Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the majority leader.

Mr. KENNEDY. And a happy birthday to you.

Mr. KENNEDY. Maybe it is spilling over to today. But we wish to thank him.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, would the Senator be kind enough to make a similar request on my behalf?

Mr. KENNEDY. I hope my friend, our majority leader, had a joyous and happy birthday.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the Senate floor this afternoon about matters which I am very hopeful can be addressed and will be addressed and I think should be addressed in the remaining hours before the Congress actually recesses. And this is in the area of education and what we are going to do finally in trying to meet the responsibilities that we have to assure a smaller class size for the 53 million Americans who will be attending and are attending schools across this country, which means an expansion in terms of the total number of teachers. I am very hopeful that in the ultimate and final budget agreement there will be an agreement on the President's recommendation of 100,000 teachers over the period of the next 5 years, and that we will also embrace the very, very important and, I think, essential school modernization program which effectively would provide about $22 billion in interest-free bonds to local communities all over this country in order to modernize their schools. What we have seen now is a rather dramatic change in the demography and the growth in the total number of children who are going into the school systems all across this country, and at the same time you have seen a continued deterioration in many of the school buildings across the country. That is certainly true in my State, which has many of the oldest school buildings in the country, but it is also true in many of the other States across this country, and even in a number of the rural communities. As a matter of fact, the General Accounting Office did a study in terms of what would be necessary in our country in order to make sure that we are going to have good classrooms for the students, and it was estimated to be $110 billion. That is what the need is according to a nonpartisan evaluation of what the conditions are in our school buildings across the country. Therefore, the recommendation the President has made for $122 billion is a very modest recommendation. We have not embraced that recommendation at the present time. The urging of the President of the United States is that before we move out from this Congress, we ought to be about the business of addressing that particular education need. Education is of prime importance to every family in this country. It is of essential importance to every young person in this Nation, and it is a matter of enormous importance in terms of our country being able to compete in a global economy. So the urgency of these proposals--one is to have a reduced class size and the second is to be able to modernize our classrooms--is enormously important. If we look over the amount of resources we devote to education in the budget of this country, we will find that it is only about 2 percent. It is only 2 percent of our national budget. This is the 1998 Federal budget, and you can see from this pie chart the allocations of resources. The area of education is only 2 percent. If you ask people what percent of a dollar they believe goes to education, I think most Americans would think 10 or 12 percent, or 10 or 12 cents should be going to education. If you ask what they believe they would like to be the number, it would be even higher. We are only talking about 2 percent. So the real question is, in a time now when our appropriators and negotiators are meeting to have final resolution on what will be a $1.7 billion budget, will we be able to find the resources to provide for the reduced class size for K through 3--$1 billion for fiscal 1999, $7 billion over the next 5 years--to see a dramatic reduction in the number of students per class in K through 3, that is what we are trying to do, and to modernize our school buildings all across this country. Those are two priorities. I must say I strongly agree with the President, with Senator Daschle, and with Leader Gephardt who said we should not leave this city until we respond in a positive way to make sure those requirements are fulfilled, because there is nothing that is more important than meeting the needs of the children of this country. Finally, Mr. President, I think this is important to do for a number of reasons. Every day that children go into the school systems of this country, they go into dilapidated schools, they go into old schools, they go to classrooms with windows broken or with poor heating or poor air-conditioning in the course of the early fall and the late spring and early summer in many other parts of the country, or where the pipes are leaking, or where some schools are actually closed in the wintertime because of the failure of the heating system, we are sending a very powerful message to those children. On the one hand, we as parents are saying that education counts, that we believe it ought to be a priority, that we think the future of this Nation is our children and we ought to be about the business of looking out for the interests of these children to make sure they are going to have a well-qualified teacher in every classroom in this country. That ought to be our hope, that ought to be our challenge, and that is what we are working for. And that ought to be an effort made in the local community. It ought to be an effort made at the State level. But we should not say we are going to abandon our national interest by saying we are not going to interfere if there are inadequate capabilities, or an inability, which is too often the case, to help and assist local communities, particularly when so many local communities such as we have seen in the recent times in Chicago and many other communities--my own city of Boston--are making this extraordinary effort to enhance the academic achievement for the children of this country and in those communities. We ought to be able to say we will be a partner with you, we are willing to be a partner with the local community, we are willing be a partner with the State, and we are going to be a partner in helping to modernize our facilities. Otherwise, the promise that we are going to convince this next generation that we are serious about their education is going to be a hollow one. No child will go into a classroom and see that it is in a deteriorated condition and then be exposed to other areas where everything is bright and shiny and new because of greater expenditures and not say, ``What is really important? What do our parents really think is important? Where they are spending the money is what is bright and shiny and new.'' When we are not expending the resources in the classrooms, we send a very powerful message--it may be a subtle message but it is a powerful one--that we are not prepared as a nation to do what needs to be done to upgrade the classrooms in this country. I hope in the remaining hours of this process, as our leaders, our appropriators and leaders, members of those committees, get together to work out the final budget, as we are starting over for the next year, that the education budget is going to have the priority that every American family wants it to have, and that is priority No. 1. I hope when we come to that No. 1 we are going to say, ``The size of our classes is of enormous importance and consequence in terms of the ability of the teacher to relate to the children.'' We have just heard an eloquent statement to that effect from some wonderful teachers from the State of South Dakota, as well as from Missouri, talking about the relationship between the teacher and the student and how it is enhanced to such an extraordinary degree when we have smaller class sizes. It ought to be self-evident and it ought to be intuitive. It is, in fact, true. I am not taking the time this morning--although I have at other times and will again--to talk about the progress that has been made in academic achievement in a number of communities when they have seen the significant reduction in the number of students per teacher that has taken place in communities and States across this country. The evidence is overwhelming that it has an enormously important positive impact. So let's get about doing what we know works, and that is to increase the number of teachers that we need in our schools. Even with the expansion of the number of students in our schools, let us increase the number of teachers, and let us enhance the quality of those teachers to make sure we are going to have good, qualified teachers in every classroom. Let's make sure the number of students in those classrooms will be such that the teacher is going to be able to identify and spend some moments with each child in that classroom. That is the hope and desire of the teachers who have committed themselves to excellence, to trying to enhance that academic achievement and accomplishment. Let's be a partner with the local communities and the States that are embarking on that effort. Let us, as we are going through the final days now--let's not leave town. Let's not say we will take whatever is served up to us in the budget. Let us say education is important. We can go about the business of trying to make a difference in the classrooms and in the quality of the people who will be in those classrooms. Let us resolve that we will do that before we leave this town. That is, I think, an important responsibility that we have. We should not fail our children. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield? Mr. President, I listened with interest to the attempts of my good friends Senators Lott and Nickles to rewrite the history of the Patients' Bill of Rights in this Congress. No amount of rhetoric and disinformation can disguise the fact that the Republicans in Congress have abused the rules of the Senate to prevent passage of strong patient protections this year. The vote today was the latest installment payment to powerful special interests opposed to change. The Republican leadership could have called the Patients' Bill of Rights at any time for a full and fair debate. Instead, proposed a series of phony ``consent'' agreements that would prevent fair debate and make passage of real reform impossible. These stalling tactics were clearly meant to run out the clock, so that managed care reforms cannot be passed before Congress adjourns, and so that the Republican leadership can avoid responsibility for its defeat. The record of Republican attempts to avoid the blame for inaction would be laughable, if the consequences for patients across the country were not so serious. On June 18, Senator Lott proposed to bring up the bill, but on terms that made a mockery of the legislative process. His proposal would have allowed the Senate to start considering HMO reform, but he would have been permitted to end the debate at any time. The proposal also barred the Senate from considering any other health care legislation for the rest of the year. So if Senator Lott did not like the direction the bill was headed, he could kill it and tie the Senate's hands on HMO reform for the remainder of the year. On June 23, 43 Democratic Senators wrote to Senator Lott to urge that he allow a debate and votes on the merits of the Patient's Bill of Rights. We requested that the Senate take up this issue before the August recess. In response, on June 24, Senator Lott repeated his earlier unacceptable offer. On June 25, Senator Daschle proposed an agreement in which Senator Lott would bring up a Republican health care bill by July 6, so that Senator Daschle could offer the Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights, and other Senators could offer amendments on HMO reform. We would agree to avoid amendments on any other subject. Only amendments related to the Patients Bill of Rights would be eligible for consideration. Senator Lott rejected this offer as well. On June 26, he offered once again an agreement that allowed him to withdraw the legislation at any time, and bar any further consideration of any health care legislation for the remainder of the year. On July 15, Senator Lott made yet another offer. This time, he proposed an agreement that permitted only one amendment. He could bring up bill. We could bring up ours. And that would be it--all or nothing. No votes on key issues. On July 29 and on September 1, the Republican leadership offered variations of this proposal, with amendments restricted to three for Democrats and three for Republicans. Senator Daschle offered yet another reasonable approach to resolve the impasse that Senator Lott had created by his efforts to prevent meaningful reform. He offered to agree to let the Senate debate other bills during the day, and use evenings to debate the Patients' Bill of Rights--but the Republican leadership said, ``no.'' Our patients' Bill of Rights was introduced in March--and a predecessor bill was introduced by Congressman Dingell and myself more than eighteen months ago, at the beginning of this Congress. Senator Daschle, in an effort to be responsive to the Republican Leader's ultimatum that an agreement on the terms of the debate must be reached before the debate can begin, has offered reasonable proposal after reasonable propsal--and every one was rejected. Yet the Republican leader has allowed the Senate to debate many other bills this year, with ample time and ample opportunity for amendments. We had 7 days of debate on the budget resolution, and considered 105 amendments. Two of those were offered by Senator Nickles. We had 6 days of debate on the defense authorization bill, and considered 150 amendments. Two of those were offered by Senator Lott and he cosponsored 10 others. We had 8 days of debate on IRS reform and considered 13 amendments. We had 17 days of debate on tobacco legislation--a bill we never completed--and considered 18 amendments. We had 5 days of debate on the agriculture appropriations bill and 55 amendments. We had 19 days of debate on the highway bill, with 100 amendments. The Republican leadership has allowed 5 days of debate and 24 amendments to the bankruptcy bill. They have allowed 36 amendments and 2 days of debate on the FAA bill. All these bills were important, and all deserved reasonable debate and opportunities for amendments. They were brought up without any undue restrictions on debate. That is the normal way of doing business on important pieces of legislation in the Senate. The Republican leadership was willing to have an adequate opportunity to debate and vote on these other important measures. But when the issue is protecting American families instead of insurance industry profits, different ground rules apply to protect the industry and deny the rights of patients. The reason the Republican leadership was unwilling to engage in a fair debate is obvious. Senator Lott knows his legislation is deeply flawed, and that it cannot possibly be fixed with just three amendments. He believes that he and his special interest friends can hold most of the Republican Senators for a few votes, but he feared that the would not be willing to stand before the American people on the Senate floor and cast vote after vote for the special interests and against the interests of American families. The fundamental flaws in the Republican bill mean greater profits for insurance companies and lesser care for American patients. Senator Lott does not want the Senate to vote to fix these flaws. He does not want a vote: on whether all Americans should be covered, or just one third of Americans as the Republicans shamefully propose; on whether there should be genuine access to emergency room care; on whether patients should have access to the specialists they need when they are seriously ill; on whether doctors should be free to give the medical advice they deem appropriate, without fear of being fired by their HMO; on whether patients with incurable cancer or Alzheimer's disease or other serious illnesses should have access to quality clinical trials where conventional treatments offer no hope; on whether patients in the middle of a course of treatment can keep their doctor if their health plan drops them from its network, or their employer changes health plans; on whether the special health needs of the disabled, and women, and children should be met; on whether patients should be able to obtain timely independent review of plan decisions that deny care; or on whether health plans should be held responsible in court for decisions that kill or injure patients. The list of flaws in the Republican bill goes on and on. The Republican leadership's record on this issue is painfully clear. Their cynical strategy is to protect the insurance industry at all costs, by blocking any reform at all, or by passing only a minimalist bill so weak that it would be worse than no bill at all. And today, they finally ended the charade--by moving to table a motion to bring the bill passed by Republicans in the House before the Senate. Last Friday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee held a $25,000-a-person fundraiser for a ``select group'' of health care industry executives. The heading for the article was, ``Politicians seek to profit from the debate over health care policies.'' The American people are sick of health insurance companies that profit by abusing patients. And it is equally unacceptable that politicians should profit by protecting those exorbitant industry profits. Every family in this country knows that it will some day have to confront the challenge of serious illness for a parent, or 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 good 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 every one of the 160 million Americans with private insurance. It is supported by 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, the AFL-CIO, and many other groups representing physicians and other health care providers, children, women, families, consumers, persons with disabilities, Americans with serious illnesses, small businesses, and working families. It is rare for such a broad and diverse coalition to come together in support of legislation. Both they have done so to end these flagrant abuses that hurt so many families. We serve notice today that this struggle is not over. The Republicans in Congress and their friends in the insurance industry may have won this year's battle, but they will lose in the end. Democrats in Congress intend to make the Patients' Bill of Rights the first order of business when the new Congress convenes next January. 