, grow, and reach their full potential. This bill will help improve the quality and safety of care by establishing a competitive grant program to help states improve the quality of their care. The bill also gives new incentives to businesses to assist in the care of their employees' children and to strengthen the quality of care. Businesses will be permitted a tax deduction for donations of equipment, materials, transportation services, facilities, and staff time to public schools and care providers. Employers who contribute to the child care arrangements of their employees will receive a tax credit of 50 percent of their expenses up to $150,000 a year ($250,000 a year with respect to three or more facilities in different locations) in allowable employee-related child care expenses such as the construction or renovation of facilities and employee subsidies. The quality of care can also be improved by giving the public more information about the caliber of the programs in their community. Working parents deserve to know that their children are not just safe, but well cared for. Our bill will provide that reassurance by improving parents' access to the information they need to make informed decisions about the selection of child care. Establishing a more effective system for distributing public information will make it easier for parents to select care with confidence, and will also encourage care providers to improve their services. Raising children is expensive, in and of itself, and families who place their children in out-of-home care face the additional burden of obtaining quality child care. Millions of families cannot afford the child care they need in order to raise, protect, and teach their children. Full-day care can easily cost up to $10,000 per year--often as much as college tuition for an older child. Too often, the high cost of quality care puts it out of reach for many working families, particularly those earning low wages. These parents--working parents-- constantly must choose between paying the rent or mortgage, buying food, and providing the quality care their child needs. Our bill provides support to all families with children, whether they rely on out-of-home care or not. It increases the Dependent Care Tax Credit (DCTC) by raising the amount of allowable expenses to $3,600 for one dependent and $6,000 for two or more, and by permitting educational programs and third party transportation to count as allowable expenses. Affordable child care is in particularly short supply for young children and for children who need care during nontraditional hours, such as during the late afternoon and evening. As more and more parents leave welfare for work, the demand for this type of care will continue to increase. The General Accounting Office estimates that under the welfare reform rules requiring more parents to work, the supply of child care will meet only 25 percent of the demand in many urban areas. We must ensure that the necessary support systems, such as child care and health care, are in place so that low-income parents can successfully move from welfare to self-sufficiency. Our bill addresses these concerns by increasing the authorization of the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) Act from $1 billion to $2 billion a year. It requires states to improve the way in which subsidy rates are determined. Parents will have a choice of child care providers, not just the least expensive care. Seventy percent of the CCDBG funds are set aside for non-welfare-related low-income working parents. The bill also contains a new state grant program to encourage the development of quality child care programs during non-school hours. It is long past time for Congress to give child care the high priority it deserves. This bipartisan bill addresses the serious challenges confronting millions of families with children, and I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this significant initiative. Mr. President, an excellent column in yesterday's Washington Post by Judy Mann eloquently analyzed the hardships facing families seeking adequate child care. I believe her analysis will be of interest to all of us concerned about the issue, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support the Education Improvement Act of 1999, introduced today by Senator Smith and Senator Kerry, and I am proud to be a sponsor. It is a major initiative to improve the nation's public schools and address the serious problems they face, such as the shortage of teachers and the lack of after-school programs. These are real problems that deserve real solutions. Education must continue to be a top priority for this Congress. Few other issues are as important to the nation as ensuring that every child has the opportunity for a good education. Last year, with broad bipartisan support, Congress made substantial investments in the nation's public schools to reduce class size, expand after-school programs and improve the initial training of teachers. But more needs to be done. States and local communities are making significant progress toward improving their public schools, but they can't do it alone. The federal government must lend a helping hand. We must do more to meet the needs of public schools, families, and children. We need to expand early childhood education programs, and meet our commitment to reducing class size, modernizing school buildings, improving the quality of the nation's teachers, and provide more opportunities for after-school programs. The bill addresses these important issues in innovative and very promising ways. The proposed ``Excellent Principals Challenge Grants'' will give school principal the support they need to be effective school leaders. Principals are the bridge between the school and the school boards, and the children and families in the community. More needs to be done to make sure that principals receive the training they need to become effective school administrators. Every child should have the opportunity to attend a school with a well-trained teacher and a well- trained principal. When it comes to education, the nation's children deserve the best help we can give them. I commend Senator Kerry and Senator Smith for making this strong commitment to improving the nation's public schools.