Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to Mayor Tom Menino of the City of Boston and the extraordinary effort he has made over the past year to bring the Democratic National Convention to Boston in 2000. Regardless of the outcome of this effort, all of Boston is proud of the brilliant job that Mayor Menino has done in bringing the business community and the neighborhoods of Boston together to make our city one of the most attractive and dynamic cities in the world. Mayor Menino deserves enormous credit for highlighting Boston's great strengths--its diverse heritage, its proud history, its cultural attractions, its convention facilities, its transportation infrastructure, its technological capabilities and its renowned world leadership in education, health care and many other impressive attributes. Boston has proven itself time and again in recent years in its unique ability to host major national and international events. And thanks in great part to Mayor Menino's outstanding efforts, Boston is in the top rank of cities throughout the world. An editorial last Friday in the Boston Globe entitled ``An A for Menino's Effort'' pays eloquent tribute to the Mayor's leadership and achievements, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support this amendment. We are all concerned about reports of declining retention in our Armed Forces. Our midgrade officers and enlisted personnel are leaving the service at alarming rates. This amendment directly addresses this critical problem by focusing special and incentive pays on areas where the Armed Forces face the greatest retention challenges. The readiness of our Armed Forces must be a top priority. Our service men and women are an indispensable part of our Nation's defense. We must act to improve retention in order to ensure the readiness of our Armed Forces. In today's tight budget environment, it is imperative that we efficiently use our taxpayers' dollars. Special and incentive pays are an effective way to increase retention while being mindful of costs. Our amendment responds to the needs of the Armed Services by authorizing programs that the services specifically want and that are ready to be implemented. These programs have been thoroughly researched by the services and will have an immediate impact on retention. At the Senate Armed Services Readiness Hearing in January, Admiral Jay Johnson, the Chief of Naval Operations, agreed with my assessment that current Navy retention rates will result in the Navy having 50 percent fewer Surface Warfare Officers than needed. Officers in these positions have never been authorized to receive special pay incentives, and retention of these men and women is now among the lowest of any officer community in the Armed Forces. This amendment gives the Navy a flexible means to address this critical retention issue, and will give the same flexibility to the other services in the specific areas where the most attention is needed. In these critical times for recruiting and retention of military personnel, we must enact sensible legislation that provides the services with effective flexibility in the management of their personnel challenges. No one knows the full effects of retention problems more than the services themselves. We need to give the services the tools they need so they can help ensure the readiness of our Armed Forces. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment and I commend Senator Robb and Senator Cleland for their leadership on this amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Every four years, citizens of our country exercise one of the most important rights of our democracy--the right to vote for the President of the United States. This constitutional privilege is valued by all Americans and envied by millions around the world. It proves that the will of the majority will prevail, and that power will be transferred peacefully through the election process from one President to the next, time and again. The essence of our democracy is the power of the right to vote. Many of our greatest battles in the Senate and the country in recent decades have been waged to extend and protect that right. I think especially of the Voting Rights Acts, which have been at the heart of our civil rights debates. I think of our success in 1970 in lowering the voting age to 18, so that young Americans who were old enough to fight in the Vietnam War would be old enough to vote about that war, which America never should have fought. I think of the Supreme Court's great decision on one person, one vote, and our efforts in Congress to protect it. I also think of the success of democracy in other lands--in Chile and Argentina and other nations in our hemisphere--and in Greece, in South Africa, and in many other countries. The Framers of the Constitution clearly understood the fundamental place of the right to vote in the new democracy they were creating. They clearly did not intend the Impeachment Clause to nullify the vote of the people, except in the most extraordinary cases of great danger to the nation. The entire history of the debates at the Constitutional Convention demonstrates their clear intent to limit impeachment as narrowly as possible, to prevent a willful partisan majority in Congress from undermining the right to vote and the power of the President the people had elected. The Framers of the Constitution also made clear that the President was not to be subordinate to the Senate or the House of Representatives. The new government they created was based on another fundamental principle as well--the principle of separation of powers among the three coequal branches of government--the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, and the Judicial Branch. They specifically did not create a parliamentary system of government, in which the President would serve at the pleasure of Congress. In their wisdom, the Framers recognized that in certain extreme cases, a narrow exception to the orderly transfer of Presidential power through national elections every four years was necessary to protect the nation from an abusive President. And so they created the impeachment process, by which the President could be removed from office by the Senate and the House of Representatives in extreme cases where the President had committed ``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors''. The Framers of the Constitution made clear that the orderly transfer of Presidential power through national elections was to be scrupulously followed. They took great care to guarantee that this transfer would rarely, if ever, be undermined by the impeachment of the President. Removal of the President would come only after the House of Representatives--with the sole power to impeach--and the Senate--with the sole power to conduct a trial--found that the President had committed ``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,'' a term borrowed from the English impeachment experience. Clearly, the Framers intended the House and the Senate to use the impeachment power cautiously, and not wield it promiscuously for partisan political purposes. Sadly, in this case, Republicans in the House of Representatives, in their partisan vendetta against the President, have wielded the impeachment power in precisely the way the Framers rejected--recklessly and without regard for the Constitution or the will of the American people. First, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee essentially swallowed the referral of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr whole, without seriously questioning it or calling any witnesses. They used the referral as the foundation for Articles of Impeachment which were released to the public before the White House counsel had an opportunity to complete their testimony before the Committee. Why were the House Judiciary Committee and the House of Representatives on the fast track to impeachment? Because, as House Manager Hyde told the Senate, ``we were operating under time constraints which were self-imposed but I promised my colleagues to finish it before the end of the year. I didn't want to drag it out.'' In the battle between speed and fairness, should speed have prevailed over fairness? Clearly not. But the lame duck Republican House of Representatives was bent on acting before the last Congress ended, fearful that their slimmer majority in the current Congress would not approve any articles of impeachment at all. In their most blatant attempt of all to stack the deck against the President, the House Republican leadership refused to allow a fair vote on censure as an alternative to impeachment an alternative that would have ended this unseemly charade two months ago. Instead, Members of the House were given a single choice--a vote to impeach the President or do nothing. After their partisan victory in the House of Representatives, the House Managers brought their vendetta against the President to the Senate. They brought thousands of pages of evidence, containing 22 statements by Monica Lewinsky, 6 statements by Vernon Jordan, 3 statements by Sidney Blumenthal, the videotaped deposition of President Clinton in the Jones case, and the videotaped record of his appearance before the grand jury. Their opening statements attempted to shed the most favorable light on the evidence, but it was quickly apparent that they had not and could not persuade two-thirds of the Senate to remove the President. While trying to persuade Senators to convict President Clinton, the House Managers argued relentlessly for the opportunity to examine witnesses during the trial. The hypocrisy in the position of the House Managers on witnesses was obvious. They did not think it was necessary to call witnesses in the House proceedings. They demeaned the House by their partisan excesses. But they were shameless in their attempt to force the Senate to wallow in witnesses. Our Republican friends have desperately been trying to produce a two- thirds majority to remove the President from office. But their efforts have succeeded only in turning a serious constitutional process into a partisan process that demeaned both the House and the Senate and became a painful ordeal for the entire country. In pursuing the allegations of perjury and obstruction of justice, the House Managers presented an ever changing, constantly shifting list of charges to the Senate. Veteran prosecutors testified before the House Judiciary Committee that they would never prosecute such a case, and that it would be irresponsible for the Senate to attempt to use these allegations as a basis to remove the President from office. Some of the allegations of perjury by the House Managers were laughable. Clearly, it was not perjury for the President to use the phrase ``certain occasions'' to describe the frequency of his contacts with Miss Lewinsky, or to use the word ``occasional'' to describe the frequency of his telephone conversations with her. Even the few allegations of perjury and obstruction of justice that are arguably more serious are far from proven beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard that I believe should be applied by the Senate in considering the facts of this case. Indeed, I do not believe they were proved by clear and convincing evidence. But even if any such allegations were true, they still fall far short of the constitutional standard required for impeaching a President and removing him from office. President Clinton's behavior was wrong. All of us condemn it. None of us condones it. He failed to tell the truth about it, and he misled the country for many months. But nothing he did rises to the high constitutional standard required for impeachment and removal of a President from office. I believe that conclusion is required by the Constitution. At the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the Framers engaged in a vigorous debate about the role of the President, the new chief executive they were creating. In addition to determining the basic powers of the office, many of those at the convention debated whether or not impeachment should apply at all to the President. As University of Chicago Law School Professor Cass Sunstein told the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, ``Many of the framers wanted no impeachment power whatsoever . . . [t]hey suggested that in a world of separation of powers and election of the President, there was no place for impeachment. . . . That position was defeated by reference to egregious hypotheticals in which the President betrayed the country during war or got his office through bribery. Those are the cases that persuaded the swing votes that there should be impeachment power.'' In the end, the Framers reluctantly agreed that there might be limited circumstances in which a President should be removed from office by Congress in order to protect the country from great harm, without waiting for the next election. Once the Framers concluded that the President could be removed by the legislature in such cases, they debated the standard for impeachment. Nine days before the final Constitution was signed, the impeachment provision was limited only to treason and bribery. George Mason then argued that the provision was too restrictive, and should be amended to include the phrase, ``or maladministration.'' But, vigorous opposition came from others who believed that such a vague phrase would give Congress too much power to undermine the President. Mason withdrew his original proposal and substituted the phrase, ``other high Crimes and Misdemeanors against the State''--a phrase well-known from English law. The Constitutional Convention adopted the modification by a vote of eight states to three--confident that only serious offenses against the nation would provide the basis for impeachment. Later, the Committee of Style removed the words, ``against the State,'' but because the Committee had been instructed not to change the meaning of any provision, the impeachment clause should be interpreted as it was originally drafted. The debate surrounding the Impeachment Clause was significant. By first expanding and then narrowing the clause, the Framers clearly intended that the President could be removed from office for ``crimes'' beyond treason and bribery, but that he could not be removed for inefficient administration or administration inconsistent with the dominant view in Congress. Impeachment was not to be the illegitimate twin of the English vote of ``No Confidence'' under a parliamentary system of government. The doctrine of separation of powers was paramount. The President was to serve at the pleasure of the people, not the pleasure of the Congress, and certainly not at the pleasure of a willful partisan majority in the House of Representatives. As Charles Black stated in his highly regarded work on impeachment, the two specific impeachable offenses--treason and bribery--can help identify both the ``ordinary crimes which ought also to be looked upon as impeachable offenses, and those serious misdeeds, not ordinary crimes, which ought to be looked on as impeachable offenses . . .'' Using treason and bribery as ``the miners' canaries,'' Professor Black states that ``high crimes and misdemeanors, in the constitutional sense, ought to be held to be those offenses which are rather obviously wrong, whether or not `criminal,' and which so seriously threaten the order of political society as to make pestilent and dangerous the continuance in power of their perpetrator.'' The distinguished historian, Professor Arthur Schlesinger, told the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, the ``[e]vidence seems to me conclusive that the Founding Fathers saw impeachment as a remedy for grave and momentous offenses against the Constitution; George Mason said, great crimes, great and dangerous offenses, attempts to subvert the Constitution.'' In addition to Professor Schlesinger, over 430 law professors and over 400 historians and constitutional scholars have stated emphatically that the allegations against President Clinton do not meet the standard set by the Constitution for impeachment. The scholarly support for the argument that the charges against President Clinton do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses--even if they are true-- is overwhelming, and it cannot be ignored. The law professors wrote, ``[i]t goes without saying that lying under oath is a very serious offense. But even if the House of Representatives had the constitutional authority to impeach for any instance of perjury or obstruction of justice, a responsible House would not exercise this awesome power on the facts alleged in this case.'' The historians wrote, ``[t]he Framers explicitly reserved [impeachment] for high crimes and misdemeanors in the exercise of executive power. Impeachment for anything else would, according to James Madison, leave the President to serve `during the pleasure of the Senate,' thereby mangling the system of checks and balances that is our chief safeguard against abuses of power . . . Although we do not condone President Clinton's private behavior or his subsequent