Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank our friend and colleague for his superb recollections and comments about this son of Massachusetts, Kirk O'Donnell. Kirk O'Donnell was really a committed public servant right from the earliest days. He started out as a schoolteacher. He came from a working-class family. He entered politics. He served with great distinction, as the Senator has pointed out, with a great friend of both of us, Congressman O'Neill, in a very significant time in the history of this country. And then after our friend and colleague, Speaker O'Neill, left, Kirk O'Donnell went to run the Center for National Policy. He kept his interest in public policy, believing that public policy can make a difference in people's lives. He really was an extraordinary human being in his common sense, his good judgment and his real desire to advance the common interests of working families in our State. So I wish to commend my colleague, Senator Kerry, for bringing this matter to the Senate. This man was a very rare human being, a rare individual, a very loving person, certainly for his wife and his family but also to his friends. He also cared very deeply about the condition of the people that he met over his journey of life. He had a strong commitment to make this world a better world and our State of Massachusetts a better State. I thank my colleague for bringing these remarks to the Senate. I commend these remarks to our colleagues and to his family because we miss him not only as a friend, but as an extraordinary public servant. We should not let his name and his memory leave us. Those who knew him and loved him will certainly carry his memory in their hearts throughout their lives. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for the time being, for the moment, I object.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. KENNEDY. The request has been made to go to the bankruptcy bill which affects about 1,300,000 people in this country. We do have an opportunity to consider other legislation, like the HMO bill, that affects 120 million people, and we are being asked to go to the bankruptcy bill when we are not scheduling the campaign finance bill that passed the House of Representatives that involves the elimination of many of the abuses of campaign finance. Some are very concerned about the fact that some $50 million have been expended by banks and credit card companies to move this legislation forward. I am interested in inquiring of the leader whether we can have any indication as to when we might have the opportunity of scheduling these other measures which affect the average family, rather than special interests, such as the banks and the credit card companies. When I go back home, people talk to me about health care. It is the bankers and credit card people who are talking about the bankruptcy bill. I wonder whether we are going to have any kind of assurance that we are going to move ahead with this legislation and we are going to have an opportunity to address and debate the merits of the Republican legislation, as well as the merits of the legislation, for example, on HMOs that has been introduced by the Democratic leader.

Mr. KENNEDY. I object.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask consent to have the same privilege as has been extended to the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Illinois, to proceed for 4 more minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for 5 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just about an hour ago, we had the majority leader taking the floor and making the request that we go to the bankruptcy legislation, as is his authority, and then making a motion to move toward the bankruptcy bill and filing cloture. And I assume, as others would, that we will be debating this legislation next week. In an exchange with the majority leader, I questioned him as to why we were not considering taking up the HMO legislation, the Patients' Bill of Rights. We could either take up the legislation that had been introduced by the Republicans and lay that down as our leader, Senator Daschle, has suggested, or permit some other way or means that we could have a full debate and discussion on that legislation. As I pointed out in the very brief exchange with the majority leader, we are talking considering legislation that affects about 1.4 million bankruptcies, with all the importance and consequences that has, as expressed by our friends and colleagues from Iowa and from Illinois and stated eloquently by both of them in recent times, or whether we should be considering a measure that affects 165 million Americans with health insurance coverage. When I go home to Massachusetts and travel around the state, I hear from families wondering when the Congress is going to take action to make sure that health care decisions are going to be made by medical officials, by doctors and by nurses, rather than by accountants and insurance company personnel. That is what the people are talking about. That is what they were talking about during August. I asked the majority leader whether we would be able to have the opportunity to debate this issue. And as is the wont of the majority leader and the assistant majority leader, Senator Nickles, they have said, look, you are either going to take it or leave it with our proposal. You are either going to take it the way we want it--that is, you can offer two or three amendments, and we can offer two or three amendments --and, if you are willing to take that, we are willing to schedule it; otherwise, we are not. They are, for all intents and purposes, gagging the Senate. We do not have any such condition on the measure that is before us this afternoon, the bankruptcy bill. There are a number