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support this resolution, which will at long last restore the reputations of two distinguished military officers in World War II--Admiral Husband E. Kimmel of the United States Navy and General Walter C. Short of the United States Army. This resolution gives us an opportunity to correct a grave injustice in the history of that war. Despite their loyal and distinguished service to the nation, Admiral Kimmel and General Short were unfairly singled out for blame as scapegoats after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, which caught America unprepared. In fact, wartime investigations of the attack on Pearl Harbor concluded that our fleet in Hawaii under the command of Admiral Kimmel and our forces under the command of General Short had been properly positioned, given the information they had received. However, as the investigations found, their superior officers had not given them vital intelligence that could have made a difference, perhaps all the difference, in their preparedness for the attack. These conclusions of the wartime investigations were kept secret, in order to protect the war effort. Clearly, there is no longer any justification to ignore these facts. I learned more about this injustice from Edward B. Hanify, a close friend who is a distinguished attorney in Boston and who was assigned in 1944 as a young Navy lieutenant to be one of the lawyers for Admiral Kimmel. I believe that members of the Senate will be very interested in Mr. Hanify's perspective, and I ask unanimous consent that a letter he wrote to me last September may be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. KENNEDY. No action by the Senate can ever fully atone for the injustice suffered by these two officers. But we can correct the historical record, and restore the distinguished reputations of Admiral Kimmel and General Short. I commend Senator Biden and Senator Roth for their leadership in sponsoring this measure, and I urge the Senate to act expeditiously on this long-overdue resolution. Exhibit 1 September 3, 1998. Hon. Edward M. Kennedy, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Kennedy: I am advised that a Resolution known as the Roth/Biden Resolution has been introduced in the Senate and that it has presently the support of the following Senators: Roth; Biden; Helms; Thurmond; Inouye; Stevens; Specter; Hollings; Faircloth; Cochran and McCain. The substance of the Resolution is to request the President to advance the late Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel to the grade of Admiral on the retired list of the Navy and to advance the late Major General Walter C. Short to the grade of Lieutenant General on the retired list of the Army. Admiral Kimmel at the time of Pearl Harbor was Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet then based in Pearl Harbor and General Short was the Commanding General of the Hawaiian Department of the Army. The reason for my interest in this Resolution is as follows: IN early 1944 when I was a Lieutenant j.g. (U.S.N.R.) the Navy Department gave me orders which assigned me as one of counsel to the defense of Admiral Kimmel in the event of his promised court martial. As a consequence, I am probably one of the few living persons who heard the testimony before the Naval Court of Inquiry, accompanied Admiral Kimmel when he testified before the Army Board of Investigation and later heard substantially all the testimony before the members of Congress who carried on the lengthy Congressional investigation of Pearl Harbor. In the intervening fifty years I have followed very carefully all subsequent developments dealing the the Pearl Harbor catastrophe and the allocation of responsibility for that disaster. On the basis of this experience and further studies over a fifty year period I feel strongly: (1) That the odious charge of ``dereliction of duty'' made by the Roberts Commission was the cause of almost irreparable damage to the reputation of Admiral Kimmel despite the fact that the finding was later repudiated and found groundless; (2) I am satisfied that Admiral Kimmel was subject to callous and cruel treatment by his superiors who were attempting to deflect the blame ultimately ascribed to them, particularly on account of their strange behavior on the evening of December 6th and morning of December 7th in failing to warn the Pacific Fleet and the Hawaiian Army Department that a Japanese attack on the United States was scheduled for December 7th at 1:00 p.m. Washington time (dawn at Pearl Harbor) and that intercepted intelligence indicated that Pearl Harbor was a most probable point of attack; (Washington had this intelligence and knew that the Navy and Army in Hawaii did not