attempts to deceive, the current charges against him depart from what the Framers saw as grounds for impeachment.'' The House Managers apparently made no attempt to obtain scholarly support for their opposition. It is a fair inference that they did not do so because they knew they could not obtain it. The House Managers argue that because the Senate convicted and removed three federal judges for making perjurious statements, we must now convict and remove the President. But, to determine whether or not President Clinton should be removed from office requires the Senate to do more than make simplistic analogies to federal judges. Removal of the President of the United States and removal of a federal judge are vastly different. The President is unique, and his role is in no way comparable to the role of the over 900 federal judges we have today. The impact on the country of removing one of 900 federal judges is infinitesimal, compared to the impact of removing the only President we have. And the people elect the President for a specific four year term, while federal judges are appointed for life, subject to good behavior. These distinctions are obvious, and they make all the difference. Other precedents also undermine the House Managers' insistence that the Senate is bound to remove President Clinton from office. The House Judiciary Committee refused on a bipartisan basis to impeach President Nixon for deliberately lying under oath to the Internal Revenue Service, although he under reported his taxable income by at least $796,000. During the 1974 Judiciary Committee debates, many Republican and Democratic members of the Committee agreed that tax fraud was not the kind of abuse of power that impeachment was designed to remedy. Finally, the House Managers argue that President Clinton must be removed to protect the rule of law and cleanse the office. It is not enough, they say, that he can be prosecuted once he leaves office. But protecting the rule of law under the Constitution is not the proper standard for removal of the President. Before impeaching and convicting the President, the Senate must find that he committed ``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' As Professor Laurence Tribe testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, ``[i]f the proposition is that when the President is a law breaker, has committed any crime, then the rule of law and the take care clause requires that one impeach him, then we have rewritten the [impeachment] clause.'' The Constitution has guided our country well for two centuries. The decision we make now goes far beyond this President. As we decide whether President Clinton will be removed from office, the future of the Presidency and the well-being of our democracy itself are at stake. How will history remember this Congress? The Radical Republicans in the middle of the 19th century were condemned in the eyes of history for using impeachment as a partisan vendetta against President Andrew Johnson. And I believe the Radical Republicans at the end of the 20th century will be condemned even more severely by history for their partisan vendetta against President Clinton. The impeachment process was never intended to become a weapon for a partisan majority in Congress to attack the President. To do so is a violation of the fundamental separation of powers doctrine at the heart of the Constitution. It is an invitation to future partisan majorities in future Congresses to use the impeachment power to undermine the President. It could weaken Republican and Democratic Presidents alike for years to come. This case is a constitutional travesty. We deplore the conduct of President Clinton that led to this yearlong distraction for the nation. But we should deplore even more the partisan attempt to abuse the Constitution by misusing the impeachment power.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join with Senator Domenici in introducing the PRIME Act--the Program for Investment in Micro-Entrepreneurs. This important idea is part of President Clinton's budget for Fiscal Year 2000. It deserves bipartisan support and I look forward to working closely with Senator Domenici to achieve its passage early this year. The nation's entrepreneurial spirit is thriving, fueled by the record-breaking economic growth and prosperity that we currently enjoy. But, many deserving entrepreneurs still face unfair challenges that limit their ability to turn innovative ideas into successful businesses that create new jobs. They need skills and technical training in the business basics needed to take their ideas to the next level--starting their own firms. The PRIME Act will help entrepreneurs close the gap between worthwhile ideas and successful businesses. It will provide $105 million dollars over the next four years to build skills in record keeping, planning, management, marketing, and computer technology, and other basic business practices. The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund in the Treasury Department is now the lead federal agency for micro-enterprise activities across the country, and the PRIME Act will enhance these efforts in several specific ways: It will provide grants for micro-enterprise organizations across the country that assist disadvantaged and low-income entrepreneurs and provide them with essential training and education. It will encourage the development of new micro-enterprise organizations, and expand existing ones to reach more entrepreneurs. It will enhance research on innovative and successful ways of encouraging these new businesses and enabling them to succeed. Under the Act, between $15 and $35 million in grants will be available each year to organizations that work with entrepreneurs. The President's fiscal year 2000 budget proposes $15 million for the program. Local groups will leverage these funds with their own public and private resources to increase the overall assistance that will be available. Massachusetts and New Mexico are already leaders in this effort. The business communities and local banks in our states have made significant investments in creating loan capital for micro- entrepreneurs to start their own businesses. Non-profit organizations working with micro-entrepreneurs on this effort have worked closely with us on this legislation. We look forward to working with them and with other members of Congress to give micro-entrepreneurs across the country the greater opportunity they deserve to realize their potential. By investing in micro-entrepreneurs, we will be harnessing the spirit and ideas of large numbers of Americans and creating new opportunities for self-sufficiency. We'll be creating new small businesses that will strengthen local economies in communities across the country. And that in turn will help to keep our national economy strong as well. This is worthwhile legislation, and I urge the Senate to approve it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, America lost one of its greatest citizens and greatest patrons of the arts last week with the death of Paul Mellon. All of us who knew him admired his passion for the arts, his extraordinary taste and insights, and his lifelong dedication to our country and to improving the lives of others. He was widely known and loved for many different aspects of his philanthropy in many states, including Massachusetts. Perhaps his greatest gift of all to the nation is here in the nation's capital--the National Gallery of Art. The skill and care and support which he devoted to the Gallery for over half a century brilliantly fulfilled his father's gift to the nation. He made the Gallery what it is today-- a world-renowned museum containing many of the greatest masterpieces of our time and all time, a fitting and inspiring monument to the special place of the arts in America's history and heritage. I believe that all Americans and peoples throughout the world who care about the arts are mourning the loss of Paul Mellon. We are proud of his achievements and his enduring legacy to the nation. We will miss him very much. An appreciation of Paul Mellon by Paul Richard in the Washington Post last week eloquently captured his philosophy of life and his lifelong contributions to our society and culture, and I ask that it be printed in the Record. The material follows: [From the Washington Post, Feb. 3, 1999] Appreciation--Paul Mellon's Greatest Gift: The Philanthropist Left Behind a Fine Example of the Art of Living (By Paul Richard) Though it never came to anything, Paul Mellon once considered fitting every windowsill in Harlem with a box for growing flowers. Mellon understood that Titians were important, that magic was important, that thoroughbreds and long hot baths and kindness were important, that thinking of the stars, and pondering the waves, and looking at the light on the geraniums were all important, too. In a nation enamored of the lowest common denominators, what intrigued him were the highest. He spent most of his long life, and a vast amount of money, about $1 billion all in all, buying for the rest of us the sorts of private mental pleasures that he had come to value most--not just the big ones of great art, great buildings and great books, but the little ones of quietude, of just sitting in the sand amid the waving dune grass, looking out to sea. He died Monday night at home at Oak Spring, his house near Upperville, Va. Cancer had weakened him. Mellon was 91. Twenty-five years ago, while speaking at his daughter's high school graduation, that cheerful, thoughtful, courtly and unusual philanthropist delivered an assertion that could stand for his epitaph: ``What this country needs is a good five-cent reverie. Mellon's money helped buy us the 28,625-acre Cape Hatteras National Seashore. He gave Virginia its Sky Meadows State Park. In refurbishing Lafayette Square, he put in chess tables, so that there's something to do there other than just stare at the White House. He gave $500,000 for restoring Monticello. He gave Yale University his collection of ancient, arcane volumes of alchemy and magic. He published the I Ching, the Chinese ``book of changes,'' a volume of oracles. And then there is the art. I am deeply in his debt. You probably are, too. If you've ever visited the National Gallery of Art, you have felt his hospitality. Its scholarship, its graciousness, its range and installations--all these are Mellonian. It was Mellon, in the 1930s, who supervised the construction of its West Building, with its fountains and marble stairs and greenhouse for growing the most beautiful fresh flowers. After hiring I.M. Pei to design the East Building, Mellon supervised its construction, and then filled both buildings with art. Mellon gave the gallery 900 works, among them 40 by Degas, 15 by Cezanne, many Winslow Homers and five van Goghs--and this is just a part of his donations. His sporting pictures went to the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts in Richmond, and his British ones to Yale University, where Louis I. Kahn designed the fine museum that holds them. At home, he hung the art himself. He never used a measuring tape; he didn't need to. He had the most observant eye. ``I have a very strong feeling about seeing things,'' he said once. ``I have, for example, a special feeling about how French pictures ought to be shown, and how English pictures ought to be shown. I think my interest in pictures is a bit the same as my interest in landscape or architecture, in looking at horses or enjoying the country. They all have to do with being pleased with what you see.'' He would not have called himself an artist, but I would. It was not just his collecting, or the scholarship he paid for, or the museums that he built, all of which were remarkable. Nobody did more to broadcast to the rest of us the profound rewards of art. He was fortunate, and knew it. He had comfortable homes in Paris, Antigua, Manhattan and Nantucket, and more money than he needed. His Choate-and-Yale-and-Cambridge education was distinguished. So were his friends. Queen Elizabeth II used to come for lunch. His horses were distinguished. He bred Quadrangle and Arts and Letters and a colt named Sea Hero, who won the Kentucky Derby. ``A hundred years from now,'' said Mellon, ``the only place my name will turn up anywhere will be in the studbook, for I was the breeder of Mill Reef.'' His insistence on high quality might have marked him as elitist, but he was far too sound a character to seem any sort of snob. His manners were impeccable. Just ask the gallery's older guards, or the guys who groomed his horses. When you met him, his eyes twinkled. He joked impishly and easily. Once, during an interview, he opened his wallet to show me a headline he had clipped from the Daily Telegraph: ``Farmer, 84, Dies in Mole Vendetta.'' He liked the sound of it. There was an if-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it spirit to his luxuries. They were well patinaed. His Mercedes was a `68. His jet wasn't new, and neither were his English suits or his handmade shoes. The martinis he served--half gin, half vodka--were 1920s killers. There was a butler, but he shook them himself. He said he'd always liked the sound of ice cubes against silver. Nothing in his presence told you that Paul Mellon had been miserable when young. His childhood might easily have crushed him. His father, Andrew W. Mellon--one of the nation's richest men and the secretary of the Treasury--had been grim and ice-cube cold. Paul Mellon loved him. It could not have been easy. ``I do not know, and I doubt anyone will ever know,'' he wrote, ``why Father was so seemingly devoid of feeling and so tightly contained in his lifeless, hard shell.'' His parents had warred quietly. Paul was still a boy when their marriage ended coldly, in a flurry of detectives. His sister, Ailsa, never quite recovered. Paul never quite forgot his own nervousness and nausea and feelings of inadequacy. It seems a stretch to use this term for someone born so wealthy, but Paul Mellon was a self-made man. Most rich Americans, then as now, saw it as their duty to grow richer. Mellon didn't. When he found his inner compass, and abandoned thoughts of making more money, and said so to his father, he was 29 years old. First he wrote himself a letter. ``The years of habit have encased me in a lump of ice, like the people in my dreams,'' he wrote. ``When I get into any personal conversation with Father, I become congealed and afraid to speak. . . . Business. What does he really expect me to do, or to be? Does he want me to be a great financier . . .? The mass of accumulations, the responsibilities of great financial institutions, appall me. My mind is not attuned to it. . . . I have some very important things to do still in my life, although I am not sure what they are. . . . I want to do in the end things that I enjoy. . . . What does he think life is for? Why is business . . . more important than the acceptance and digestion of ideas? Than the academic life, say, or the artistic? What does it really matter in the end what you do, as long as you are being true to yourself?'' So Mellon changed his life. He gave up banking. He moved to Virginia. He started breeding horses. And then, in 1940, after having spent so many years at Cambridge and at Yale, Mellon went back to school. To St. John's College in Annapolis. To study the Great Books. (Mellon later gave more than $13 million to St. John's.) His path had been determined. Though deflected by World War II--he joined the cavalry, then the OSS--Mellon would continue on it for the rest of his long life. As his friend the mythologist Joseph Campbell might have put it (it was Mellon who published Campbell's ``The Hero With a Thousand Faces''), Paul Mellon had determined to follow his own bliss. He was curious about mysticism, so he studied with Carl Jung. He liked deep, expansive books, so he began to publish the best he could discover. Bollingen Series, his book venture, eventually put out 275 well-made volumes, among them the I Ching, Andre Malraux's ``Museum Without Walls,'' Ibn Khaldun's ``The Muqadimah,'' Vladimir Nabokov's translations from Pushkin, and Kenneth Clark's ``The Nude.'' Because Mellon liked high scholarship, he started giving scholars money. Elias Caetti, who received his Nobel prize for literature in 1981, got his first Bollingen grant in 1985. Others--there were more than 300 in all--went to such thinkers as the sculptor Isamu Noguchi (who was paid to study leisure), the poet Marianne Moore, and the art historian Meyer Schapiro. Because Mellon liked poetry, he established the Bollingen Prize for poetry. The first went to Ezra Pound, the second to Wallace Stevens. Mellon loved horses. So he started buying horse pictures. He had had a great time at Cambridge--``I loved,'' he wrote, ``its gray walls, its grassy quadrangles, its busy, narrow streets full of men in black gowns . . . the candlelight, the coal-fire smell, and walking across the Quadrangle in a dressing gown in the rain to take a bath.'' Though America's libraries were full of English books, America's museums were not full of English art. It didn't really count. What mattered was French painting and Italian painting. Mellon didn't care. He thought that if you were reading Chaucer or Dickens or Jane Austen, you ought to have a chance to see what England really looked like. Mellon knew. He remembered. He remembered ``huge dark trees in rolling parks, herds of small friendly deer . . . soldiers in scarlet and bright metal, drums and bugles, troops of gray horses, laughing ladies in white, and always behind them and behind everything the grass was green, green, green.'' So Mellon formed (surprisingly inexpensively) and then gave away (characteristically generously) the world's best private collection of depictive English art. He knew what he was doing. As he knew what he was doing when he took up fox hunting, competitive trail riding and the 20th-century abstract paintings of Mark Rothko and Richard Diebenkorn. He was following his bliss. He didn't really plan it that way. He just went for it. ``Most of my decisions,'' he said, ``in every department of my life, whether philanthropy, business or human relations, and perhaps even racing and breeding, are the results of intuition. . . . My father once described himself as a `slow thinker.' It applies to me as well. The hunches or impulses that I act upon, whether good or bad, just seem to rise out of my head like one of those thought balloons in the comic strips.'' That wasn't bragging. Mellon wasn't a braggart. He wasn't being falsely modest, either. Mellon knew the value of what it was he'd done. Mellon was a patriot, a good guy and a gentleman. He had a healthy soul. What he did was this: With wit and taste and gentleness, with the highest self- indulgence and the highest generosity, he made the lives of all of us a little bit like his.