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. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to pay tribute to Bill Shields of the Department of Defense, who is retiring after two decades of impressive service to the Nation. He is an outstanding attorney whose intellectual skills and dedication have helped to maintain and improve our country's military. Bill is a native of Buffalo, New York. He received his BA and JD degrees from the University of Buffalo, and a L.LM from the National Law Center at George Washington University. Bill then served in a number of legal positions in the Department of Defense, including assistant in charge of a legal office in Florida, counsel for an air station in Maine, and international law attorney in Japan. I first met Bill in 1987, when he joined my staff as a Congressional Fellow with the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. As Chairman of that Committee I was extremely impressed with Bill's work on the Polygraph Protection Act and the Minimum Wage Act. He spent endless hours researching these issues, drafting the statutory language, and preparing witnesses and Senators for hearings. His efforts were indispensable in obtaining enactment of those two critical pieces of legislation. After leaving the Committee, Bill served as Deputy Assistant for Civil Affairs and as Deputy Director of the Appellate Government Division in the Department of the Navy, and excelled in both assignments. In 1993, he became Legislative Counsel in the Secretary of the Navy's Office of Legislative Affairs. In that position, he worked closely with us on the Senate Armed Services Committee on key issues such as acquisition reform, the A-12 aircraft contract termination, and the Seawolf submarine. In 1994, Bill was appointed as Counsel and Special Assistant for Legislative Affairs in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. In that position, he has been deeply involved in issues such as research and development, test and evaluation, acquisition policy, major weapons systems, and intelligence. Bill was primary liaison with Congress for the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, the Director of Test Systems Engineering and Evaluation and the Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. In this capacity, Bill worked with Senators and staff on a daily basis to ensure the effective use of scarce defense resources during a period of major defense restructuring. He was responsible for overseeing the authorization of $67 billion of the annual DOD budget for such projects as the F/A-18, F-22 and Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, the New Attack Submarine, the Commanche helicopter, numerous medical research projects and the Technology Reinvestment Program. On all of these issues, Bill's leadership, intelligence, and integrity have contributed significantly to the readiness and ability of our troops in the field. Congress and the nation owe a debt of gratitude to Bill Shields. His skillful leadership will continue to have a lasting impact on our national security for years to come. It has been an honor to be associated with this exceptional public servant. His distinguished service will genuinely be missed, both in the Pentagon and in Congress. All of us who know Bill are grateful for his leadership and his friendship. We wish him every success in his new position as General Counsel for the American College of Radiology. We know that his wife Maryann, and his three children, Andrew, Molly and Brian, are proud of him as he reaches this special milestone, and all of us in Congress are proud of him too.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as the Nation is focusing on a number of matters today, I want to say what a really important achievement the Senate will accomplish in a few moments when we pass this very extensive authorization legislation, about $35 billion over the next 5 years. The legislation has been described by our colleagues and friends, but I join in echoing the sentiments that have been expressed this morning in paying tribute to our friend and colleague from Indiana, Senator Coats, the staff who have worked with him, others on the committee, and our chairman, Senator Jeffords, in moving this legislation forward. I remember back to 1994--maybe the Senator from Indiana remembers-- when we were working at that time on the reauthorization of the Head Start Program. Many of us had been long-time supporters of that program. It is fair to say, at that time, that legislation, or the legislation that we are considering here, would not have been reauthorized unless it had the active involvement and leadership of the Senator from Indiana. That was a time of great crisis in the Head Start Program. I think the accolades that have been given about the Senator are well-deserved. I thank him, in particular, for saving the program back in 1994, but also for the continued commitment that he has had, along with my colleague, Senator Dodd, for these past years. As Senator Coats has pointed out, he was working as a cochair of the children's caucus in the House of Representatives. Our colleague and friend Senator Dodd is cochair of the children's caucus in the Senate. Both of these Senators have probably spent more time focusing on the needs of children in our country than any others and have worked in a very important bipartisan way. I join with those who pay tribute to the Senator from Indiana, and naming this legislation after him is really well-deserved. I welcome the opportunity to stand with those who say he has made an indispensable contribution to the needs of poor children in our society. I say that with great sincerity and appreciation, because he has made a very, very important difference, not just in shaping these programs, but basically in helping our country respond to these particular needs. There have been times when we have had differences on various policy issues. But we are friends, and the Senate is at its best when we have differences on some matters, but we are able to work them out and, most of all, to respect the individual integrity which Members bring to these issues. The legislation before us today--and I urge our fellow Members to support it--is really the product of our best efforts. I think it will make an important difference in the lives of children. I join with those in congratulating the Senator and in appreciating his leadership. Mr. President, at a time when we have extraordinary prosperity, it is important that we look primarily at the needs of children, particularly the poor children. This bill invests in America's future by providing urgently needed assistance to low-income families and children. This bill reauthorizes the Head Start program, the comprehensive early childhood development program for low-income children. For more than thirty years, Head Start has been providing educational, nutritional, medical, and social services to help young children and their families reach their full potential. The advances made by this bill will ensure even greater success for the program in meeting the needs of today's families. In preparing this bill, we've made significant efforts to improve program quality. That was particularly a matter that the Senator from Indiana was strongly committed to. We've established new education performance standards, to ensure that Head Start children enter school ready to learn. We've strengthened teacher qualifications, so that children will receive the very best care. We've also worked to encourage closer cooperation by Head Start with other agencies so that full-day, full-year services will be more readily available to working families who need this kind of extended care. More than 830,000 children currently receive the benefits of Head Start and they will continue to do so. Just as important, this bill makes it possible over the next five years to reach out more effectively to the 60% of eligible children who are not now receiving these services. Head Start has demonstrated its success in lifting families out of poverty. With the program's support, many families obtain the boost they need to achieve economic self-sufficiency. A letter I received from Monica Marafuga, a Head Start teacher in Massachusetts, makes this point well: I believe that Head start is