have it or any means of obtaining it) (3) Subsequent investigations by both services repudiated the ``dereliction of duty'' charge and in the case of Admiral Kimmel the Naval Court of Inquiry found that his plans and dispositions were adequate and competent in light of the information which he had from Washington. The proposed legislaiton provides some measure of remedial Justice to a conscientious officer who for years unjustly bore the odium and disgrace associated with the Pearl Harbor catastrophe. You may be interested to know that a Senator from Massachusetts, Honorable David I. Walsh then Chairman of the Naval Affairs Committee, was most effective in securing legislaiton by Congress which ordered the Army and Navy Departments to investigate the Pearl Harbor disaster--an investigation conducted with all the ``due process'' safeguards for all interested parties not observed in other investigations or inquiries. I sincerely hope that you will support the Roth/Biden Resolution. Sincerely, Edward B. Hanify, Ropes & Gray.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last week the hemisphere lost one of its greatest leaders on human rights with the death of Raul Cardinal Silva Henriquez of Chile. The Cardinal was a great man, and one of the great voices for freedom and justice of our time and of all time. He was a brave and holy man whom many of us were proud to call a friend. The poet Yeats said: Think where man's glory most begins and ends, And say my glory was I had such friends. Most of all, the Cardinal was a friend to all those who needed friends the most--the oppressed, the frightened, the lost, the ``disappeared.'' He sheltered the homeless, but he also sheltered those who had homes but dared not go to them. During the dark days of Chile's recent history, when the flame of democracy was nearly extinguished, and the noble concepts of freedom and human rights considered subversive ideas by those in power, this courageous man of God would not be silent. Now, God has called home his good and faithful servant, and we understand that. Only God could still that strong and powerful voice. His enemies may have hoped to silence him through all those years, but they dared not. I first meet the Cardinal in the 1970's, shortly after the coup that stifled democracy in Chile. He had come to Washington, and I had been holding hearings here in the Senate, year after year, to try to shine some sunlight into the darkness of the human rights abuses in his land. He asked if we could meet privately, away from the glare of publicity, and we did so, at a friend's home. As we sat and drank tea, he spoke directly and intensely about human rights in his country, without anger, and with insight and determination. In those years, he had created the Committee for Peace, an ecumenical movement of Catholics, Protestants, and Jews dedicated to providing relief to the victims of human rights abuses. Later, defying the Pinochet regime, he formed the Vicarage of Solidarity, to provide legal assistance for the victims of the abuses, and to protect the lawyers who championed their cause. Without the protective mantle of the Cardinal and the Church, these organizations would almost surely have been snuffed out. Because of him, many people found the courage to speak out and to continue the long battle for democracy. We met several more times over the years. When I visited Chile in 1986, the government refused to meet me. But the people, led by the Cardinal, welcomed me, and I will never forget that inspiring and deeply moving reception. At another time and place, the poet Gabriela Mistral wrote about the wife of a prisoner: From the house I grieve, to the fiery thimble of his dungeon, I fly back and forth like a living shuttle, like one who knows no other path, until at last the walls open, and let me pass through iron, pitch and mortar. The Cardinal heard the cry of women like that, and their men. Chile's Ambassador to the U.S., Genaro Arriagada, was one of those who, because of the Cardinal, found the courage to resist. His ``No'' campaign the 1980's led finally to the shining moment in the National Stadium in Santiago in 1990. None of us who were in the stadium that day will ever forget it. President Aylwin had already accepted the sash of office, a symbol of the restoration of freedom and democracy that so many, including the Cardinal, had worked for so long and so well to achieve. In the stadium, which had been the darkest symbol of fear, imprisonment and despair, a beautiful tribute occurred. A young girl walked across the infield, while the great stadium scoreboard scrolled the names of the disappeared. Their families danced to a song about freedom in Chile. When President Aylwin spoke at sunset, thousands of candles burned, and fireworks lighted up the sky above the jubilant crowd. The celebration lasted for hours--and it continues to this day. Many profiles in courage made that glorious day possible. But no one did more to make it possible than that strong, brave man of God, our friend, Raul Cardinal Silva Henriquez. May he rest in eternal peace.