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, America's children--from the smallest premature baby to the tallest teenager--deserve access to doctors trained specifically in meeting their health needs. I commend Senator Kerrey's leadership in this bipartisan legislation introduced today to provide greater support to children's hospitals, so that they can continue to train the kinds of doctors that children need. In the United States, there are 53 freestanding pediatric hospitals-- less than 1% of all the hospitals in the country. Yet they train more than a quarter of all pediatricians and more than half of all pediatric specialists. These hospitals also help train other doctors who need experience in taking care of children--including family doctors, neurologists, and surgeons. Children's hospitals typically provide care for the sickest children--those whose medical needs are not easily met in the local and community hospitals. Patients in children's hospitals include a higher percentage of our nation's uninsured children and low-income children. These hospitals are the source of many new lifesaving strategies, such as treating childhood cancer and helping premature babies to breathe. But the ability of children's hospitals to train doctors is in increasing jeopardy. Funds for training residents are declining as changes take place in the ways we pay for our health care. For most hospitals, support for graduate medical education is funded through Medicare. But since freestanding children's hospitals treat almost no Medicare patients, they receive almost no federal support or other support for training their residents. Democrats and Republicans recognize that qualified children's physicians are needed as much as other types of physicians. Under this bill, the Department of Health and Human Services is authorized to provide support to freestanding children's hospitals for such training. It means that children's hospitals will receive the same level of support that this country gives to other teaching hospitals. Under this legislation funds will be distributed fairly, by using a formula that considers variations across the country in the cost of such training. Safeguards are included to guarantee that the dollars are spent only when residents are actually trained. President Clinton's budget recognizes this high priority. It includes a $40 million downpayment until this legislation is enacted. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the administration to assure early passage of this needed legislation. I commend both the President and the First Lady for their strong commitment to children and for their indispensable leadership on this important issue. Action by Congress is needed now. We must work together to make a long-term commitment to enable children's hospitals to train the physicians of the future to care for children.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, America's children--from the smallest premature baby to the tallest teenager--deserve access to doctors trained specifically in meeting their health needs. I commend Senator Kerrey's leadership in this bipartisan legislation introduced today to provide greater support to children's hospitals, so that they can continue to train the kinds of doctors that children need. In the United States, there are 53 freestanding pediatric hospitals-- less than 1% of all the hospitals in the country. Yet they train more than a quarter of all pediatricians and more than half of all pediatric specialists. These hospitals also help train other doctors who need experience in taking care of children--including family doctors, neurologists, and surgeons. Children's hospitals typically provide care for the sickest children--those whose medical needs are not easily met in the local and community hospitals. Patients in children's hospitals include a higher percentage of our nation's uninsured children and low-income children. These hospitals are the source of many new lifesaving strategies, such as treating childhood cancer and helping premature babies to breathe. But the ability of children's hospitals to train doctors is in increasing jeopardy. Funds for training residents are declining as changes take place in the ways we pay for our health care. For most hospitals, support for graduate medical education is funded through Medicare. But since freestanding children's hospitals treat almost no Medicare patients, they receive almost no federal support or other support for training their residents. Democrats and Republicans recognize that qualified children's physicians are needed as much as other types of physicians. Under this bill, the Department of Health and Human Services is authorized to provide support to freestanding children's hospitals for such training. It means that children's hospitals will receive the same level of support that this country gives to other teaching hospitals. Under this legislation funds will be distributed fairly, by using a formula that considers variations across the country in the cost of such training. Safeguards are included to guarantee that the dollars are spent only when residents are actually trained. President Clinton's budget recognizes this high priority. It includes a $40 million downpayment until this legislation is enacted. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the administration to assure early passage of this needed legislation. I commend both the President and the First Lady for their strong commitment to children and for their indispensable leadership on this important issue. Action by Congress is needed now. We must work together to make a long-term commitment to enable children's hospitals to train the physicians of the future to care for children.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, senior citizens deserve coverage of prescription drugs under Medicare, and it is time for Congress to see that they get it. Medicare is a compact between workers and their government that says, ``Work hard, pay into the system when you are young, and we will guarantee health security in your retirement.'' But that commitment is being broken every day, because Medicare does not cover prescription drugs. Prescription drug bills eat up a disproportionate share of the income of the typical elderly household. Senior citizens spend three times more of their income on health care than persons under 65, and they account for one-third of all prescription drug expenditures. Yet they make-up only 12 percent of the population. The greatest gap in Medicare--and the greatest anachronism--is its failure to cover prescription drugs. Because of this gap and other gaps in Medicare coverage, and the growing cost of the Part B premium, Medicare now pays only 50% of the out-of-pocket medical costs of the elderly. On average, senior citizens now spend almost as much of their income on health care as they did before Medicare was enacted. Prescription drugs are the single largest out-of-pocket cost to the elderly for health services. The average senior citizen fills an average of eighteen prescriptions a year, and takes four to six prescriptions daily. Many elderly Americans face monthly drug bills of $100 or more. When Medicare was enacted in 1965, coverage of prescription drugs in private insurance policies was rare--and Medicare followed that standard practice. Today, 99 percent of employment-based health insurance policies provide prescription drug coverage--99 percent. But Medicare is caught in a 34-year-old time warp--and senior citizens are suffering as a result. Too many elderly Americans today face a cruel choice between food on the table and the medicine they need to stay healthy or to treat their illnesses. Too many senior citizens often take only half the pills their doctor prescribes, or don't even fill needed prescriptions-- because they can't afford the high cost of the drugs. Too often, they are paying twice as much as they should for their prescription drugs, because they are forced to pay full price when those with private insurance policies get the advantage of negotiated discounts. As a result, many senior citizens end up in the hospital--at excessive cost to Medicare--because they aren't obtaining the drugs they need or are not taking them correctly. As we enter the new century, pharmaceutical products are increasingly the source of miracle cures for many dread diseases--and senior citizens will be left even farther behind if we fail to act. The 21st century may well be the century of life sciences. With the support of the American people, Congress is on the way to the goal of doubling the budget of the National Institutes of Health over the next five years. This investment is seed money for the additional basic research that will enable scientists to develop new therapies to improve and extend the lives of senior citizens and all citizens. In 1998 alone, private industry spent more than $21 billion for research on new medicines and to bring them to the public. These miracle drugs save lives--and they save dollars too, by preventing unnecessary hospitalization and expensive surgery. All patients deserve affordable access to these medications. Yet, Medicare, which is the nation's largest insurer, does not cover outpatient prescription drugs, and senior citizens and persons with disabilities pay a heavy daily price for this glaring omission. America's senior citizens and disabled citizens deserve to benefit from new discoveries in the same way that other families do. Yet, without negotiating power, they receive the brunt of cost-shifting-- with often devastating results. In the words of a recent report by Standard & Poor's, ``Drugmakers have historically raised prices to private customers to compensate for the discounts they grant to managed care consumers.'' The so-called ``private'' customers referred to in this report are largely our nation's mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, grandmothers, and grandfathers. Up to 19 million Medicare beneficiaries are forced to fend for themselves when it comes to purchasing these life-saving and life- improving therapies. They have no prescription drug coverage from any source. Other Medicare beneficiaries have some coverage, but too often it is inadequate, unreliable and unaffordable. About 6 percent of senior citizens have limited coverage through a Medicare HMO. While the majority of Medicare HMO plans offer prescription drug coverage, the benefits vary widely. Some plans cap the benefit at just $300 a year or less. Imagine that, $300 a year or less. In addition, the current trend is for HMOs to cut back on drug coverage or, in extreme cases, leave the Medicare market altogether. We have tried to remedy this problem in Massachusetts, but clearly it is a national problem, and it requires a national solution. An additional 12 percent of Medicare beneficiaries purchase an independent medigap policy with prescription drug coverage and coverage of other gaps in Medicare. Only three of the ten standard medigap benefit packages even include insurance for prescription drugs. These plans are difficult to obtain, because even the most generous companies refuse to cover all people who walk in the door. They fear that only those who urgently need the coverage will sign up, so the plans contain escape clauses that exclude applicants with pre-existing conditions. Even if they decide to issue a policy, often there are no limits on what these private companies can charge. As a result, medigap plans with drug coverage are often out of reach for senior citizens. For those fortunate enough to obtain the coverage, the benefits are limited and the costs are high. Another 10 percent are Medicare beneficiaries are eligible for coverage under Medicaid. This coverage is an important part of the safety net for our poorest elderly and disabled citizens, but it offers no help to the vast majority of senior citizens. Finally, a third of all Medicare beneficiaries have reasonably comprehensive coverage through a retiree health plan. These plans, which are offered through their former employers, supplement Medicare, and the prescription drug benefits are often generous. But increasingly, retiree health benefits are on the chopping block as companies cut costs by reducing health spending. Despite Medicare's lack of coverage for prescription drugs, their misuse results in preventable illnesses that cost Medicare as much as $16 billion annually, while imposing vast misery on senior citizens. It is in our best interest, and in the best interest of Medicare, to reform it in ways that encourage proper use and minimize these abuses. Savings can be achieved when physicians and pharmacists are better educated on the needs of senior citizens and the potential problems they face in obtaining and using their medications. Savings can also be achieved when senior citizens are assisted in learning how to follow the instructions that are dispensed with their medications. Too often, patients shortchange themselves. They take half doses or try to stretch out their prescription to make it last longer. This is wrong, and it doesn't have to happen. If elderly patients know that the drugs they need will be affordable, compliance will improve, and so will their quality of life. President Clinton has correctly identified prescription drug coverage as one of the very highest priorities for Medicare reform. I hope we can reach a broad bipartisan consensus in the coming weeks that any Medicare reform worth the name will include coverage of prescription drugs. The health and financial security of millions of senior citizens depend on it, and we owe it to them to act as soon as possible. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join my colleagues in introducing the Work Incentives Improvement Act to provide affordable and accessible health care for persons with disabilities so they can work and live independently. Despite the extraordinary growth and prosperity the country is now enjoying, people with disabilities continue to struggle to live independently and become fully contributing members of their communities. We have made significant progress through special education programs that open new horizons for excellence in learning, and through rehabilitation programs that develop practical independent living skills. Too often, however, the goal of independence is still out of reach. We need to do more to see that the benefits of our prosperous economy are truly available to all Americans, including those with disabilities. Disabled children and adults deserve access to the benefits and support they need to achieve their full potential. Large numbers of the 54 million disabled Americans have the capacity to work and become productive citizens. But they are unable to do so because of the unnecessary barriers they face. For too long, people with disabilities have suffered from unfair penalties if they go to work. They are in danger of losing their cash benefits if they accept a paying job. They are in danger of losing the medical coverage, which may well mean the difference between life and death. Too often, they face a harsh choice between eating a decent meal and buying their needed medication. The bipartisan legislation we are introducing today will help to remove these unfair barriers. It will make health insurance coverage more widely available, through opportunities to buy-in to Medicare and Medicaid at an affordable rate. It will 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 bring greater access for people with disabilities to the services they need in order to become successfully employed. Our goal is to restructure and improve existing disability programs so that they do more to encourage and support every disabled person's dream to work and live independently, and be productive and contributing members of their community. That goal should be the birthright of all Americans--and when we say all, we mean all. This bill is the right thing to do, it is the cost effective thing to do, and now is the time to do it. For too long, our fellow disabled citizens have been left out and left behind. A new and brighter day is on the horizon for Americans with disabilities, and together we can make it a reality. I especially commend Senator Jeffords, Senator Roth and Senator Moynihan for their impressive leadership on this issue. We look forward to working with all members of Congress to pass this landmark legislation that will give disabled persons across the country a better opportunity to fulfill their dreams and participate fully in the social and economic mainstream of the nation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today Senators Mikulski, Wellstone, Kerry, and I are introducing the America After School Act. With this legislation, the nation can do much more to provide the care and activities that children need when they are not in school. Over 17 million parents rely on others to care for their children before and after the school bell rings each day. Over 5 million children are left home alone after school. The need for responsible after-school activities is urgent. Hundreds of thousands of families are on waiting lists across the country for such programs. Today's students deserve the best and brightest future possible. After school programs provide a unique opportunity to help to meet this challenge. Tutoring, mentoring, recreational, and cultural activities are all key components of strong, stimulating after school programs. These activities can help young men and women strengthen their computer skills, explore prospective careers, learn about the arts, and develop their physical fitness. They are an investment in education, children, and our future. After school programs help reduce crime. Police across the nation report that juvenile delinquency peaks between 3 and 8 p.m. each day. We know that unsupervised children are more likely to engage in destructive behavior. Effective after school programs help keep young people off the streets, away from gangs, and out of trouble. All children deserve a safe and productive environment in which to spend their time out of school. Parents want safe, effective after school programs for their children, and this legislation helps meet that need. The legislation significantly expands after school care for low-income families by increasing the Child Care and Development Block Grant. Title I of the bill, authorizes a $3 billion increase in such grants over the next 5 years. With this higher level of investment, we can reduce waiting lists and provide after school care to hundreds of thousands of additional children from low-income working families. Communities with high concentrations of poverty and at-risk youth will receive priority for this funding, so that the help will be available where it is needed most. The needs of children with disabilities are also specifically addressed. After school programs should challenge children, stimulate their curiosity, and enhance their creativity. We get what we pay for. On the average, child care providers earn less than bus drivers and garbage collectors. We need stronger incentives to develop and retain skilled child care providers. Our bill designates 25 percent of the increase for indirect services that include salary incentives for training care givers. Our bill also strengthens and expands the 21st Century Learning Centers program. In the last Congress, we provided $200 million to expand this worthwhile program and increase after school programs to serve up to a half million more children. This action was an important step forward--but even with this increase, a tremendous need remains. To address this problem, President Clinton has proposed to triple the federal investment in these centers: The additional funds will ensure that one million more youths will be in safe, effective after school care. Our America After School Act builds on this momentum. By strengthening the 21st Century Learning Centers program, we will provide greater opportunities for hundreds of thousands more children and their families. This additional funding will support mentoring programs, academic assistance programs, and drug, alcohol, and gang prevention activities. Title III of this bill provides $1.25 billion over the next five years to expand grants by the Justice Department for after-school programs to prevent juvenile delinquency. Both public and private agencies will be eligible to apply for these grants, and awards will be made on a matching basis. To maximize its effectiveness, recipients must coordinate their efforts with state and local law enforcement officials. After school educational and recreational programs in high crime neighborhoods will receive priority, since children in these neighborhoods face the highest risk. We must do all we can to prepare students for the future. Providing safe and worthwhile afterschool activities is an essential part of achieving this goal. We owe our children no less.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today Senators Mikulski, Wellstone, Kerry, and I are introducing the America After School Act. With this legislation, the nation can do much more to provide the care and activities that children need when they are not in school. Over 17 million parents rely on others to care for their children before and after the school bell rings each day. Over 5 million children are left home alone after school. The need for responsible after-school activities is urgent. Hundreds of thousands of families are on waiting lists across the country for such programs. Today's students deserve the best and brightest future possible. After school programs provide a unique opportunity to help to meet this challenge. Tutoring, mentoring, recreational, and cultural activities are all key components of strong, stimulating after school programs. These activities can help young men and women strengthen their computer skills, explore prospective careers, learn about the arts, and develop their physical fitness. They are an investment in education, children, and our future. After school programs help reduce crime. Police across the nation report that juvenile delinquency peaks between 3 and 8 p.m. each day. We know that unsupervised children are more likely to engage in destructive behavior. Effective after school programs help keep young people off the streets, away from gangs, and out of trouble. All children deserve a safe and productive environment in which to spend their time out of school. Parents want safe, effective after school programs for their children, and this legislation helps meet that need. The legislation significantly expands after school care for low-income families by increasing the Child Care and Development Block Grant. Title I of the bill, authorizes a $3 billion increase in such grants over the next 5 years. With this higher level of investment, we can reduce waiting lists and provide after school care to hundreds of thousands of additional children from low-income working families. Communities with high concentrations of poverty and at-risk youth will receive priority for this funding, so that the help will be available where it is needed most. The needs of children with disabilities are also specifically addressed. After school programs should challenge children, stimulate their curiosity, and enhance their creativity. We get what we pay for. On the average, child care providers earn less than bus drivers and garbage collectors. We need stronger incentives to develop and retain skilled child care providers. Our bill designates 25 percent of the increase for indirect services that include salary incentives for training care givers. Our bill also strengthens and expands the 21st Century Learning Centers program. In the last Congress, we provided $200 million to expand this worthwhile program and increase after school programs to serve up to a half million more children. This action was an important step forward--but even with this increase, a tremendous need remains. To address this problem, President Clinton has proposed to triple the federal investment in these centers: The additional funds will ensure that one million more youths will be in safe, effective after school care. Our America After School Act builds on this momentum. By strengthening the 21st Century Learning Centers program, we will provide greater opportunities for hundreds of thousands more children and their families. This additional funding will support mentoring programs, academic assistance programs, and drug, alcohol, and gang prevention activities. Title III of this bill provides $1.25 billion over the next five years to expand grants by the Justice Department for after-school programs to prevent juvenile delinquency. Both public and private agencies will be eligible to apply for these grants, and awards will be made on a matching basis. To maximize its effectiveness, recipients must coordinate their efforts with state and local law enforcement officials. After school educational and recreational programs in high crime neighborhoods will receive priority, since children in these neighborhoods face the highest risk. We must do all we can to prepare students for the future. Providing safe and worthwhile afterschool activities is an essential part of achieving this goal. We owe our children no less.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, all of us commend our troops for their superb performance. Their extraordinary efforts last year in Operation Desert Fox, Hurricane Mitch, Operation Provide Comfort, and in Kenya, and Tanzania highlighted only a few of their significant contributions to the Nation in 1998. America continues to rely heavily on its Armed Forces, and we want our service members and families to know how proud we in Congress are of their contributions to our country and to our national defense. We are deeply indebted to them for their service, and we have the highest respect for their dedication, their patriotism, and their courage. This past year once again demonstrated the importance of guaranteeing that our military forces are well prepared to meet any challenge. However, I am very concered about the future readiness of our Armed Forces. I am troubled by reports of declining readiness, poor retention, and recruiting shortfalls. Two years ago the Army reduced its recuiting standards, and now the Navy has followed suit. Secretary of the Navy Danzig has announced that the Navy is lowering its educational standards for new recruits. This and other reductions in personnel standards by the Navy are taking place because the Navy fell short of its recruiting goals last year for the first time since the draft ended in 1973. Secretary Danzig also recently announced that retention of Naval Officers is so low that the Navy will have 50 percent fewer officers than required to man its ships in the coming years. These are serious concerns that must be addressed, and this legislation does so. Congress must do all it can to provide for our men and women in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. They have worked hard for us. Now we must provide the support they need to do their jobs and care for their families. The Military Recruiting and Retention Improvement Act is a substantial step toward meeting these urgent needs of our service members, and will encourage more of these highly skilled and well- trained men and women to remain in the military ranks. I also hope that the provisions in this act will encourage more of the Nation's young men and women to join the military and serve their country in that way. Our proposal increases base pay for our troops. It contains pay table reforms and guaranteed pay raises above inflation. It restores equity to the military retirement system by providing active duty service members 50 percent retirement after 20 years of service. It allows service members to transfer hard-earned educational benefits to others in their family. It provides stability by extending authorities for bonus pay and special pay. I'm reminded of the words of President Kennedy during an address at the U.S. Naval Academy in August of 1963. That is what he said about a career in the Navy: I can imagine a no more rewarding career. And any man who may be asked in this century what he did to make his life worth while, I think can respond with a good deal of pride and satisfaction: ``I served in the United States Navy.'' My brother was a Navy man, but I'm sure that veterans of all the other services in those years felt the same way. I want to do all I can to see that our service men and women feel the same way today and on into the next century. These personnel issues are important, and Congress has to deal with them effectively and responsibly. The Military Recruiting and Retirement Improvement Act moves our Nation in the right direction, and I look forward to early and favorable action on it by the Senate.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, states and local communities are making significant progress toward improving their public schools. Almost every state has developed challenging academic standards for all students to meet--and they are holding schools accountable for results. But just setting standards isn't enough. Schools and communities have to do more to ensure improved student achievement. Schools must have small classes, particularly in the early grades. They must have strong parent involvement. They must have safe, modern facilities with up-to- date technology. They must have high-quality after-school opportunities for children who need extra help. They must have well-trained teachers in the classroom who keep up with current developments in their field and the best teaching practices. 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. However, more needs to be done. Education must continue to be a top priority in the new Congress. We must do more to meet the needs of public schools, families, and children, so that all children have an opportunity to attend good schools. We need to do more to help communities modernize their schools, reduce class sizes, especially in grades 1-3, improve the quality of the nation's teachers, and expand after-school programs. These steps are urgently needed to help communities address the serious problems of rising student enrollments, overcrowded classrooms, dilapidated schools, teacher shortages, underqualified teachers, high turnover rates of teachers, and lack of after-school programs. These are real problems that deserve real solutions. The needs of families across the nation should not be ignored. They want the federal government to offer a helping hand in improving public schools. This year, the nation has set a new record for elementary and secondary student enrollment. The figure has reached an all-time high of 53 million students--500,000 more students than last year. Serious teacher shortages are being caused by rising student enrollments, and also by the growing number of teacher retirements. The nation's public schools will need to hire 2.2 million teachers over the next ten years, just to hold their own. If we don't act now, the need for more teachers will put even greater pressure on school districts to lower their standards and hire unqualified teachers. Also, too many teachers leave within the first three years of teaching--including 30-50% of teachers in urban areas--because they don't get the support and mentoring they need to succeed. Veteran teachers and principals need more and better opportunities for professional development to enhance their knowledge and skills, to integrate technology into the curriculum, and to help children meet high standards. We must fulfill last year's commitment to help communities hire 100,000 new teachers, in order to reduce class size. But it is equally important that we help communities recruit promising teacher candidates, provide new teachers with trained mentors who will help them succeed in the classroom, and give current teachers the on-going training they need to stay abreast of modern technologies and new research. Many communities are working hard to attract, keep, and support good teachers--and often they're succeeding. The North Carolina Teaching Fellows Program has recruited 3,600 high- ability high school graduates to go into teaching. The students agree to teach for four years in the state's public schools in exchange for a four-year college scholarship. North Carolina principals report that the performance of the Fellows far exceeds other new teachers. In Chicago, a program called the Golden Apple Scholars of Illinois recruits promising young men and women into the profession by selecting them during their junior year of high school, then mentoring them through the rest of high school, college, and five years of actual teaching. 