of very worthwhile, substantive amendments for this measure. The majority leader did not come out here and say take it or leave it on the bankruptcy bill. No, no. Why? Because the credit card industry and the banking industry have the votes to pass this legislation, and, as has been publicly recognized, they have expended some $50 million in order to support the movement of this legislation. Yet, we find out that there are children in our country today who are being denied a CAT scan because of an automobile accident or because of a bicycle accident or because of some other kind of an accident. They do not make large contributions to push forward legislation that will help them. Nor do the women who are denied access to clinical trials or obstetrical and gynecological care. And so, Mr. President, we are being effectively gagged by the Republican leadership in debating and discussing and voting on the most important health measure that we will be faced with this year. Again, when asked when we can proceed to this important legislation, the majority leader, as is his wont, calls for regular order: We are not going to listen to any voices in the Senate that have been trying to get to this measure for over a year and a half, either a hearing or a markup in the appropriate committee. No, thumbs down. Scheduled on the floor of the Senate? Absolutely not, unless you take it our way. Now, Mr. President, you can--and the majority leader has been successful up to this time--avoid having the opportunity for such a debate and discussion, but I do not really understand the reasons why. Why are the Republicans objecting to debating the gag issue or about emergency room access? Why shouldn t patients who believe they are having an emergency based on a reasonable person's judgment be assured coverage at the nearest emergency room? Why shouldn't we be able to debate what would be the appropriate responsibility of HMOs on these issues? Why shouldn't we be able to debate whether you can keep your own doctor or whether you have access to specialists or whether you are able to have specialists for primary care, as many women, in particular, so need in our society today? And why not discuss the importance of access to clinical trials, or a right to timely appeals-- both internal and external--and health plan accountability? Why should the health insurance industry be the only industry that can cause death and disability and be excluded from accountability in the United States of America? Should we not have the opportunity to debate that issue and call the roll? Not according to the majority leader. No, no, not according to the majority leader. You either take it or leave it. Now, that has been the position effectively on HMOs, the position on campaign financing, the position on any increase in the minimum wage: Take ours or leave it. Now, he is entitled and has authority as the majority leader to make these decisions, but we also have prerogatives in this body, and we can exercise those prerogatives and, as Senator Daschle has indicated, will either do it in a regular way according to the rules of the Senate or we will have some other opportunity to do so. This body should not be gagged, as the majority leader is doing when he responds: You will take three amendments and that is it. It is very clear what the priorities are for the Republican leadership--protect the banks and the credit card companies--protect the insurance industry--protect their friends. All you have to do is look at who is going to benefit from the HMO reform and patients' rights and who is going to benefit from the bankruptcy legislation. Who is going to benefit from the bankruptcy legislation? The banks and the credit card companies that have been among the most profitable industries in this country in the last few years. Who benefits from Patients' Bill of Rights? Working families benefit from it. Children benefit from it. Senior citizens benefit from it. The average citizen in this country benefits from it. But, no, no, the Senate hasn't got time for that. Make no mistake. What was determined this afternoon by the leadership is that the Senate is favoring the banks and credit card companies and we are giving short shrift, short shrift to those who are dependent upon, in too many instances, the kinds of HMOs in this country that are not putting the medical decisions in the hands of doctors. Why is it that nearly 200 of the leading national medical associations, nursing organizations, patient coalitions, disability groups, mental health groups, religious organizations, small businesses and consumer groups support the Daschle bill? I have been in the Chamber when I have listened to the majority leader and my friend from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles, talk about their bill. We haven't heard of one single patients' organization that supports their bill. Every one of them supports the Daschle bill. So, when we say let us at least have the opportunity to debate it, we mean let's discuss each of the various elements. Let us have an opportunity to address those measures, with relevant amendments--they are right here. I would settle for amendments on the particular measures on this chart this afternoon, if I were asked, with time limits. But let's have accountability. Let's have accountability. Why is the Republican leadership saying to every doctor who is represented by those organizations, to every nurse, to every patient or survivor of every breast cancer group, ``No, we can't debate your proposal''? So we are going to work at it and we are going to keep at it, time in and time out. I know there are others who want to speak. How much time do I have?