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today's New York Times contains an excellent article by William L. Hamilton on the city of Northampton in Massachusetts and the remarkable revitalization that has taken place in the city in recent years. Northampton is also the subject of a soon-to- be published book, Home Town, by Tracy Kidder, in which the author captures the spirit and essence of community that has turned this former small mill town into the cultural, historic and economically revitalized city it is today. I also commend the woman responsible for much of this successful revitalization, Mayor Mary Ford. For the past 8 years, Mayor Ford has brought a new spirit to the city with her many successful initiatives. Northampton's schools are renovated, its streets are safer, its water is cleaner, its housing is more affordable, and its roads are more accessible. Mayor Ford has also demonstrated impressive leadership in making Northampton a leading cultural center of Western Massachusetts. The city is home to the Massachusetts International Festival of the Arts, Paradise City Arts Festival, the Northampton Film Festival, and the newly restored historic Calvin Threatre. Mayor Ford is on the front lines every day, making an important difference in the lives of families in Northampton, and she's done a remarkable job. The people of Northampton and all of us in Massachusetts are proud of her outstanding leadership, and we commend her for making Northampton the vital city that it is today. Well done, Mayor Ford, and keep up the great work! Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the article by William L. Hamilton in today's New York Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today marks the completion of a year-long public education effort called the First Family Pledge Campaign to increase awareness of the need for organ donation and to increase the number of people willing to be organ donors. The campaign has focused primarily on the need to discuss organ transplantation within the family. Open family discussion is essential to ensure that each person's commitment to become an organ donor is understood and honored by family members. As part of that campaign, my wife Vicky and I agreed to become organ donors, and to discuss the issue in our family. The campaign for organ donation has been an excellent opportunity to recognize the success of organ transplantation in saving lives, and Congress should be proud that it has helped to support this achievement. Fourteen years ago, we created the National Organ Transplant Program. Our goal was to do all we can to see that organ failure is not a death sentence and make it possible for many more Americans to return to good health. We have had significant success. More than 20,000 Americans--men, women and children--now receive life-saving organ transplants each year. But more needs to be done. Too many Americans die while waiting for organ transplantation. More than 60,000 Americans are waiting for organ transplantation. Every day, 55 of those people have an organ transplant. And every day, 10 others die because they did not have timely access to an organ. While there are differences of opinion about how an organ distribution system should be designed, it is clear that the overriding problem is a shortage in the availability of healthy organs. In 1997, there were more than 9,000 organ donors. Nearly 4,000 of those donors were living relatives who were willing and eligible to give an organ--a kidney or part of a liver--to a family member in need. But transplantation of this type is not an option for many in need. Each year, approximately 5,000 persons donate organs upon death. These acts of generosity are saving the lives of countless others. Transplantation of a cornea can restore sight. Transplantation of a kidney means life without dialysis. And transplantation of a heart, lung or liver means the difference between life and death. Studies show that more than 10,000 individuals each year could become organ donors after their death, and some estimates are as high as 15,000 each year. The reasons that an individual does not become an organ donor vary. In some cases, the donation may conflict with religious or personal beliefs. But in far too many cases, the reason is simply lack of awareness of the need, or misunderstanding of the process. In building the national organ donation and transplantation system, we have taken great care to ensure that individuals and families are not coerced into decisions to donate their organs. We have a strong shared commitment to respect personal and religious beliefs. Congress has made it illegal for organs to be sold--another measure to ensure freedom of choice. The Secretary of HHS has proposed a rule to encourage donation by training hospital personnel to explain the process. This rule, which I support, specifies that only trained hospital personnel are permitted to approach families of potential organ donors. But the most effective measure to increase organ donation is open discussion, long before a time of crisis. Families need to explore their beliefs and opinions, make personal commitments, and have an opportunity to honor the beliefs and commitments of loved ones who die. In closing, I commend the First Family Pledge Campaign for all it has done to encourage and support these important efforts. Congress must continue to pursue legislation and policies to assure that all Americans in need have access to life-saving transplantation. Adequate funding is essential to support these services. We need to be sure that the distribution system is fair and effective. And we need to continue our nationwide efforts to educate the public about the need for and value of organ donation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I urge my Senate colleagues to support the Fairness for Legal Immigrants Act in order to restore the benefits unfairly eliminated by the 1996 welfare law. In 