60 Golden Apple scholars enter the teaching field each year, and 90 percent of them stay in the classroom. Colorado State University's Project Promise recruits prospective teachers from fields such as law, geology, chemistry, stock trading and medicine. Current teachers mentor graduates in their first two years of teaching. More than 90 percent of the recruits enter the field, and 80 percent stay for at least five years. New York City's Mentor Teacher Internship Program has increased the retention of new teachers. In Montana, only 4 percent of new teachers in mentoring programs left after their first year of teaching, compared with 28 percent of teachers without mentoring programs. New York City's District 2 has made professional development the central component for improving schools. They believe that student learning will increase as the knowledge of educators grows--and it's working. In 1996, student math scores were second in the city. Massachusetts has invested $60 million in the Teacher Quality Endowment Fund to launch the 12-to-62 Plan for Strengthening Massachusetts Future Teaching Force. The plan being developed is a comprehensive effort to improve recruitment, retention, and professional development of teachers throughout their careers. Congress should build on and support these successful efforts across the country to ensure that the nation's teaching force is strong and successful in the years ahead. The Teacher Excellence Act we are introducing will invest $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2000 to improve the recruitment, retention, and on-going professional development of the nation's teachers. The proposal will provide states and local school districts with the support they need to recruit excellent teacher candidates, to retain and support promising beginning teachers, and to provide veteran teachers and principals with the on-going professional development they need to help all children meet high standards of achievement. States will receive grants through the current Title I or Title II formula, whichever is greater. They will use 20 percent of the funding to provide scholarships to prospective teachers--whether they are high school graduates, professionals who want to make a career change, or paraprofessionals who want to become fully certified as teachers. Scholarship recipients must agree to teach for at least 3 years after completion of the teaching degree and teach in a high-need school district or in a high-need subject. At least 70 percent of the funds must go to local school districts on a competitive basis to implement, improve or expand high-quality programs for beginning teachers, including mentoring and internship programs, and provide high-quality professional development for principals and veteran teachers. Our goal is to ensure that every child has the opportunity to meet high state standards. States must also set additional eligibility criteria, including the poverty rate of the school district; the need for support based on low student achievement and low teacher retention rates; and the need for upgrading the knowledge and skills of veteran teachers in high-priority content areas. Other criteria include the need to help students with disabilities and limited English proficiency. States must target grants to school districts with the highest needs and ensure a fair distribution of grants among school districts serving urban and rural areas. In addition to providing states and communities with the support they need to ensure that there is a qualified, well-trained teacher in every classroom, we must also hold states and communities accountable for results--and for making the changes that will achieve those results. Currently, teachers are often assigned subjects in which they have no training or experience. Nearly one-fourth of all secondary school teachers do not have even a college minor in their main teaching field, let alone a college major. This fact is true for more than 50 percent of math teachers. 56 percent of high school students taking a physical science course are taught by out-of-field teachers, as are 27 percent of those taking mathematics, and 21 percent of those taking English. The proportions are much higher in high-poverty schools. In schools with the highest minority enrollments, students have less than a 50 percent chance of having science or math teachers who hold a license and a degree in the field they teach. Because of teacher shortages caused by rising enrollments and teacher retirements, communities must often lower their standards and hire unqualified teachers. Currently, communities across the country have hired 50,000 unqualified teachers in order to address such shortages. More than 12 percent of newly hired teachers have no training and 15 percent of new teachers enter teaching without meeting state standards. Under the Teacher Excellence Act, states and communities will be held accountable for reducing the number of emergency certified teachers and out-of-field placements of teachers. As they work to improve recruitment, retention, and professional development of teachers, states and communities should also reduce these practices that undermine efforts to help all students meet high standards. States will be able to use up to 10 percent of the funds in order to meet these accountability requirements. In addition, the bill supports the full $300 million for funding of Title II of the Higher Education Act to improve the initial preparation of teachers. Also, current support for technology programs must include a requirement for training teachers in how to use technologies effectively to improve student learning. We must do all we can to improve teacher quality across the country. What teachers know and are able to teach are among the most important influences on student achievement. Improving teacher quality is an effective way to link high state standards to the classroom. We should do all we can to ensure that every child has the opportunity to learn from a qualified, well-trained teacher and to attend a school with a well-trained principal.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join with Senator Daschle and other Democratic Senators to introduce the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 1999. This proposal is strongly supported by President Clinton, and is also being introduced today in the House of Representatives by Congressman David Bonior, Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt, and many of their colleagues. The federal minimum wage is now $5.15 an hour. Our bill will raise it by $1.00 over the next two years--a 50 cent increase on September 1, 1999, and another 50 cent increase on September 1, 2000, so that the minimum wage will reach the level of $6.15 by the turn of the century. These modest increases will help 20 million workers and their families. Twelve million Americans earning less than $6.15 an hour today will see a direct increase in their pay, and another 8 million Americans earning between $6.15 and $7.15 an hour are also likely to benefit from the increase. To have the purchasing power it had in 1968, the minimum wage should be at least $7.45 an hour today, instead of the current level of $5.15. The gap shows how far we have fallen short in giving low income workers their fair share of our extraordinary economic prosperity. Since 1968, the stock market, adjusted for inflation, has gone up by over 150 percent--while the purchasing power of the minimum wage has gone down by 30 percent. The nation's economy is the best it has been in decades. Under the leadership of President Clinton, the country as a whole is enjoying a remarkable period of growth and prosperity. Enterprise and entrepreneurship are flourishing--generating an unprecedented expansion, with impressive efficiencies and significant job creation. The stock market has soared. Inflation is low, unemployment is low, and interest rates are low. But the benefits of this prosperity have not flowed fairly to minimum wage earners. These workers can barely make ends meet. Working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, they earn $10,712 a year--$2,900 below the poverty line for a family of three. A full day's work should mean a fair day's pay. But for millions of Americans who earn the minimum wage, it doesn't. According to the Department of Labor, 60% of minimum wage earners are women. Nearly three-fourths are adults. Minimum wage workers are teacher's aides and child care providers, home health care aides and clothing store workers. They care for vast numbers of elderly Americans in nursing homes. They stock shelves in the corner store. They mop the floors and empty the trash in thousands of office buildings in communities across the country. Three-fifths of these workers are the sole breadwinners in their families. More than half work full time. These families need help. They work hard and they should be treated with dignity. They deserve this increase in the minimum wage. Opponents typically claim that, if the minimum wage goes up, the sky will fall--small businesses will collapse and jobs will be lost. This hasn't happened in the past, and it won't happen in the future. In fact, in the time that has passed since the most recent increases in the federal minimum wage--a 50-cent increase on October 1, 1996 and a 40-cent increase on September 1, 1997--employment has increased in all sectors of the population. The American people understand that you can't raise a family on $5.15 an hour. This issue is of vital importance to working families across the country. In the past election, for example, by a margin of 2 to 1, voters in the State of Washington approved a ballot initiative to increase the state minimum wage to $6.50 an hour. In many other states, raising the minimum wage was a potent issue in the election. The minimum wage is a women's issue. It is a children's issue. It is a civil rights issue. It is a labor issue. It is a family issue. Above all, it is a fairness issue and a dignity issue. I intend to do all I can to see that the minimum wage is increased this year. No one who works for a living should have to live in poverty. I ask consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Moynihan for his strong leadership on this issue. More than three million Americans aged 55 to 64 have no health insurance today. They are too young for Medicare, and unable to obtain private coverage they can afford. Often, they are victims of corporate downsizing, or of a company's decision to cancel their health insurance. In the past year, the number of the uninsured in this age group increased at a faster rate than other age groups. These Americans have been left out and left behind through no fault of their own--often after decades of hard work and reliable insurance coverage--and it is time for Congress to provide a helping hand. Many of these fellow citizens have serious health problems that threaten to destroy the savings of a lifetime and that prevent them from finding or keeping a job. Even those without current health problems know that a single serious illness could wipe out their savings. These uninsured Americans tend to be in poorer health than other members of their age group. Their health continues to deteriorate, the longer they remain uninsured. This unnecessary burden of illness is a preventable human tragedy--and it adds to Medicare's long-term costs, because when these individuals turn 65, they enter the program with more costly health problems and greater unmet needs for health care services. Even those with good coverage today can't be certain that it will be there tomorrow. No one nearing retirement can be confident that the health insurance they have now will protect them until they qualify for Medicare at 65. Our legislation provides three kinds of assistance. First, any uninsured American who is 62 years old or older and not yet eligible for Medicare can buy into the program. Participants will pay the full cost of their coverage, but to help keep premiums affordable, they can defer payment of part of the premiums until they turn 65 and Medicare starts to pay most of their health care costs. Once they turn 65, this defrayed premium will be paid back over time at a modest monthly charge, currently estimated at about $10 per month for each year of participation in the buy-in program. Individuals age 55-61 who lose their health insurance because they are laid off or because their company closes will also be able to buy into Medicare. Finally, people who have retired before 65 with the expectation of employer-paid health insurance coverage would be allowed to buy into the company's program for active workers if the company dropped retirement coverage. Today's proposal is a lifeline for all of these Americans It is also a constructive step toward the day when every American will be guaranteed the fundamental right to health care. In the past, opponents have waged a campaign of disinformation that this sensible plan is somehow a threat to Medicare. They are wrong--and the American people understand that they are wrong. Under our proposal, the participants themselves will ultimately pay the full cost of this new coverage. The modest short-term budget impact can be financed through savings obtained by reducing fraud or abuse in Medicare. Every American should have the security and peace of mind of knowing that their critical years in the workforce will not be haunted by the fear of devastating medical costs or the inability to meet basic medical needs. Uninsured Americans who are too young for Medicare but too old to purchase affordable private insurance coverage deserve our help--and we intend to see that they get it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a sponsor of this important bill, and I commend Senator Harkin for his leadership on this issue. With the high incidence of foodborne illnesses, it is essential for regulatory agencies to have the authority necessary to prevent or minimize outbreaks of these illnesses, and combat food contamination. Microbial contamination of food is an increasing problem. The emergence of highly virulent strains of common bacteria, such as E. coli 0157, is a significant cause of foodborne illnesses. Common infections that were once easily treatable are now a major public health threat, as the microorganisms acquire the ability to resist destruction by antibiotics. The current enforcement authority of the Department of Agriculture is not sufficient. Our bill gives the Secretary of Agriculture the additional authority he needs in order to recall adulterated or misbranded meat or poultry products, and to assess civil penalties against processors who repeatedly violate meat and poultry safety standards. Most processors comply responsibly with USDA requests for voluntary recalls of unsafe products. This additional authority will ensure more timely and comprehensive removal of potentially dangerous foods from supermarket shelves. Such new enforcement tools are necessary to improve food safety in general and to reduce the risk of future outbreaks of foodborne illnesses. Families across the country deserve to have confidence that the meat and poultry they eat are safe, and I look forward to early action by Congress on this important legislation. Assurance of safe meat and poultry is just one part of the challenge of guaranteeing safe food. The safety of produce and of processed food, including imported food, is the responsibility of the Food and Drug Administration and a major part of President Clinton's Food Safety Initiative. I plan to develop legislation, in cooperation with other Senators, to ensure that no matter where our food is grown, processed, or packaged, it meets uniform high standards of safety.