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, finally, on another measure we have attempted to bring up here, and we will have the opportunity to do so, it is to recognize a fundamental issue of fairness and equity in our country, and that is an increase in the minimum wage. I ask the Chair to let me know when I have 1 minute left. We have had the most extraordinary economic prosperity in the history of this country. We have had the explosion in terms of Wall Street, even with its ups and downs. We have the lowest rates of unemployment, the lowest rates of inflation. Over the many debates which have taken place since I have been here in the U.S. Senate, since 1962--and we have raised the minimum wage during this time five different times with Republican and Democratic support--we are always faced with two issues: If we increase the minimum wage, we are going to add to inflation and add to unemployment. It is fair for those who oppose the increase in the minimum wage to ask us, now that we saw the last increase in 1996-1997--we have seen an increase of 90 cents. For whom? The working poor; men and women working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year, who pay their bills and play by the rules--words that were used by the Senator from Iowa. They are the workers. They are the workers, struggling. Mr. President, our particular amendment, if successful, with a dollar in the next 2 years, would move it up by the year 2000 to $6.15. That would be $5.76, in terms of purchasing power. It would still be lower than what it was for a period of some 20 years--25 years, in purchasing power, at a time of extraordinary prosperity and economic growth. In every one of these debates they say if you raise it, you will see higher unemployment and you will see higher inflation. Look what happened the last time. When we raised the minimum wage in 1997, the unemployment rate was 4.9 percent and the rate of inflation was 1.7. Then we raised the minimum wage. We raised the minimum wage. Today, the unemployment rate is--higher? No, it is lower. It is 4.5 percent, and the rate of inflation is 1.4 percent. Mr. President, 3.7 million new jobs have been added. Executive salaries have exploded and gone up through the roof, but the real purchasing income for the needy working families of this country continues to fall further and further behind. Those who receive the minimum wage primarily are women--60 percent. It is a women's issue. It is a children's issue. These are children of working families. Family values? This is it. When you get an increase in the minimum wage, those families say, ``Now we no longer have to work three jobs, we can work two. Maybe we don't have the time to spend with our children.'' But this is an issue of dignity for those who are out there working. It is an issue of fairness. It is an issue of decency. This body, at the time of this extraordinary economic growth and prosperity, at a time when we in this body have benefited from a cost- of-living adjustment of more than $3,000 since our last increase in the minimum wage, ought to be able to say to those working poor that we understand, when they work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year, they ought not to be continuing to live in poverty. Mr. President, those issues are going to come back to us and we will address them, I guarantee you, before the end of the session. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, under the leadership of President Clinton, the country has enjoyed six years of economic growth. Unemployment is at its lowest level in a generation. Inflation is the lowest in 40 years. Despite this week's gymnastics by the stock market, economic indicators continue to be strong. Job growth is projected to continue throughout this year, and inflation is predicted to remain at historically low levels. But for most Americans, it's someone else's boom. Too many citizens are just one paycheck away from bankruptcy. Facing a sudden health crisis, a divorce, or some other family emergency--these families often have no choice but to declare bankruptcy. My Republican colleagues respond with legislation to make it easier for banks and credit card companies to squeeze these already-struggling families even harder. I say, giant corporations don't need the help as much as families do. And the best way to provide effective help is to raise the minimum wage. The amendment I have introduced today will raise the minimum wage by 50 cents on January 1 next year and another 50 cents on January 1, 2000. As we begin the next century, the minimum wage will be $6.15 an hour. Mr. President, as this chart illustrates, we can see where the minimum wage has gone since 1955 in terms of real dollars. We were back here at $4.34 in 1988. We raised the minimum wage here in a two-step procedure, and then it declined in terms of real purchasing power. And now we are talking about raising it up to what would be $6.15 an hour in the year 2000. But if you look at this chart, Mr. President, you will see that the actual purchasing power in the year 2000 in today's dollars would be only $5.76. This chart is a constant, real dollar chart. And even if we raise it to this level, we will still be below where the minimum wage was for some 15 years from the 1960s through the 1970s under Republicans and Democrats alike-- below that level at a time of extraordinary prosperity for millions of Americans--millions of Americans--even with that increase. If we do not increase it, if we do not accept this amendment, we will find out that the minimum wage effectively will be not $5.15 an hour, but $4.82 an hour, which will put us close to the lowest levels in the last 35 years in terms of purchasing power for working families at the lower end of the economic ladder. Those at the bottom of the economic ladder have not received their fair share of the