sometimes the only hope for some families. As a teacher, I see the many families and children who need someone to guide them and point them in the right direction for a better life. The Early Head Start program is also greatly enhanced by this bill. This program was established four years ago to provide high quality comprehensive services to very young children, from birth to age 3, and their families. There is nothing that can replace a parent and a home that is supportive and loving. But as we have seen, many of the children in our society are missing the support which can help them develop at a very critical and important time of their development. We know that the first three years of life are a critical period in every child's development. We are mindful of the excellent studies that have been done by the Carnegie Commission about the importance of the development of a child's brain in the first months and years of life. The Early Head Start Program helps in developing those cognitive, emotional, and social skills that can help children seize future opportunities and fulfill their highest potential. This is something we want to encourage. I welcome the fact that we are able to see an important enhancement of the Early Start Program. I'm especially pleased that this bill includes provisions to establish a new training and technical assistance fund, which will reinforce the program's commitment to provide quality services through on-going professional support for program staff. The Early Start Program is having an important impact, and in this bill we continue a gradual expansion of the program so that more young children can be served. Currently, less than 2% of those eligible are receiving its benefit. This bill will expand the program over the next five years to cover an additional 40,000 babies and toddlers. This is a modest expansion, but one which I think, with its success, can be built on over future years. In addition, the bill also renews our commitment to reducing poverty by reauthorizing the Community Services Block Grant. This program helps communities by providing assistance to address the specific needs of localities, marshaling other existing resources in the community, and encouraging the involvement of those directly affected. Funds may be used for a variety of services, including employment, transportation, education, housing, nutrition, and child care. I remember when Senator Robert Kennedy sponsored the initial Community Development Corporation more than 30 years ago, which was the precursor to the Community Services Block Grant. This program has a proven record of fostering innovative methods for eliminating the causes of poverty. The need today is as great as it has ever been. Poverty continues to be a significant problem across the nation. We know that 37 million of our fellow citizens live in poverty. Children are particularly vulnerable, representing 40% of those living in poverty despite the fact that they make up only 25% of the overall population. These figures are particularly disturbing because studies show that children living in poverty tend to suffer disproportionately from stunted growth and lower test scores. The Community Services Block Grant can help alleviate these conditions and benefit these children. The legislation also reauthorizes the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program for the next five years. The funding levels provided for this important program will ensure that LIHEAP continues to help low-income households with their home energy costs, particularly in extreme weather. I am especially pleased that this legislation includes a provision to clarify the criteria for the President to release emergency LIHEAP funds. This assistance will enable many families hurt by hot or cold weather, ice storms, floods, earthquakes, and other natural disasters to get through the season. In addition, it will enable the release of emergency LIHEAP funds if there is a significant increase in unemployment, home energy disconnections, or participation in a public benefit program. There is clearly a continuing need for a strong LIHEAP program. 95% of the five million households receiving LIHEAP assistance have annual incomes below $18,000. They spend an extremely burdensome 18% of their income on energy, compared to the average middle-class family, which spends only 4%. Without a strong LIHEAP program, families will be forced to spend less money on food and more money on their utility bills--the so-called ``heat or eat effect.'' The result is increased malnutrition among children. Without a strong LIHEAP program, children will fall behind in school because they will be unable to study in their frigid households. Without a strong LIHEAP program, low income elderly will be at an even greater risk of hypothermia. In fact, older Americans accounted for more than half of all hypothermia deaths in 1991. LIHEAP is clearly a lifeline for the most vulnerable citizens in society, and I commend the House and Senate for strengthening this vital program. This bill also establishes a new and innovative approach to helping low-income individuals achieve financial independence, and again, I commend Senator Coats for his leadership on this new program. Individual Development Accounts are designed to promote economic self- sufficiency by providing matching funds for deposits made into qualifying savings accounts. Funds can be used to purchase a first home, open a small business, or pay for college education. This program shows great promise for improving the lives of many individuals and families in communities across the country. Mr. President, I want to just use the last minute in sharing my commendation for the wonderful staff, Republican and Democrat, who worked very closely together. This bipartisan effort is really the most effective way to develop the best possible legislation. I want to also recognize Stephanie Monroe, who will be leaving the Senate and has been really a stalwart. Everyone has enormous respect for her. She has worked with Senator Coats, but I think all of us have had enormous confidence in her leadership. She has done really an outstanding job. I also thank Suzanne Day and Kimberly Barnes O'Connor, and Amy Lockhart, a Congressional Fellow in my office, and Stephanie Robinson of my staff who is an enormously gifted, talented and committed individual. The Clinton Administration worked effectively with us in the development of this legislation, and they also deserve great credit. I want to particularly recognize Helen Taylor who is the Associate Commissioner of the Head Start Bureau at the Department of Health and Human Services. Ms. Taylor has dedicated her professional career to improving the lives of young children and has had over 30 years of distinguished service in the field of early childhood development. Her knowledge and experience proved invaluable in this process, and I thank her for her true commitment to the children of Head Start. This bill ensures the continuation of these important programs into the 21st century. Again, I thank the chairman of our committee, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Dodd, and Senator Coats who really have done an extraordinary job in bringing this legislation to where it is today.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support this reauthorization of the Vocational Education Act, the Carl Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Amendments of 1998. This bill, along with the Workforce Investment Act passed earlier this year, are important steps to improve the quality of the nation's workforce. Well-educated and well-trained workers are essential for the nation's future. As students prepare to enter the workforce, they should have a variety of choices, and this bill gives it to them. It encourages more effective integration of academic skills and job skills. It helps school districts form partnerships with community colleges, area technical schools, and businesses of all sizes to combine quality academic instruction with real-world work experiences. These partnerships will provide internships, apprenticeships, and practical job experience that will teach students about many difficult aspects of the world of work. It also encourages schools to use state-of-the-art techniques and equipment in teaching, so that students are offered challenging courses, and so that graduates can continue their education or enter the workforce better prepared for good careers. States are also guaranteed a greater flexibility in providing funds to local schools to improve their vocational and technical education programs. The Perkins Act has had a highly positive effect on the quality of vocational education across the nation. Its goal is to encourage innovation and ensure fairer opportunities for all students--especially those who have historically been denied access to high-level careers, and have suffered the most from the inequities in the job market. The bill also recognizes the importance of preparing students and trainees for non-traditional employment. Supporting these underserved populations is increasingly important if we are to meet the demands of the 21st Century economy. Finally, this legislation retains our commitment to the important role of gender equity in vocational education. Gender equity issues must continue to be part of every state's priority. Every student should be convinced that good careers are not out of reach because of such discrimination. Vocational education must expand opportunities, not restrict them. Overall, this legislation enables the nation to move forward in all of these important ways. I urge the Senate to support it, and I'm confident it will be effective in bringing us closer to the goals we share for vocational education in the years ahead.