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Daschle for his leadership in making these vital health programs that mean so much to older Americans a central part of the Democratic agenda. Our proposal for Early Access to Medicare is a key part of these initiatives. It provides a lifeline for millions of Americans who are within a few years of the age of eligibility for Medicare and who have lost their health insurance coverage or fear that they will lose it. Our proposal also includes President Clinton's program to assist disabled senior citizens and their families--assistance that can mean the difference between institutionalization in a nursing home and the ability to remain in their own home. In addition, our proposal extends and strengthens the Older Americans Act, which provides valuable services for senior citizens, from ``Meals on Wheels'' to employment opportunities. Providing early access to Medicare will offer help and hope to more than three million Americans aged 55 to 64 who have no health insurance today. They are too young for Medicare, and unable to obtain private coverage they can afford. Often, they are victims of corporate downsizing, or of a company's decision to cancel their health insurance. In the past year, the number of the uninsured in this age group increased at a faster rate than other age groups. These Americans have been left out and left behind through no fault of their own--often after decades of hard work and reliable insurance coverage. It is time for Congress to provide a helping hand. Many of these citizens have serious health problems that threaten to destroy the savings of a lifetime and that prevent them from finding or keeping a job. Even those without current health problems know that a single serious illness could wipe out their savings. These uninsured Americans tend to be in poorer health than other members of their age group. Their health continues to deteriorate, the longer they remain uninsured. this unnecessary burden of illness is a preventable human tragedy. It adds to Medicare's long-term costs, because when these individuals turn 65, they join Medicare with greater and more costly needs for health care. Even those with good coverage today can't be certain that it will be there tomorrow. No one nearing retirement can be confident that the health insurance they have today will protect them until they qualify for Medicare at 65. Our proposal offers several types of assistance. Any uninsured American who is 62 or older can buy into Medicare. Over time, the participants will pay the full cost of the coverage, but to help keep premiums affordable, they can defer payment of part of the premiums until they turn 65 and Medicare starts to pay most of their health care costs. Once they turn 65, this deferred portion of the premium will be paid back at a modest monthly rate estimated at about $10 per month for each year of participation in the buy-in program. In addition, individuals age 55-61 who lose their health insurance because they are laid off or because their company closes will also be able to buy into Medicare, but they will not qualify for the deferred premium. Also, people who have retired before age 65 with the expectation of employer-paid health insurance would be allowed to buy into the company's program for active workers if the company drops its retirement coverage before they are eligible for Medicare. Our proposal is a lifeline for all these Americans. It is also a constructive step toward the day when every American will be guaranteed the fundamental right to health care. In the past, opponents have waged a campaign of disinformation that this sensible plan is somehow a threat to Medicare. They are wrong--and the American people understand that they are wrong. Under our proposal, the participants themselves will ultimately pay the full cost of this new coverage. The modest short-term budget impact can be financed through savings obtained by reducing fraud and abuse in Medicare. Every American should have the security and peace of mind of knowing that their final years in the workforce will not be haunted by the fear of devastating medical costs or the inability to meet basic medical needs. Uninsured Americans who are too young for Medicare but too old to purchase affordable private insurance coverage deserve our help--and we intend to see that they get it. Additional assistance for the disabled is also very important. Few issues are more important to senior citizens and their families than how to care for a severely disable order person at home. No senior citizens who want to remain in their own homes should be forced to enter a nursing home. Children who want to take disabled parents into their own homes deserve support. The issue of caring for the severely disabled at home is not just a concern for senior citizens. No parent should be forced to place a disabled child in institutional care. No disabled citizen who wants to live independently and can do so should be denied that opportunity. President Clinton's proposal is not a comprehensive solution to the problem of financing needed long-term care. It will not end the enormous burdens that caregivers often assume. But it is an important and constructive step that will provide needed help to millions of families. Under the proposal, disabled persons or their caregivers will be entitled to a tax credit of $1,000--far less than the total cost of caring for a disabled person, but still significant relief that can help buy a critical piece of equipment, pay for a period of respite care, or meet other unmet needs. The proposal also creates a National Family Caregiver Support Program to develop community resources for counseling, respite care and other services, training in assisting persons with disabilities, and providing information about resources available to meet the needs of the disabled and their caregivers. One of the most difficult aspects of caring for a disabled parent or child is not knowing where to turn for help, or finding that help is not available. This program will help to meet these needs. Finally, the legislation extends and strengthens the Older Americans Act, a step that is long overdue. The Act provides essential services that assist senior citizens in every community. It supports 57 state agencies on aging, 660 area agencies, and 27,000 service providers who work with the elderly. The Act is an essential source of nutrition for many low income and frail elderly. In FY 1996, more than 3 million older persons were served 238 million meals with funding from the Act. The Act supported transportation, assistance, home care, recreation and other important services provided by 6,400 senior centers. It funded more than 40 million rides and 15 million home care services to older persons. The Act also pays for training and research in the field of aging. It helps unemployed low-income older persons to find employment opportunities. And it provides protection and advocacy services for vulnerable senior citizens. Elderly Americans and those nearing retirement have worked all their lives to build America. When they face basic needs for health care and long-term care, they deserve the best help that America can provide. These proposals are important and timely. They will make a very important difference in the lives of millions of our fellow citizens, and they deserve prompt enactment by the Congress. s____

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, we renew the battle in Congress to enact a strong Patients' Bill of Rights to protect American families from abuses by HMOs and managed care health plans that too often put profits over patients' needs. Our Patients' Bill of Rights will protect families against the arbitrary and self-serving decisions that can rob average citizens of their savings and their peace of mind, and often their health and their very lives. Doctors and patients should be making medical decisions, not insurance company accountants. Too often, managed care is mismanaged care. For the millions of Americans who rely on health insurance to protect them and their loved ones when serious illness strikes, the Patients Bill of Rights is truly a matter of life and death. The dishonor roll of those victimized by insurance company abuses is long and growing. A baby loses his hands and feet because his parents believe they have to take him to a distant hospital emergency room covered by their HMO, rather than to the hospital closest to their home. A Senate aide suffers a devastating stroke, which might have been far milder if her HMO had not refused to send her to an emergency room. The HMO now even refuses to pay for her wheelchair. A woman is forced to undergo a mastectomy as an outpatient, instead of with a hospital stay as her doctor recommends. She is sent home in pain, with tubes still dangling from her body. A doctor is punished by being denied future referrals under a managed care health plan, because he told a patient about an expensive treatment that could save her life. The parents of a child suffering from a rare cancer are told that life-saving surgery should be performed by an unqualified doctor who happens to be on the plan's list, rather than by a specialist at the nearby cancer center equipped to perform the operation. A patient with a fatal cancer is denied participation in a clinical trial that could save her life. Our Patients' Bill of Rights addresses all of these problems. It takes insurance company accountants out of the practice of medicine and returns decision-making to patients and doctors, where it belongs. The bottom line is that our program guarantees people the rights that every honorable insurance company already grants--and provides an effective, timely means to enforce these rights. These protections are common- sense components of good health care that every family believes they were promised when they purchased health insurance and paid their premiums. Virtually all of the patients' protections in this legislation are already available under Medicare. They have been recommended by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners and the President's Advisory Commission. They have even been proposed as voluntary standards by the managed care industry itself through its trade association. Our Patients' Bill of Rights is a responsible and effective answer to the widespread problems that patients and their families face every day. It is supported by a broad and diverse coalition of doctors, nurses, patients, and advocates for children, women, and working families, including the American Medical Association, the Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the National Partnership for Women and Families, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, and the AFL-CIO, to name just a few of the more than 180 groups endorsing our bill. It is rare for such a broad and diverse coalition to come together in support of legislation. But they have done so to end these flagrant abuses that hurt so many families. Every family in this country knows that it will some day have to confront the challenge of serious illness for a parent, or a grandparent, or a child. When that day comes, all of us want the best possible medical care for our loved ones. Members of the Senate deserve good medical care for their loved ones--and we generally get it. Every other family is equally deserving of high quality care--but too often they do not get it because their insurance plan is more interested in profits than patients. The Patients' Bill of Rights provides simple justice and basic protection for each of the 160 million Americans with private insurance who will benefit from this legislation. We will continue to fight for meaningful patient protections until they are signed into law. We will not give up this struggle until every family can be confident that a child or parent or grandparent who is ill will receive the best care that American medicine can provide.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, I wish to join our colleagues in commending our leader for an excellent presentation on the unfinished agenda of the past Congress, as these are really the opening moments of the Congress in terms of dealing with our legislative agenda. It is entirely appropriate that our leaders speak to what we hope will be accomplished during this Congress. Tonight we will listen to the President of the United States meet his responsibilities under the Constitution, addressing the State of the Union. In the next day or so we will hear from the Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, Mr. Gephardt, who will outline an agenda for the country as well. I must at this time say how impressed I am with the outlines of this very thoughtful proposal, a real challenge for the Congress as we begin our important legislative undertakings. We currently have extraordinary economic prosperity in the United States. It is the excellent leadership of President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and the Administration that has put us into a position to have the strongest economy we have had in any recent period of time, with both economic growth and price stability. That is reflected in enhanced hopes and dreams for working families all across this country. There are those who have not participated in that economic expansion as much as others, however. We hear the concerns expressed by our Democratic leader, and we will also hear the President tonight speak about how we can make our society a fairer and a more just society and how we can enhance the opportunity to reach out to those who are struggling hard, playing by the rules, trying to provide for their families, who also ought to be able to enjoy the kind of prosperity that we are experiencing. The Democratic leader outlined a number of different areas with which working families in the United States are most concerned. Sure, we have many--about 75, 78 percent--of our working families that have some kind of health insurance, even though those numbers are gradually dropping and have been dropping quite precipitously in the last 3 or 4 years. But we want to make sure that those working families are going to be able to have health care decisions made by their doctors and by their nurses and not by the insurance companies. That is why I joined with our Democratic leader in strong support of the Patients' Bill of Rights, a proposal that is effectively supported by every major medical society, every patient organization, and every nursing organization in the country. We have asked and invited our Republican friends and colleagues to join with us. We have tried to point out the inadequacies of their particular proposal in the fact that it only covers a third of the Americans who are covered by any kind of health insurance, leaving two- thirds of the members of the American family out. But we have been unable to get them to join with us. The professional health community says the way to go is with the health care bill of rights as introduced by the Democratic leader. Mr. President, the Democratic leader and the President outline another major concern that working families have, and that is the quality of education for their children. Sure, there is primary responsibility for education at the local level, and there is a State interest, but it should also be a matter of national priority. We are looking for partnerships. We are looking for ways of being able to work together. This particular proposal which the Democratic leader has outlined, has recognized what the General Accounting Office recognized over 2 years ago, and that is that the cost to repair public schools in the United States of America, if they were all to be repaired, would be $110 billion. The President and the Democratic Party stand for trying to help and assist local communities to provide for that reconstruction and, importantly, the modernization of the schools, to work in partnership with the States--not only in terms of the construction but also to make sure we are going to have a qualified teacher in every classroom, that the classrooms, particularly in the early grades, are going to be smaller, and that there are going to be the afterschool programs to help keep children out of trouble and to help and assist children who may be falling further behind to be able to enhance their academic achievements and accomplishments. That makes a great deal of sense, Mr. President. These particular proposals will be advanced for debate and discussion in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We are looking forward to that. We are doing the country's business in working in partnership with States and local communities. There is also urgency, in terms of ensuring that the parents of working families are going to be secure, in dealing with Social Security. We will hear an outline this evening. The President was good enough to invite Democrats and Republicans to come to the White House and to sit down with him to try to find some common ground. We will hear tonight that he is still strongly committed to trying to work this out in a bipartisan, nonpartisan way. It is the only way that that can be managed. And that is going to be very important. It will be a top priority for our seniors, our children, and our working families. As the leader has pointed out, there will be an additional program to try to help and assist with many of the needs of the children of this country. That is going to be in legislation which he has outlined here today and which many of us have been interested in in terms of the early start programs, the pre-K programs. We talked to the Nation and made a commitment with the Governors some years ago that every child was going to be ready for school. We have to continue with that commitment. We want every child to be ready for school. We want tough standards at schools. We want to make sure that graduation is more than just an attendance program--that it means children have learned in these schools. I believe we are going to hear about excellent programs this evening and we have the Public Schools Excellence Act's inclusion in education. The list goes on for the elderly, including the continuation of the Older Americans Act, the Early Medicare Access Act, and Medicare coverage of prescription drugs. I hope we are going to be able, in this Congress, to address the issue of prescription drugs, which is of urgency for so many of our elderly and citizens with disabilities. It is such a burden--we find many of our citizens have to make a choice between the prescriptions that they need and a good meal. Finally, I want to just mention the sense of hope that we have, many of us, as we look forward to this Congress. Just last week at the White House, the President indicated his strong support for legislation which has been introduced by Senator Jeffords from Vermont, Senator Roth from Delaware, and cosponsored by myself and Senator Moynihan, with regard to ensuring that those individuals, some 54 million Americans who have some disability, are going to be able to work without losing the benefits that they need. The disabled want to work. They can work. But we have a system, under Medicaid, which discourages them from working by providing financial penalties and the denial of services if they go out and work. We have crafted an effective program that will encourage those disabled to participate in our workforce and in our workplace. They have been excluded for far too long. This legislation starts off as one of the principal pieces of bipartisan legislation, which augurs well, if we are going to be serious about dealing with serious issues. I am very hopeful that this will be one of the first pieces of legislation that will pass. It will make a great deal of difference, not just to the disabled but to all Americans, because who can say today that by this evening they are not going to face some kind of challenge and be faced with some kind of disability as well? Mr. President, I am hopeful that we will be able to make progress on this agenda. I commend our Democratic leader for advancing it. I think it is one which demands action, and I look forward to working with our colleagues to see what can be achieved in this Congress for improving the quality of life for working families in this Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my prepared remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the floor manager be kind enough to yield 10 minutes?