nation's remarkable growth. Working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, minimum wage workers earn just $10,700--$2,900 below the poverty level for a family of three. In the midst of what many experts are calling ``the best economy ever,'' 12 million working Americans are still earning poverty-level wages. For them, survival is the daily goal. If they work hard enough and their hours are long enough, they can make ends meet--but only barely. They don't have time for their families. They can't participate adequately in activities with their children. They can't afford to buy birthday presents or do the countless other things that most of us take for granted. We know who minimum wage workers are. They assist teachers in classrooms across the country. They care for the chronically ill in their homes. They are child care workers and aides in nursing homes. They sell us groceries at the supermarket, and serve us coffee at the local coffee shop. They clean corridors and empty trash in office buildings in countless communities around the nation. They are workers like Valerie Bell, a custodian for a contractor in Baltimore, who told us what a higher minimum wage means in human terms. For workers and their families, it means far more than dollars and cents. It means dignity. As she said, ``We no longer have to receive food stamps or other social services to supplement our incomes. We can fix up our homes and invest in our neighborhoods. We can spend more at the local grocery store. We can work two low-wage jobs, rather than three low-wage jobs, and spend more time with our families. Our utilities won't be cut off. We can pay the medical bills we accumulated from not having health benefits in our jobs.'' Minimum wage workers are people like Cathy Adams, a home health aide from Viola, IL. Cathy is a high school graduate who is currently enrolled in a computer training program at the local community college. She lives with her two daughters, who are 10 and 11. Cathy works 11 and one-half hours a day, five days a week, caring for a woman with multiple sclerosis. She bathes her, dresses her and feeds her. She does the grocery shopping, the laundry, and the cleaning. She runs errands and schedules doctors' appointments. Cathy likes her job and is fond of her client. But she finds it hard to live on $5.30 an hour. She told us in March that ``I literally live paycheck to paycheck. After paying the bills, whatever is left over goes to groceries. I have $9 in my savings account and worry about being able to save for my girls' education. We rarely have money to go to a movie or eat out at a restaurant. The other day, my girls asked me to take them ice skating at school. While it only cost $10, I had to think twice about whether we could afford it.'' And minimum wage earners are workers like Kimberly Frazier, a child care aide from Philadelphia. Kimberly works full time and earns $5.20 an hour. She is a single mother with three children. Kimberly says that her salary barely covers her bills--rent of $250 a month, food, utilities, clothing for three growing children, and carfare to get to work. Kimberly says, ``I can't afford a car and pay for gas and insurance so I rely on public transportation. If I had a car, I could get out to the places where there are better paying jobs. And, like all Americans, I dream of buying my own house so that I can raise my kids in a neighborhood that has less crime and more trees. But I know that, although I work and study as hard as I can, I will never have the down payment for a house earning the minimum wage.'' Kimberly concluded that ``A dollar an hour probably doesn't sound like a lot to many people, but to me and my children it would mean a real improvement in our lives.'' Workers like Valerie Bell, Cathy Adams, and Kimberly Frazier tell stories that are repeated in communities across the nation. That's why we say now is the time to raise the minimum wage. Nay-sayers parrot the same arguments they have always used against a fair increase. They claim an increase will damage the economy, cut jobs, and hurt the very people it's intended to help. The facts belie those claims. A study released May 6 by the Economic Policy Institute proves the point. The two most recent increases in the minimum wage did not cause the sky to fall. There was no measurable effect on jobs; no measurable effect on inflation. The only measurable effect on low-income workers was positive. They received the pay increase they deserved. Mr. President, 60 percent of the benefit of the 1996-1997 increases went to families in the bottom 40 percent of the income groups; a third of the benefit went to the poorest families, those in the bottom 20 percent. Nearly three-quarters of those who benefited were adults over the age of 20. On the average, minimum-wage workers contributed over half of their family's weekly earnings. The most recent data support the increase. Raising the minimum wage does not cause unemployment for men and women, adults, teens or anyone else. Look at the teenagers. We have a chart for the teenagers. The argument is made that the most vulnerable group is teenagers. But if we look at the employment levels for ages 16 through 19, before the minimum wage increased to $4.75 in 1996 and then to $5.15 in 1997, we see that the total employment for teenagers has risen steadily. Nearly 400,000 more teenagers are working today than before the increase took effect. So increasing the minimum wage has not lowered teenage employment. Teenage unemployment has dropped dramatically during the same period, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The unemployment rate was nearly 17 percent when the minimum wage was first increased. Today the unemployment rate among teenagers is 14 percent, a drop of almost 