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support the Charter School Expansion Act, and I commend Senator Coats for his leadership in bringing it before the Senate. The legislation builds on the current Charter School Program to ensure that these schools are given the greater flexibility that they have been promised, and to reaffirm that they must be accountable to the same high standards that we expect of all public schools. In recent years, in response to the widespread movement to improve the quality of education in the nation's public schools, the innovative idea of charter schools began to develop broad bi-partisan support. Educators and community leaders took active parts in designing new schools that would receive public funds, like traditional public schools, but that would be free of many local regulations, and would also be held accountable for achieving the goals of their charter. States have the primary role in defining the role of charter schools--34 states have now passed enabling legislation, and they vary widely in their applications of this innovative idea. The Charter School Expansion Act continues to use Federal start-up grants as an incentive for local communities to design charter schools that provide significant options for parents within the public school system. The Act encourages the sharing of ideas and practices between charter schools and other public schools, so that schools benefit from the best lessons of each. The pending legislation strengthens the accountability provisions for charter schools by giving funding preferences to states that review and evaluate the performance of their charter schools at least once every five years. Charter schools must continue to be open to all students. President Clinton has set a goal of having 3,000 charter schools in operation nationwide by the year 2002. The Department of Education is conducting an ongoing study of charter school and the degree to which they are successful in improving student achievement. The results of that study will be very important in guiding the future of these schools. The Charter School Expansion Act is an essential part of our overall effort to improve public schools, and I urge the Senate to approve it. We must continue to do all we can to ensure that all public schools get the support they need to provide every child a good education.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, next week, on October 14th, the National Crime Prevention Council will honor Christopher F. Hayes of Boston as one of the seven recipients of this year's Ameritech Award of Excellence in Crime Prevention. The award recognizes individuals who demonstrate outstanding leadership, courage, and dedication to crime prevention in their neighborhoods, states, or nationally. This honor is a well-deserved tribute to Christopher Hayes and his 13-year career as Founder and Director of the Neighborhood Crime Watch Unit of the Boston Police Department. Mr. Hayes founded the Neighborhood Crime Watch Unit in 1985 as a one- person organization based on the philosophy that the key to crime prevention is to rely on connections from neighbor to neighbor. He urged people to work together and with the police to create innovative solutions for reducing local crimes. The initial model for his crime watch group was simple phone tree and whistle alert system that allowed neighbors to keep in touch with each other. Today, the Neighborhood Crime Watch Unit offers support and training for such neighborhood groups, which now total 962 in Boston and account for a third of all streets in the city. The successes have been impressive. Entrenched drug dealers have been exposed and forced out. Muggings have been averted. Suspects have been arrested. Drugs have been seized. Vacant lots have been reclaimed. Neighborhoods have been reborn. Neighborhood watch units have been a vital part of the effort to reduce the crime rate in Boston to the record lows the city is now enjoying. I commend Christopher Hayes for his innovative leadership and his extraordinary contribution to our city.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President. It is an honor to call to the attention of my colleagues that Dr. Shukri F. Khuri of the Brockton/West Roxbury, Massachusetts Veterans Affairs Medical Center, has been awarded the 1998 Frank Brown Berry Prize in Federal Medicine. This high honor is bestowed each year in memory of Dr. Frank Brown Berry, a thoracic surgeon and brigadier general who served in both World War I and World War II, and who served for seven years as the top medical officer in the Department of Defense. The award is presented jointly by U.S. Medicine newspaper and the Science Applications International Cooperation. Dr. Khuri was chosen for this high honor from a large pool of nominees by a committee of representatives from the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense, the Veterans Health Administration, and the staff of U.S. Medicine. Dr. Khuri received his medical education at the American University of Beirut before coming to the United States in 1972. Many of us know AUB well as one of the premier institutions of higher education in the Middle East, and as one of the strongest bulwarks of American ideals and values in that part of the world. Dr. Khuri's recognition as one of the leading medical practitioner-scientists in the United States reminds us of another important fact about AUB. Many of its graduates-- 5,000 distinguished alumni--live here in the United States and make major contributions to life and society in America. In fact, Dr Khuri serves as President of AUB's Alumni Association of North America. Dr. Khuri is now Chief of Surgical Services and Chief of Cardiothoracic Surgery at Brockton/West Roxbury VA Medical Center, the largest open-heart surgery program in the VA health care system. He also serves as the Vice-Chairman of the Department of Surgery at Brigham and Women's Hospital and is a Professor of Surgery at the Harvard Medical School. Dr. Khuri was honored with the Berry Prize for his accomplishments in three important areas of medical research and innovation. First, he developed a device that monitors on-line myocardial protection during open heart surgery, a device which enables surgeons to monitor the effect of open heart surgery on the patient and to reduce the chance that the surgery will cause irreversible damage. Dr. Khuri's device is a major innovation, and it seems likely to become a standard piece of equipment in all cardiac surgeries. Second, in cooperation with the Navy, Dr. Khuri devised strategies to increase the conservation of blood during open-heart surgery. Third, he directed the creation of a model system to assess the quality of care that patients receive by using risk adjustment outcomes. These innovations have significantly affected the practice of medicine in the United States. I congratulate Dr. Khuri on the Berry Award and for his important contributions to American medicine. I ask unanimous consent to insert at this point in the Record an article from the August 1998 issue of U.S. Medicine, which describes Dr. Khuri's accomplishments in greater detail.