1996, Congress passed a so-called welfare reform law that drastically restricted the ability of legal immigrants to participate in public assistance programs. For the first time in history, legal immigrants were cut off from most federal aid. The law barred them from food stamps, SSI, and other benefits. It banned them for 5 years from AFDC, Medicaid, and other programs and gave states the option to permanently ban them from these programs. These provisions have had a devastating effect on immigrant families. Elderly and disabled immigrants were notified that they would be turned out of nursing homes or cut off from disability payments. Some even took their own lives, rather than burden their families. Far too many human tragedies have resulted from the law. Fortunately, many Members of Congress realized that the provisions had gone too far, and we passed legislation in the past two years to restore benefits for many. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and the Agricultural Research Act of 1998 restored eligibility for Medicaid, SSI and Food Stamps for hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants. Nevertheless, many immigrants who came here legally are still suffering from restrictive provisions that remain in effect. The Fairness for Legal Immigrants Act is needed to bring back this safety net for immigrants who fall on hard times, especially those who are in great need, such as pregnant women, children, the elderly, the disabled, the poor, and victims of abuse. The Act will permit states to provide Medicaid to all eligible legal immigrant pregnant women and children. It will permit states to extend Medicaid to ``medically needy'' legal immigrants who are disabled but not on SSI. It will permit states to cover legal immigrant children under CHIP, if they are also providing Medicaid coverage for legal immigrant children. For legal immigrants who arrived before August 1996, the Act will restore SSI eligibility for those who are elderly and poor, but not disabled by SSI standards. It will also restore food stamp eligibility to all legal immigrants who have not yet had their eligibility restored, primarily parents of poor children. For legal immigrants who arrived after August 1996, the Act will restore SSI eligibility for those who become disabled after reaching the United States. Finally, the Act will exempt post-August 1996 legal immigrants who are victims of domestic or elder abuse from the five- year ban on Medicaid and welfare assistance, and restore their eligibility for SSI and food stamps. These reforms are essential in order to fulfill our obligation to those who legally entered our country. Many of them are family members of American citizens. They play by the rules, pay their taxes, and deserve a fair chance to become citizens and build new lives for themselves and their families in America. I urge the Senate to support this important legislation, and I look forward to its early enactment.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I strongly support the Women's Business Centers Sustainability Act of 1999. Its goal is to provide disadvantaged women with the opportunity to obtain the training and counseling necessary to become successful small business owners. Today, the Nation's entrepreneurial spirit is thriving. Small business has become the engine that drives the economy. America's 23 million small businesses employ more than 50 percent of the private workforce, generate more than half of the nation's gross domestic product, and are the principal source of new jobs in the U.S. economy. The increase in the number of small businesses owned by women has significantly contributed to the overall success of small business. Between 1987 and 1996, the number of women-owned firms has grown by78 percent. Employment in women-owned firms more than doubled from 1987 to 1992, compared to an increase of 38 percent in employment by all firms. For women-owned companies with 100 or more workers, employment has increased by 158 percent--more than twice the rate for all U.S. firms of similar size. Women entrepreneurs are taking their firms into the global marketplace at the same rate as all U.S. business owners. Today, women are starting new firms at twice the rate of all other business and own nearly 40 percent of all firms in the United States. These 8 million firms employ 18.5 million people--one in every five U.S. workers--and contribute $2.3 trillion to the economy. The Small Business Administration has created programs, such as the women's business centers, which have been very effective in promoting woman business ownership. We must ensure that these programs continue to receive strong support in Congress. The Women's Business Centers Sustainability Act of 1999 will provide the funds necessary to continue this successful program. It will allow women's business centers that have completed five year funding to apply for additional funding, and it will also increase the authorization for FY 2000 and FY 2001 from $11 million to $12 million a year. Our goal is to help sustain existing centers, while continuing to create new centers. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I look forward to its early enactment.