20 percent since the last increase. Minimum wage opponents typically claim that low-wage industries will lay off workers rather than pay a higher minimum wage. But look what happened in the retail industry where many low-wage workers are concentrated. In the year before the minimum wage was increased, retail employment grew by just under 400,000 jobs. In 1994 and 1995, before we increased the minimum wage to $4.75, there were 394,000 new retail jobs. In the eleven months since we raised the minimum wage, there have been 500,000 new retail jobs; retail employment has increased since the last raise. The argument that raising the minimum wage causes job loss for the most vulnerable, the teenagers and those who are the working poor, does not hold. The facts are not there. That argument cannot be made. Retail employment grew over 25 percent faster since the minimum wage was actually increased because, many economists believe, when you do get a respectable wage for minimum wage, people will go back to work and go to work and increasingly move off unemployment or the welfare system, because they are able to provide for their families. Despite these figures, too many of our Republican friends oppose giving minimum wage workers an additional $1 an hour. Instead, their priority is reforming bankruptcy laws by rewarding banks and credit card companies who target low-income families. That will be the item on the agenda, according to the majority leader. So today I am filing the minimum wage as an amendment to the bankruptcy bill. Democrats agree, plums for the rich and crumbs for everyone else is the wrong priority. We need to do more for working families and communities across America. We can do more by raising the minimum wage, and with the strong support of President Clinton, Democrats in the Senate and House and some courageous Republicans, I intend to do so. I see my colleagues here. Let me just point out what this issue is really all about. This is a women's issue, because more than 60 percent of the recipients are women. This is a family issue, because many of those women have one child or more. So it is a children's issue. What kind of life are these children going to lead? What kind of atmosphere are they going to be growing up in? Are they going to have a parent available to them or is that parent going to be out working two or three jobs? Is that parent going to be able to treat that child with dignity? So this is an important issue. It's a family issue, a children's issue, a women's issue, and most of all, more than any other issue we will vote on here in the U.S. Senate, it is a defining fairness issue. It is a fairness issue. It is an issue whether America is going to say to those Americans who are prepared to work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, that they will be able to live out of poverty. That is the issue. Are we going to back up the speeches here in the U.S. Senate that say we applaud work? We are talking about those who are working. If you are working, you deserve a fair wage. With the most extraordinary prosperity we have seen in recent times, with the kind of creation of wealth we all read about--the stories about $2 trillion being lost in the stock market in a period of 24 hours, we are talking about nickels and dimes for working men and women. We are not even talking about the kinds of increases Members of Congress have received during the same period of time. We are not talking about that, which is far in excess of what we are talking about for minimum wage workers. How bold will our colleagues be. Will they turn thumbs down on working families, and continue to accept the increases in their own pay received since the last increase in the minimum wage? This is a fairness issue. It is whether we, as a country, are going to follow a proud tradition of Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents, Republican support in the Congress of the United States and Democratic support. This has been, until recent years, a bipartisan effort--a bipartisan effort. The question is whether it will continue to be a bipartisan effort, to try and make sure that working families in this country have a living wage. I hope this body will be willing to accept this amendment. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. The Chair is correct. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Do I understand further that the Senator would be willing to agree that we would have separate amendments on each of these measures that have been included in today's letter from the President to the majority leader on the Patients' Bill of Rights?

Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate, I am sure, what you intended to be a compliment, but I would like to know whether the leader or other Members would be able to at least raise for debate and discussion each of the rather thoughtful observations that have been made by the President of the United States to the majority leader. And I understand that the majority leader, or his spokesman, the Senator from Oklahoma, is not prepared to permit the observations and shortcomings of the Republican proposal to be considered, if I am not wrong, to be made individually. Let me ask further, in the appeals procedures in the Republican proposal, you have put a strict limitation on the circumstances under which patients can appeal health plan decisions. It has to reach $1,000 in order to qualify for appeal. That would effectively rule out any child, for example, that might have had a bicycle accident or a hockey accident or football accident from being able to be guaranteed a right to an appeal under the Republican proposal. Would we have an opportunity to debate this limitation and others in the appeals section of the Republican proposal?