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I am pleased that the Senate is enacting this legislation to extend the period of copyright protection for an additional twenty years. This extension is needed to coordinate the term of copyright for our creative authors and artists with their European counterparts. The principles of copyright are established in the Constitution. They reflect our enduring belief that our nation prospers when it advances knowledge, understanding and the arts. As President Kennedy said, ``There is a connection, hard to explain logically but easy to feel, between achievement in public life and progress in the arts. The age of Pericles was also the age of Phidias. The age of Lorenzo de Medici was also the age of Leonardo da Vinci. The age of Elizabeth was also the age of Shakespeare.'' Effective copyright protection is an important national priority. If the United States is to continue its leadership in world of ideas and creativity, we must continue to provide a climate that encourages America's authors, artists, inventors and composers and the important work that they do. The pending legislation also includes an important compromise on the music licensing issue that has prevented adoption of copyright term legislation until now. I am pleased that agreement has been reached between the business and the music licensing communities so that musical authors and composers can enjoy an appropriate return from their creative achievements. Finally, the bill also includes an important reference to the current negotiations between the film industry and its guilds. It is gratifying that negotiations will be taking place on the appropriate division of residuals from the earliest films, and I hope that the negotiations will be resolved to the satisfaction of both sides on this important issue of fairness. Overall, I commend the bipartisan cooperation that has produced this worthwhile legislation. Our cultural heritage will be strengthened by this measure, and I urge the Senate to approve it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Chairman Jeffords for his leadership in making child literacy a priority and developing this strong legislation. I also commend Senator Coverdell for helping to make this bill a priority in the Senate, and Senator Murray and Senator Dodd for their leadership in issues involving young children. I also want to thank Congressman Goodling and Congressman Clay for working effectively to ensure that the Senate and House could reach agreement on this important measure. I commend and thank all the staff members of the working group for their skillful assistance in making this process successful: Sherry Kaiman of Senator Jeffords' staff; Townsend Lange of Senator Coats staff; Suzanne Day of Senator Dodd's staff; Elyse Wasch of Senator Reed's staff; Greg Williamson of Senator Murray's staff; Bev Schroeder of Senator Harkin's staff; and Danica Petroshius of my own staff. I also commend the hard work of the House staff on the working group, including Vic Klatt, Sally Lovejoy, D'Arcy Philps, Lynn Selmser, and Bob Sweet of the House Committee majority staff; Alex Nock, Marci Phillips, Mark Zuckerman, and June Harris of the House Committee minority staff; and Charlie Barone of Represenative George Miller's staff. Learning to read well is the cornerstone of every child's education. We know that reading skills are fundamental to effective learning in all subjects. The ability to read effectively is the gateway to opportunity and success throughout life. Many successful programs are helping children learn to read well. But too often, the best programs are not available to all children. As a result, large numbers of children are denied the opportunity to learn to read well. 40 percent of 4th grade students do not achieve the basic reading level, and 70 percent of 4th graders are not proficient in reading. Children who fail to acquire basic reading skills early in life are at a disadvantage throughout their education and later careers. They are more likely to drop out of school, and to be unemployed. We need to do more to ensure that all children learn to read well--and learn to read well early--so that they have a greater chance for successful lives and careers. In October 1996, President Clinton and the First Lady initiated a new effort to call national attention to child literacy by proposing their ``America Reads Challenge.'' Many of us in Congress strongly supported their call for increased aid for reading tutors and other steps to improve child literacy. Today, over 1,000 colleges and universities are committed to the President's ``America Reads Work Study Program,'' and 59 of these institutions are in Massachusetts. Many of the reading difficulties experienced by teenagers and adults today could have been prevented by better attention during early childhood. By working to ensure that all children learn to read well in the early grades, we can reduce the need for costly special education instruction in later grades. We must make every effort to give our public schools the resources necessary to ensure that all children obtain the reading skills they need--at an early age. This bill is a major step toward meeting that goal. It provides children, parents, schools, and communities with the resources and opportunities they need to improve child and family literacy--and the help can't come a minute too soon. This bill also recognizes that teachers must have adequate resources and proper training in order to be prepared to teach reading well. Teachers must often provide special assistance to children who are having difficulty learning to read. Too often, teachers lack the time, the skills, and the resources to provide children with that assistance. Building on the successful Eisenhower Professional Development Program, which trains teachers in math and science, this bill creates new opportunities for teachers to obtain the training they need to teach reading effectively. Communities across the country are initiating innovative projects on reading. At Boston College, a fundamental part of teacher education is training teachers in the best research and practice on ways to teach reading, including helping children develop skills in phonics, sound- and-symbol relationships, and reading comprehension. This bill encourages local school districts to build partnerships and work in cooperation with community organizations and state agencies. It ensures that local, state, and national efforts to improve literacy are coordinated, and that the most effective resources and practices are used to meet the needs of children. It also provides communities with support to provide children with trained tutors to give them the opportunity to practice reading with adults. In Massachusetts, 59 colleges and universities are providing trained tutors to school children through the Federal Work Study Program. At Boston University, 150 reading tutors are helping 400 needy children learn to read. Students at Worcester Polytechnic Institute serve as reading tutors at the Belmont Community School. The Reading Excellence Act builds upon these successful programs to help communities find and train tutors who can make a difference. In addition, children need to have useful reading materials outside of school to help them develop a love of reading early in life. To meet this goal, the bill encourages strong links to a variety of programs for early childhood literacy, and encourages cooperation between community, state, and national organizations to ensure that every child has access to good reading materials. Physicians are also part of the effort. Successful pediatric programs, such as Reach Out and Read, can benefit even more children as a result of this bill. This program was created by a team of pediatricians and early childhood educators at Boston City Hospital in 1989. Pediatricians are encouraged to prescribe reading activities as part of childhood medical check-ups, and to see that children leave the doctor's office with a good book in hand. Now, 4,500 health care providers in 46 states have been trained to help nearly one million children and their families. Parents who participate in Reach Out and Read are 8 times more likely to read to their children than parents who do not participate in this pediatric program. Children whose parents are involved in their education, who read to them, and who work with them on language skills are more likely to become successful readers. They achieve higher test scores. They have better school attendance records. They graduate at higher rates. And they are more likely to go to college. But children whose parents lack a strong educational foundation are less likely to do so. Many parents want to help, but too often they are unable to do so because the parents themselves lack basic reading skills. We can do more to help parents acquire the skills and resources needed to help their children learn to read. This bill will expand local family literacy initiatives, and help states to increase parent involvement. Family literacy efforts, such as the Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters in Worcester, Massachusetts, concentrate on providing parents with the education and skills they need to be their children's first reading teachers. These programs teach parents how to read aloud and work with their children at home, and give parents the opportunity to attend literacy and other classes. Funds will also be available to the National Institute for Literacy to gather and disseminate information about the best practices for improving child literacy, so that every school and community can take advantage of them. This bill targets funds for literacy programs on schools where the needs are greatest. Children in poor schools are more likely to live in homes with parents who have not completed high school and are unemployed. Children from such homes are 5 to 6 times more likely to drop out of school than other children. We should help ensure that they get the opportunities they need to learn to read well. Recent