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Daschle for his leadership in making these vital health programs that mean so much to older Americans a central part of the Democratic agenda. Our proposal for Early Access to Medicare is a key part of these initiatives. It provides a lifeline for millions of Americans who are within a few years of the age of eligibility for Medicare and who have lost their health insurance coverage or fear that they will lose it. Our proposal also includes President Clinton's program to assist disabled senior citizens and their families--assistance that can mean the difference between institutionalization in a nursing home and the ability to remain in their own home. In addition, our proposal extends and strengthens the Older Americans Act, which provides valuable services for senior citizens, from ``Meals on Wheels'' to employment opportunities. Providing early access to Medicare will offer help and hope to more than three million Americans aged 55 to 64 who have no health insurance today. They are too young for Medicare, and unable to obtain private coverage they can afford. Often, they are victims of corporate downsizing, or of a company's decision to cancel their health insurance. In the past year, the number of the uninsured in this age group increased at a faster rate than other age groups. These Americans have been left out and left behind through no fault of their own--often after decades of hard work and reliable insurance coverage. It is time for Congress to provide a helping hand. Many of these citizens have serious health problems that threaten to destroy the savings of a lifetime and that prevent them from finding or keeping a job. Even those without current health problems know that a single serious illness could wipe out their savings. These uninsured Americans tend to be in poorer health than other members of their age group. Their health continues to deteriorate, the longer they remain uninsured. this unnecessary burden of illness is a preventable human tragedy. It adds to Medicare's long-term costs, because when these individuals turn 65, they join Medicare with greater and more costly needs for health care. Even those with good coverage today can't be certain that it will be there tomorrow. No one nearing retirement can be confident that the health insurance they have today will protect them until they qualify for Medicare at 65. Our proposal offers several types of assistance. Any uninsured American who is 62 or older can buy into Medicare. Over time, the participants will pay the full cost of the coverage, but to help keep premiums affordable, they can defer payment of part of the premiums until they turn 65 and Medicare starts to pay most of their health care costs. Once they turn 65, this deferred portion of the premium will be paid back at a modest monthly rate estimated at about $10 per month for each year of participation in the buy-in program. In addition, individuals age 55-61 who lose their health insurance because they are laid off or because their company closes will also be able to buy into Medicare, but they will not qualify for the deferred premium. Also, people who have retired before age 65 with the expectation of employer-paid health insurance would be allowed to buy into the company's program for active workers if the company drops its retirement coverage before they are eligible for Medicare. Our proposal is a lifeline for all these Americans. It is also a constructive step toward the day when every American will be guaranteed the fundamental right to health care. In the past, opponents have waged a campaign of disinformation that this sensible plan is somehow a threat to Medicare. They are wrong--and the American people understand that they are wrong. Under our proposal, the participants themselves will ultimately pay the full cost of this new coverage. The modest short-term budget impact can be financed through savings obtained by reducing fraud and abuse in Medicare. Every American should have the security and peace of mind of knowing that their final years in the workforce will not be haunted by the fear of devastating medical costs or the inability to meet basic medical needs. Uninsured Americans who are too young for Medicare but too old to purchase affordable private insurance coverage deserve our help--and we intend to see that they get it. Additional assistance for the disabled is also very important. Few issues are more important to senior citizens and their families than how to care for a severely disable order person at home. No senior citizens who want to remain in their own homes should be forced to enter a nursing home. Children who want to take disabled parents into their own homes deserve support. The issue of caring for the severely disabled at home is not just a concern for senior citizens. No parent should be forced to place a disabled child in institutional care. No disabled citizen who wants to live independently and can do so should be denied that opportunity. President Clinton's proposal is not a comprehensive solution to the problem of financing needed long-term care. It will not end the enormous burdens that caregivers often assume. But it is an important and constructive step that will provide needed help to millions of families. Under the proposal, disabled persons or their caregivers will be entitled to a tax credit of $1,000--far less than the total cost of caring for a disabled person, but still significant relief that can help buy a critical piece of equipment, pay for a period of respite care, or meet other unmet needs. The proposal also creates a National Family Caregiver Support Program to develop community resources for counseling, respite care and other services, training in assisting persons with disabilities, and providing information about resources available to meet the needs of the disabled and their caregivers. One of the most difficult aspects of caring for a disabled parent or child is not knowing where to turn for help, or finding that help is not available. This program will help to meet these needs. Finally, the legislation extends and strengthens the Older Americans Act, a step that is long overdue. The Act provides essential services that assist senior citizens in every community. It supports 57 state agencies on aging, 660 area agencies, and 27,000 service providers who work with the elderly. The Act is an essential source of nutrition for many low income and frail elderly. In FY 1996, more than 3 million older persons were served 238 million meals with funding from the Act. The Act supported transportation, assistance, home care, recreation and other important services provided by 6,400 senior centers. It funded more than 40 million rides and 15 million home care services to older persons. The Act also pays for training and research in the field of aging. It helps unemployed low-income older persons to find employment opportunities. And it provides protection and advocacy services for vulnerable senior citizens. Elderly Americans and those nearing retirement have worked all their lives to build America. When they face basic needs for health care and long-term care, they deserve the best help that America can provide. These proposals are important and timely. They will make a very important difference in the lives of millions of our fellow citizens, and they deserve prompt enactment by the Congress. s____

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a sponsor of this important bill, and I commend Senator Harkin for his leadership on this issue. With the high incidence of foodborne illnesses, it is essential for regulatory agencies to have the authority necessary to prevent or minimize outbreaks of these illnesses, and combat food contamination. Microbial contamination of food is an increasing problem. The emergence of highly virulent strains of common bacteria, such as E. coli 0157, is a significant cause of foodborne illnesses. Common infections that were once easily treatable are now a major public health threat, as the microorganisms acquire the ability to resist destruction by antibiotics. The current enforcement authority of the Department of Agriculture is not sufficient. Our bill gives the Secretary of Agriculture the additional authority he needs in order to recall adulterated or misbranded meat or poultry products, and to assess civil penalties against processors who repeatedly violate meat and poultry safety standards. Most processors comply responsibly with USDA requests for voluntary recalls of unsafe products. This additional authority will ensure more timely and comprehensive removal of potentially dangerous foods from supermarket shelves. Such new enforcement tools are necessary to improve food safety in general and to reduce the risk of future outbreaks of foodborne illnesses. Families across the country deserve to have confidence that the meat and poultry they eat are safe, and I look forward to early action by Congress on this important legislation. Assurance of safe meat and poultry is just one part of the challenge of guaranteeing safe food. The safety of produce and of processed food, including imported food, is the responsibility of the Food and Drug Administration and a major part of President Clinton's Food Safety Initiative. I plan to develop legislation, in cooperation with other Senators, to ensure that no matter where our food is grown, processed, or packaged, it meets uniform high standards of safety.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, we renew the battle in Congress to enact a strong Patients' Bill of Rights to protect American families from abuses by HMOs and managed care health plans that too often put profits over patients' needs. Our Patients' Bill of Rights will protect families against the arbitrary and self-serving decisions that can rob average citizens of their savings and their peace of mind, and often their health and their very lives. Doctors and patients should be making medical decisions, not insurance company accountants. Too often, managed care is mismanaged care. For the millions of Americans who rely on health insurance to protect them and their loved ones when serious illness strikes, the Patients Bill of Rights is truly a matter of life and death. The dishonor roll of those victimized by insurance company abuses is long and growing. A baby loses his hands and feet because his parents believe they have to take him to a distant hospital emergency room covered by their HMO, rather than to the hospital closest to their home. A Senate aide suffers a devastating stroke, which might have been far milder if her HMO had not refused to send her to an emergency room. The HMO now even refuses to pay for her wheelchair. A woman is forced to undergo a mastectomy as an outpatient, instead of with a hospital stay as her doctor recommends. She is sent home in pain, with tubes still dangling from her body. A doctor is punished by being denied future referrals under a managed care health plan, because he told a patient about an expensive treatment that could save her life. The parents of a child suffering from a rare cancer are told that life-saving surgery should be performed by an unqualified doctor who happens to be on the plan's list, rather than by a specialist at the nearby cancer center equipped to perform the operation. A patient with a fatal cancer is denied participation in a clinical trial that could save her life. Our Patients' Bill of Rights addresses all of these problems. It takes insurance company accountants out of the practice of medicine and returns decision-making to patients and doctors, where it belongs. The bottom line is that our program guarantees people the rights that every honorable insurance company already grants--and provides an effective, timely means to enforce these rights. These protections are common- sense components of good health care that every family believes they were promised when they purchased health insurance and paid their premiums. Virtually all of the patients' protections in this legislation are already available under Medicare. They have been recommended by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners and the President's Advisory Commission. They have even been proposed as voluntary standards by the managed care industry itself through its trade association. Our Patients' Bill of Rights is a responsible and effective answer to the widespread problems that patients and their families face every day. It is supported by a broad and diverse coalition of doctors, nurses, patients, and advocates for children, women, and working families, including the American Medical Association, the Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the National Partnership for Women and Families, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, and the AFL-CIO, to name just a few of the more than 180 groups endorsing our bill. It is rare for such a broad and diverse coalition to come together in support of legislation. But they have done so to end these flagrant abuses that hurt so many families. Every family in this country knows that it will some day have to confront the challenge of serious illness for a parent, or a grandparent, or a child. When that day comes, all of us want the best possible medical care for our loved ones. Members of the Senate deserve good medical care for their loved ones--and we generally get it. Every other family is equally deserving of high quality care--but too often they do not get it because their insurance plan is more interested in profits than patients. The Patients' Bill of Rights provides simple justice and basic protection for each of the 160 million Americans with private insurance who will benefit from this legislation. We will continue to fight for meaningful patient protections until they are signed into law. We will not give up this struggle until every family can be confident that a child or parent or grandparent who is ill will receive the best care that American medicine can provide.