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I strongly support the Women's Business Centers Sustainability Act of 1999. Its goal is to provide disadvantaged women with the opportunity to obtain the training and counseling necessary to become successful small business owners. Today, the Nation's entrepreneurial spirit is thriving. Small business has become the engine that drives the economy. America's 23 million small businesses employ more than 50 percent of the private workforce, generate more than half of the nation's gross domestic product, and are the principal source of new jobs in the U.S. economy. The increase in the number of small businesses owned by women has significantly contributed to the overall success of small business. Between 1987 and 1996, the number of women-owned firms has grown by78 percent. Employment in women-owned firms more than doubled from 1987 to 1992, compared to an increase of 38 percent in employment by all firms. For women-owned companies with 100 or more workers, employment has increased by 158 percent--more than twice the rate for all U.S. firms of similar size. Women entrepreneurs are taking their firms into the global marketplace at the same rate as all U.S. business owners. Today, women are starting new firms at twice the rate of all other business and own nearly 40 percent of all firms in the United States. These 8 million firms employ 18.5 million people--one in every five U.S. workers--and contribute $2.3 trillion to the economy. The Small Business Administration has created programs, such as the women's business centers, which have been very effective in promoting woman business ownership. We must ensure that these programs continue to receive strong support in Congress. The Women's Business Centers Sustainability Act of 1999 will provide the funds necessary to continue this successful program. It will allow women's business centers that have completed five year funding to apply for additional funding, and it will also increase the authorization for FY 2000 and FY 2001 from $11 million to $12 million a year. Our goal is to help sustain existing centers, while continuing to create new centers. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I look forward to its early enactment.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will use that remaining time so we can move along, then ask for the yeas and nays in accordance with the leadership proposal, and vote. Mr. President, according to the trustees' report on the Medicare trust fund, this particular measure will add some 7 years to the Medicare trust fund. Now it will be--instead of 2008, in the most recent figures it is 2015. With 15 percent, as we talk about, a substantial increase, it will provide the stability and solvency of the trust fund to the year 2027. That is what this amendment does. If we do not take this action, then, if we look over a 25-year period, it is going to mean benefit cuts of 11 percent in 25 years, 25 percent in 50 years, and 31 percent in 75 years, to make up for the shortfall. It seems to me, given the special circumstances, we ought to protect Social Security and protect Medicare. We still have resources, even after that, for individual accounts, as the President suggested--close to $500 billion for individual accounts, for savings and for investment for individuals--and we also have resources that will be available for a tax cut. But let us say, with regard to Medicare, we are going to provide these additional resources and we are going to commit them to our Medicare system and then in this Congress we are going to get about the possibility of making the alterations or changes in our Medicare system, primarily in the area of enhancing prescription drugs, and also other changes that will strengthen the Medicare system even further. This is a sound, prudent investment. Finally, the greatest percentage of the surplus was paid in by working families. Working families often become dependent primarily on Social Security and Medicare as they age. Some of them get some pensions from companies they have worked for. But if you look over what is happening, even in terms of the pensions, they are gradually being cut back. They are gradually being reduced every single year. Medicare and Social Security are the rocks on which our elderly and seniors really depend. We have an opportunity to go on record on that measure here today with this amendment, and I hope the Senate will accept it.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Were the yeas and nays included, Mr. President? Reserving the right to object--I do not intend to --will the Senator ask it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays at this time for all of those amendments?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. KENNEDY. Are you talking about the second-degree amendment?

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, please.

Mr. KENNEDY. And it says it will not go into effect unless there is significant solvency from 9 to 12 years. That is what the trustees say, $686 billion.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this motion is very simple. It says to devote a portion of the surplus--not all of it, just some of it--to saving Medicare before using it for a tax cut or new spending. This policy is supported by Alan Greenspan and by 100 leading economists because it makes economic sense and because it makes sense for Medicare. My friend across the aisle has talked at length about how much he and his party care about Medicare, but that budget resolution does not devote one thin dime of new resources to Medicare beyond those required by law. This vote is a test: Tax cuts versus Medicare. That is the issue.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand that it is in order to send a motion to instruct conferees.