successes in Boston prove that targeted efforts to improve schools and student performance can produce real results. After three years of reforms in Boston emphasizing early literacy, high academic standards, and the best teaching practices, students in almost every grade showed significant improvements in math and reading scores on city-wide achievement tests. The Samuel W. Mason School in Boston, where 91 percent of the children come from poor families, has gone from one of the lowest- performing schools in the city to scoring in the top quarter of all public schools in the city in reading achievement. They have implemented a school reform approach that focuses on literacy. Teachers were trained in the best reading practices. In addition, they adapted teaching styles to fit children's learning styles, tested the children every six weeks to measure improvement, and focused on improving family literacy in the community. The bill will help provide children with the readiness skills and support they need to learn to read once they enter school. It will help teach every child to read in these early years--from preschool though the 3rd grade. And, it will improve the instructional practices of teachers and other staff in elementary schools with the greatest need for extra help. The bill provides competitive grants to states to improve child literacy. Each state will create a plan to address the needs of its teachers and communities for improving student achievement in reading. Eligible school districts will be able to apply to the state for funds to support teacher training in how to teach reading well in elementary schools with the greatest need for help, and to support partnerships among eligible school districts and community organizations that support early learning, tutoring, adult literacy, and that provide children and families with access to books. The lowest-achieving and poorest schools will benefit. Local school districts that are eligible for subgrants fall into three categories: (1) districts that have at least one low-performing school in school improvement under Title I; (2) districts that have schools with the highest and second highest number of poor children in the state; and (3) districts that have schools with the highest and second highest poverty rates in the states. The bill amends Title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and authorizes $260 million each year for fiscal years 1999 and 2000. By building on successful programs such as the Eisenhower Professional Development Program, the College Work Study Program, and the Even Start Program, this bill provides state and local education agencies with the support they need to bring successful programs to their teachers, students, and communities. Children do not learn to read on their own. Children need well- trained teachers who can give them the assistance they deserve. Children need trained tutors who can work with them outside the classroom. They need involved parents who know how to read and know how to work effectively with their children at home. Children need access to effective reading materials at home. And, children need the opportunity to acquire reading readiness skills early, so that they come to school ready to learn to read. The Reading Excellence Act ensures that the best methods and resources are more widely available to schools, families, and children across the country. I urge the Senate to pass this important legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, to conclude, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the correspondence from various women's groups, including the No. 1 consumer group in terms of protection of women, the Breast Cancer Coalition, 450 organizations that support this legislation, and the American Nurses Association, who strongly support the legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator agree that is one of the most important issues before families in this country? We believe, as supporters of the Patients' Bill of Rights, Senator Daschle's bill, that doctors ought to be making decisions with regard to the health of women in our society. That is the key underlying difference between the Patients' Bill of Rights and other substitutes, but this is a matter of urgency, a matter of importance.

Mr. KENNEDY. I have before me--and I will include in the Record--an excellent letter written by representatives of 30 different organizations representing women. I would like to ask if the Senator would agree with me that this issue involving the Patients' Bill of Rights has special importance to women. It does--as I will mention in just a moment--to those who have been afflicted with breast cancer. And, of course, the nurses in this country are all in support. But would the Senator agree with this letter, which is sponsored by the 30 organizations? I will include it in its entirety. Few issues resonate as profoundly and pervasively as the need for quality health care, and women have a particular stake in the changes in our health care delivery system. Women are the primary consumers of health care services in this country, and we have unique health care needs. Women also take care of the health care needs of our families, from children to elderly relatives. Because of the great impact any patient protection bill will ultimately have on women, we ask that you support real reform that will truly improve women's health. The Patients' Bill of Rights Act (S. 1890) takes the needs of all consumers seriously, and it pays particular attention to the needs of women. The genuine and often unique concerns of women are woven into the fabric of this bill. S. 1890 recognizes that women's health can only be improved by comprehensive reform. I am just wondering if the Senator would agree, first of all, as a strong supporter of the legislation, that he believes that the Republican leadership is derelict in its duty by failing to bring up legislation that can have that kind of importance to the mothers and to the wives, to the sisters, to the daughters, of families in this country? This is supported by 30 organizations that represent women, children, and families. Does the Senator not agree with me that the Republican leadership has been derelict in failing to give us an opportunity to address these issues which are central to the concern of women in our society and their health care needs?

Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are reaching the final days of this Congress, and the leadership is deciding about which measures the Senate is going to consider during these final few days. As I mentioned previously, we have identified a number of different pieces of legislation that I don't believe, and I don't think the American people believe rise up in importance as to protecting the families of this country with the kinds of protections that we would have with our Patients' Bill of Rights. But, we have been unable to have this legislation up before the Senate, to have it debated and discussed, and to have a resolution by this body in a timely way. As I have mentioned on other occasions, it is Friday afternoon at 2 o'clock and most Americans are still working. The Senate should be, on an issue of this importance, still here and debating these issues and resolving these matters in ways which I think, with a full debate and an open discussion, resolve these matters in favor of the families, in favor of the patients, in favor of this country. It is a very basic and fundamental issue--whether we are going to have the medical professionals--the doctors and nurses--make the ultimate judgment in terms of health care, or whether those decisions are going to be made by the HMOs, the insurance companies, and their accountants. For all Americans who are participating in these HMOs, they have paid the premiums and they expect their medical treatment will be decided by medical professionals, and not accountants in the insurance industry. I doubt very much whether these HMOs--when they are out recruiting new members to join and pay their premiums from their hard-earned money which they work for every single day--are saying, ``Well, we want you to know that the people who are going to be making decisions about your health care are going to be the accountants, and not the doctors we are referencing in our pamphlets.'' Mr. President, this morning in the Wall Street Journal on the front page there was a rather ominous report. This is from this morning, Friday, October 2nd, on the front page of the Wall Street Journal: ``Politicians seek to profit from the debate over health-care policies.'' This is the debate--the one issue--that is before the U.S. Senate, the Patients' Bill of Rights. There are other health care issues. But this is the health care issue that commands the wide-range support of over 180 different organizations reflecting all of the various medical professionals--all the nurses, all the cancer patient organizations, all of the children's organizations, all of the disability