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Graham, Senator Mack, Senator Abraham and our other distinguished colleagues in supporting the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act. Last year Congress enacted the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act, which enabled Nicaraguan and Cuban refugees to remain permanently in the United States as immigrants. Haitian refugees deserve no less. These refugees have seen their relatives, friends and neighbors jailed, or murdered, or abducted in the middle of the night and never seen again. They have fled from decades of violence and brutal repression by the Ton Ton Macoutes, and later by the military regime which overthrew the first democratically elected president of Haiti. The people of Haiti have struggled long and hard to establish a democracy in their nation. They endured repression and suffered persecution at the hands of successive governments. Haitians supporting democracy have faced torture, extra-judicial killings, imprisonment, and other forms of persecution. The State Department has documented these and other gross violations of human rights. The Bush administration found that the vast majority of Haitian refugees were fleeing from political persecution. Thousands of these Haitians were paroled into the United States after establishing a credible fear of persecution. Many others filed bona fide applications for asylum upon arrival in the United States. This legislation will enable Haitians to apply for adjustment of status if prior to December 31, 1995, they were paroled into the U.S., under any of the parole classifications, or filed for asylum. Additionally, as a result of an amendment proposed by Senator Abraham and I, a significant number of unaccompanied children and orphans who did not have the capacity to apply for asylum for themselves will also be eligible to apply for adjustment of status. Like other political refugees, Haitians have come to this country with a strong love of freedom and a strong commitment to democracy. They have settled in many parts of the United States. They have established deep roots in our communities, and their children born here are U.S. citizens. Wherever they have settled, they have made lasting contributions to the economic vitality and diversity of our communities and the nation. This issue is about basic fairness. The United States has a long and noble tradition of providing safe haven to refugees. Over the years, we have enacted legislation to guarantee that Hungarians, Cubans, Yugoslavs, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Poles, Chinese, and many other refugees will not be sent back to unstable or repressive regimes. Last year, we adopted legislation to protect Nicaraguans and Cubans. But Haitians were unfairly excluded from that bill. The time has come for Congress to end the bigotry. We must remedy this flagrant omission and add Haitians to the list of deserving refugees. By approving the Haitian Refugee Fairness Immigration Act, we can finally bring to an end the shameful decades of unjust treatment of Haitians. As the decisions of federal judges over the past two decades make clear, Haitans are treated with blatant discrimination under our immigration laws. Throughout the 1980's, less than 2 percent of Haitians fleeing the atrocities committed by the Duvalier regimes were granted asylum. Yet, other refugee groups had approval rates as high as 75 percent. Haitian asylum seekers were detained by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, but asylum seekers from other countries were routinely released while their asylum applications were processed. Until recently, Haitians have been the only group intercepted on the high seas and forcibly returned to their home country, without even the opportunity to seek asylum. We welcomed boat people from Cuba, Vietnam and other parts of the world. But for years, we picked up Haitians on the high seas and sent them back to Haiti, in violation of international refugee laws. This Congress has the opportunity to right the shameful wrongs that Haitian refugees have suffered. We have before us a bill that offers full protection of our laws to these victims of persecution in their fight for democracy. The call for democracy is being heard around the world, and America's voice has always been the loudest. How can we advocate democracy on the one hand, and then deny protection to those who heed our call and are forced to flee their homeland as a result? The struggle for democracy is often dangerous and life threatening. Ask Nestilia Robergeau, who knows first hand the high price of supporting democracy on Haiti. She and her brother started a youth group in support of Haiti's democratically elected President, Jean Bertrand Aristide. After a military coup ousted President Aristide, her brother was murdered by the military, and she went into hiding in the woods around her village until she could escape from Haiti in a small boat. Today, she lives in Atlanta and holds two jobs. She is active in her local church, and hopes to be a nurse. Last year, she told the Subcommittee on Immigration that ever since she arrived in the United States, she has lived in fear of being sent back to Haiti. Even the youngest Haitian refugees live in fear of being returned to Haiti. Ask Louisiana, a sixth grader at West Homestead Elementary School in Miami. She fled to the United States with her aunt, after her father, a pro-democracy activist, was murdered by the Haitian military. Last winter, Louisiana told us that she was terrified that she will be sent back to Haiti. She is terrified that the same people who killed her father will come after her in Haiti. She asked us to please pass a law that will let her stay in the United States, where she is safe. Ask Mr. H in Massachusetts, a journalist in Haiti who criticized the Haitian military government, and was repeatedly arrested for his outspoken views. Finally, he went into hiding in Haiti. When soldiers could not find him, they abducted his girlfriend, brutally beat her, and dumped her by the side of the road to die. But she survived, and she and Mr. H escaped by boat. They were picked up by the Coast Guard, and brought to the United States. They married and now live in Massachusetts. Their two children were born here. Yet, Mr. H and his wife could be deported without this legislation. Congress has a duty to offer the same protection to these Haitians that we have offered over the years to other refugees fleeing from repressive regimes. This bill is about what is fair, what is right, and what is just. We owe it to Louisiana, to Nestilia, and to the thousands of other Haitians forced to flee their homes because they believed in the promise of democracy. This legislation has strong bipartisan support. It is supported by a wide range of nationwide organizations, including the Americans for Tax Reform, U.S. Catholic Conference, the Church World Service, the American Baptist Churches, the Mennonite Central Committee, the Council of Jewish Federations, the Lutheran Immigration Refugee Service, the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society, the Presbyterian Church (USA) and many, many more. As Jack Kemp wrote to Congress earlier this year ``This issue presents a chance to do the right thing by rectifying an omission in last year's bill, and to uphold our nation's tradition of accepting refugees.'' We should do all we can to end the current flagrant discrimination under the immigration laws. Haitian refugees deserve protection too-- the same protection we gave to Nicaraguans and Cubans last year. We need to pay more than lipservice to the fundamental principle of equal protection of the laws.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Abraham, the Chairman of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee, for his leadership in reaching this acceptable compromise that addresses the needs of our high-tech industry and is fair to U.S. workers. I also commend the White House for its strong commitment to protecting the U.S. labor force. This is an issue of major importance to the high-tech industry and U.S. workers. High-tech jobs are growing at three times the rate of other jobs. Over the next ten years, high-tech computer companies will need 1.3 million additional employees. Few dispute the fact that today, U.S. high-tech companies are unable to find enough skilled workers to meet the mushrooms demands of their rapidly growing industry. Universities are also unable to obtain enough talented faculty members and researchers to fill critical high-tech academic positions. If these shortages persist, the growth and vitality of U.S. high-tech companies will be undermined and our role as a leader in technology and research will be diminished. The obvious solution to this current crisis is to increase the number of temporary visas available to skilled foreign workers. But the increase should not be permanent. Our immigration laws should not jeopardize opportunities for young Americans, downsized defense workers, and others who wish to enter the dynamic field of high-tech industries. The current compromise reaches a fair balance--by temporarily increasing the number of high-tech visas over the next three years, and then reinstating the current annual cap of 65,000 visas after the third year. Many of the foreign workers who will benefit from this compromise are exceptionally talented. They represent the ``best and brightest'' the world has to offer. We welcome these accomplished individuals and the unique skills they will bring to strengthen and diversify our economy. However, most of the positions that will be filled by these additional foreign workers are simply good middle class jobs. Most of the jobs are lower level computer programmers. Many are physical therapists, occupational therapies, or nurses. It is shameful that U.S. workers do not have the skills to compete for these jobs. The fact that American workers lack the training skills to compete for these good jobs is an incident of our educational system. Clearly, we need to do more to find a long-term solution to this festering problem. And this bill gives three years to address this failure. I have long insisted that any legislation increasing these visas should substantially invest in improved job training for U.S. workers and better education for U.S. students. We must give the U.S. workers the skills they need to qualify for these jobs. It makes no sense to throw in the towel by increasing quotas--even temporarily--without also investing in our own labor force. As a nation, we have an obligation to invest in our own workers and students. Many firms are doing the right thing. Many of the large computer companies spend millions of dollars each year training their workers, and encouraging young men and women to choose high-tech careers. The compromise before us today enhances that commitment. Earlier this year, Senator Feinstein and I proposed a way to provide genuine training for American workers, without costing the taxpayer a single penny. I am pleased that the legislation before the Senate today incorporates our idea and achieves this goal. It contains a reasonable fee for visa petitions and visa renewals for high-tech foreign workers. The $500 visa application fee included in the compromise will generate approximately $75 million a year. One third of these funds will be used to fund National Science Foundation scholarships in math, engineering, and computer science for low-income students. The remaining funds will be used to train U.S. workers. As a result, many students and many workers will obtain the skills necessary to compete successfully for these good jobs. It is imperative that we provide as many U.S. workers as possible with the skills and specialized training to qualify for these positions. The high-tech industry must also do a better job of recruiting U.S. workers. We have all read the reports about unscrupulous employers who pay only lip-service to recruiting U.S. workers, because they know they can obtain cheaper foreign labor. It makes sense that employers should recruit in the U.S. first, in cities like Boston, Detroit, or Los Angeles, before bringing workers in from Beijing, New Delhi, or Moscow. Only if employers cannot find qualified U.S. workers, should they be allowed to recruit and hire foreign workers. The following are a few examples of how U.S. employers have only payed lip service to recruiting U.S. workers. A high-tech facility in New Mexico announced a hiring freeze and refused to accept job applications. But at the same time, they brought in 53 foreign workers under the high-tech visa program. Alan Ezer is a 45-year-old computer programmer with 10 years of experience in the field. He has kept his skills up to date. He was willing to take a pay cut to stay in the industry. After he was laid off, he sent out 150 resumes. He got only one job interview and no job offers. Rose Marie Roo is an experienced computer programmer. But when no one would hire her to do computer work, she and her husband opened a bed and breakfast in Florida. Peter Van Horn, age 31, has a master's degree in computer science. He lives in California, but employers won't hire him either. The list goes on and on. Many of the nation's high-tech firms are blatantly turning away qualified U.S. workers while appealing to Congress for more foreign workers. As a result of this problem, Senator Feinstein and I fought long and hard to ensure that strong recruitment requirements would be included in the high-tech visa legislation. This compromise contains a worthwhile provision on this issue, and I commend Senator Abraham for supporting our effort. High-tech companies will be required to demonstrate that they have taken good faith steps to recruit in the U.S., according to industry- wide standards. Companies will be required to offer jobs to any U.S. workers who applies for a position and is equally or better qualified for the job than the foreign applicant. U.S. workers should have first crack at these jobs, and with this legislation, they will have it. We should also make every effort to retain skilled U.S. workers presently holding these high-tech positions. There have been countless media stories about predatory high-tech computer firms firing talented middled-aged employees and replacing them with foreign workers willing to work longer hours for less pay. In the most flagrant instances, the replaced U.S. workers have even been asked to train their foreign replacement. I am pleased that this compromise contains needed protections to guard against such abusive layoffs. Until now, it was legal under our immigration laws for an employer to fire U.S. workers and replace them with cheaper foreign workers. As a condition of participating in this compromise, employers covered under the legislation must attest that they have not laid off U.S. workers and tried to replace them with foreign workers. The compromise contains many worthwhile provisions, but it also has flaws. One of the most serious defects is that the new recruitment and layoff attestations do not cover all employers hiring skilled foreign workers. The compromise exempts the largest high-tech companies from the new attestation requirements, even though some of these firms are the most serious violators. Nevertheless, the Department of Labor will have increased enforcement powers. Under the previous law, the Department of Labor was restricted to waiting for complaints to be filed before they could act. The Department will now have authority to investigate compliance if they receive specific credible information that a violation has occurred. Additionally, the Department of Labor will now be empowered to conduct random investigations of even exempt employers if they are found to have committed violations. Violators will face stiffer fines and other punishment. A second flaw in the legislation is the failure to cap the number of visas made available to health care workers. The effect of the abolition of this cap is that U.S. health care workers, particularly physical and occupational therapists, will be increasingly unable to find work. A recent study by the American Physical Therapy Association indicates that by the year 2000, there will be an 11% surplus of physical therapists in the United States. By the year 2005, this surplus will increase to 20-30%. Faced with these estimates, it is impossible to conclude that there is a shortage of physical therapists in this country. I urge the Department of Labor to reconsider its classification of physical and occupational therapy as occupations for which there is a blanket shortage of labor. Despite these flaws, the compromise is, on the whole, fair to both U.S. and foreign workers. It provides much-needed protections for foreign workers. We must make sure that foreign workers who are brought to this country are not abused by their employers. The law requires that temporary foreign workers must be paid the prevailing wage for the specialty work they perform, including salary and benefits. This compromise requires employers to treat all similarly situated workers equally. Finally, I am pleased that the compromise contains whistleblower protections I had recommended earlier this year. Despite serious abuses, few complaints were filed by workers because they were afraid of retaliation. Foreign workers were afraid that if they complained they would lose their jobs and be forced to leave the country. American workers were afraid to complain because they feared being blackballed in the industry. This compromise protects workers who courageously report violations. Those who report abuses to the Department of Labor may request that their identity not be disclosed. And more important, workers who file complaints or cooperate with investigations cannot be intimidated, threatened, restrained, coerced, blacklisted, or discharged by their employer. Overall, this compromise is a reasonable solution of the current difficult problem. It deserves bipartisan support.