organizations, and all of the women organizations. They have all virtually embraced and endorsed this health care debate that we have been trying to have. The debate has been rather one-sided since we have not been able to have engagement from the other side on this issue. We have the Wall Street Journal saying the following. This is an exact quote: The GOP's congressional campaign committee invites a ``select group'' of health-care-industry leaders to a meeting Tuesday on the issue. The ticket price: $25,000 each.'' $25,000 each. The meeting ``will last one hour'' only, says an invitation signed by Illinois Representative Hastert and California Representative Thomas. That would exceed $400 a minute per person for the fundraiser. These are the two leading Republican House Members that have been opposed to the Patients' Bill of Rights. Evidently, Mr. President, we have been unable to get this measure before the Senate of the United States--we find that because of the fact that the legislation has been shelved, pigeonholed, the result is that our Republican friends are having a ``select group'' of health care industry leaders who will pay $25,000 to go to a meeting. Mr. President, let us look at the most recent report of last month, a new study by Common Cause, which I saw this morning. I asked my staff to get the most recent study by Common Cause about contributions to the Republican National Committee by this industry. They reported that the industry which gave the most soft money to the Republicans of any group was the insurance industry. It is very interesting that here we have the industry paying $25,000 each for each of their personnel to go to a fundraiser with people who have been effectively there to sidetrack this legislation. Then, when we look back, we find out the insurance industry has opened up its coffers to the party that is keeping us from debating this and resolving this in the U.S. Senate. That is what is happening. The American people do not understand that. If they don't understand very much, they understand this: That Common Cause reported that in the first 6 months of this year they gave $5.5 million. This is where they have contributed. I daresay we will find out as we move on through, month by month, and then at the end of the year the reports will come in after the election about what they have done in terms of the various candidates. This is what we are faced with on the one hand. This is what we are faced with: Big money and powerful special interests denying the opportunity for the interests of these various organizations and the people they represent--not just Members of the U.S. Senate who favor this position but those who are really the constituencies of these organizations. We are talking about the Children's Legal Defense Fund that has represented the interests of the children. We are talking about the range of different groups that have been representing the disabled. We are talking about the medical societies representing the doctors and nurses societies--denying those particular interests the opportunity for debate on this legislation. Mr. President, earlier today we heard some very moving testimony. It has been typical of the testimony that we have been hearing over the period of recent weeks and months. This is by Mr. A.G. Newmyer of The Epilepsy Foundation. I will include the statements in their entirety. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Let me highlight what we heard this morning. Good morning. My name is Newmyer and I'm here on behalf of the 2.5 million Americans who have seizure disorders, and their families. Some of these folks are well known to you-- former Congressman Tony Coelho, Representative Neil Abercrombie, Congressman Hoyer's late wife. Others are total strangers--like me. And a couple hundred people on the Hill either have epilepsy or someone in their family does, but you don't know about it because stigma and fear keep these folks in the closet. The Epilepsy Foundation urges passage of strong patients' rights legislation. Today's health insurance system is a mean-spirited, predatory mess. But it's far worse for people with special medical needs. Those of you who cover this debate may recall that Tracy Buccholz from MN was the first public witness before the President's commission on health care. Tracy has epilepsy and led a rather normal life until her health plan started playing games with her life. She explained to the commission, when she came to Washington to testify, that she had been waiting eight months for permission to see her neurologist, because the literature and promises of her plan. I'd like to make three brief points this morning. First, the member satisfaction statistics are pure nonsense. If I asked each of you how you like your life insurance, you'd think I was nuts. You'd tell me that you think it's fine--you never had to use it. The same thing's true for the 80% of Americans who have no significant medical need in any one year. I urge the press to focus on satisfaction among plan participants who have faced a serious medical need. That is important, Mr. President. Second, to those members who say they don't want to interfere in the insurance market, let's be serious. The user isn't the customer. Most patients get insurance at work and have very little choice. When the person making the purchase decision isn't the user of the service, it's not a market. It's an anomaly. And it needs to be fixed. Now. That is a very important point, Mr. President. Finally, I know of no other segment of our society where some people elect to engage in predatory behavior knowing that the victims can't go to court. No patients want more lawsuits. Patients want health plans to stop horsing around. Patients want to fix a system where some people prosper by denying care. The key is ERISA reform, which is why it's being fought so hard by for-profit managed care plans. Do you really think these plans can't afford for people with seizures to have easy access to decent care? That is very moving, Mr. President, and clearly all of the organizations want us to debate and resolve these issues, because every single day they know that the lives of their members, like other Americans' lives, are being threatened by the abuses in the HMO system. Finally, Mr. President, there is Debra Ness, executive vice president of the National Partnership for Women & Families. We need a full and fair debate on the Patients' Bill of Rights Act before the end of this session. Every day Congress delays, patients suffer: Imagine your father being sick, and watching helplessly as his insurance company overrules his doctor about what treatment is best for him. And yet . . . Congress delays. Imagine your wife being told she can't participate in a clinical trial that might be the only opportunity to save her life. And yet . . . Congress delays. Imagine your child becoming permanently disabled because your insurance company wouldn't let you go to the nearest emergency room. And yet . . . Congress delays. Imagine the chronic disease you have managed for years suddenly going awry because your cost-conscious health plan refused to let you continue using the medication that helped stabilize your condition. [This happens, Mr. President. This happens.] And yet . . . Congress delays. We've talked with women around the country who told us with great passion how they believe the health care industry has abandoned patients for profits. They desperately want health plans to provide quality care, and they are convinced that government must play a role in setting quality standards. And yet . . . Congress delays. Just one bill responds to these legitimate and deep-felt concerns, and that is S. 1890, the Patients' Bill of Rights Act. It is the only bill that gives patients real protections, not phony substitutes. The Senate has an opportunity--and an obligation to Americans--to enact meaningful patient protections by passing S. 1890, the Patients' Bill of Rights Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter signed by a number of organizations saying: We, the leadership organizations working for passage of the Patients' Bill of Rights. . .ask [the majority leader] to schedule a full and fair debate before the close of the 105th Congressional session. Mr. President, I ask the letter be printed in its entirety.

Mr. KENNEDY. There are now more than 180 organizations that are supporting it. The time is running short, but, as we have seen in the paper, there is a great deal of work yet to be done. We have not lost faith that still, somehow, the central concerns of families across this country can be listened to and responded to with a positive answer that, still, we might be able to, even in these last days of this session, have action to protect our families in this country. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand, we are in morning business for up to 10 minutes. I ask unanimous consent to be able to proceed for 15 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.