Mr. KENNEDY. I am reserving the right to object. I would like to find out if we are able to have a debate and discussion about the wisdom of putting dollar thresholds on the appeals that are in the Republican proposal. Would we have an opportunity for the Senate to express itself on whether it wants a $1,000 threshold to exclude----

Mr. KENNEDY. I welcome the opportunity for those who support the Republican position to provide the Senate with the names of the medical organizations and the patient organizations that support their proposal. Yet I think this may not be possible, because I believe they do not exist. But let me ask the Senator if I state this correctly. We debated the defense authorization bill for eight days and 124 amendments were offered; in fact, 10 were cosponsored by the majority leader and the assistant majority leader. We spent five days on agricultural appropriations with 55 amendments offered; seven days on the most recent budget resolution with 105 amendments; nineteen days on the highway bill with 100 amendments offered. Does the Senator agree with me that we ought to be able to deal with patient protection legislation in a timely way that might not even come close to the time spent on other pieces of legislation that we have had here earlier in the year? Does the Senator think, given the fact we had spent 19 days on the highway bill, that we ought to be able to spend at least a few days on relevant amendments on something that affects every family in this country, affects their children, affects husbands and wives, affects grandparents in a very, very special and personal way? Does the Senator agree that this would not be a wasted period of time in terms of the remaining several weeks for debate? And would not the Senate minority leader be willing to work out a satisfactory kind of time frame so that we could have this debate?

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator further yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. For those reasons, I object.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, as I understand it, the proposal that was made by the minority leader would have only permitted amendments that were relevant to the underlying measure, which would be the Patients' Bill of Rights, and that would have still granted to the majority leader the opportunity to move ahead, as we must, with the various appropriations bills, and appropriations conference reports. As I understand, if the leader's proposal had been accepted, we would then have had the opportunity to consider this very important piece of legislation in an orderly way that would ensure adequate debate and discussion. The proposal would have ensured, if the Senator would agree, an opportunity to debate relevant amendments on critically important issues. It would have allowed the Senate to debate amendments that would ensure: that health care decisions are being decided by doctors rather than insurance company accountants; that all women have access to appropriate specialists for the gynecological and obstetrician care that they need; that patients with life-threatening conditions have access to clinical trials; an effective end to gag practices that inhibit doctors from making medical recommendations and suggestions based on their patients' needs; that all patients have access to a meaningful and timely internal and external appeal, similar to what we have in Medicare, for example; and that the States themselves, if they so choose, to find further accountability for those who are going to practice medicine. Am I correct that these elements were included in the legislation which the minority leader introduced, and that these are measures-- along with others, that the minority leader thinks the Senate ought to have an opportunity to debate, discuss and vote upon--were based in part on the comments that have been made to the minority leader, I am sure, from people in his own State, and from representatives of the 170 leading patient and medical organizations in this country? These are the groups that are supporting the leader's legislation, and they are supporting this action as well. And I understand that now the Republican leadership has just objected to our request to move forward to debate on health care legislation, on the Patients' Bill of Rights? Is that what we have just seen on the floor of the Senate?

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President----

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object. What is the regular order?

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, I think if I heard correctly, under the Senator from Oklahoma's proposal the Senate is going to return the bill to the calendar following the vote? Did the Senator say that?

Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I sent this amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senators Lautenberg, D'Amato, and Torricelli. Mr. President, ten years ago, in December 1988, 270 people, including 189 Americans were killed in the terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. As a result of the intense and skillful investigation that followed, Britain and the United States indicted 2 Libyan intelligence agents. The leader of Libya, Colonel Muammar Qadafi, refused to extradite the suspects to either the United States or the United Kingdom to stand trial. As a result, the international community, acting through the United Nations Security Council, imposed economic sanctions on Libya. The sanctions include a worldwide ban on Libya's national airline and a ban on flights into and out of Libya by the airlines of other nations. They also include a prohibition on supplying arms, airplane parts, and certain oil equipment to Libya, and a freeze on Libyan Government funds in other countries. Despite these sanctions, Colonel Qadafi has refused to turn over the suspects to either the United States or the United Kingdom. He has said, however, that he will transfer them to a third country to stand trial. A week ago, in a major development in this case, the United States and the United Kingdom proposed that Colonel Qadafi transfer the suspects to the Netherlands to stand trial before a Scottish court, under Scottish law, and with a panel of Scottish judges. Last Thursday, the United Nations Security Council endorsed this proposal and called on Colonel Qadafi to transfer the suspects promptly. The Administration has told Colonel Qadafi that this is a take-it-or- leave-it proposal and that it is non-negotiable. Secretary of State Albright has said that the United States will urge a worldwide oil embargo against Libya in the United Nations Security Council if Colonel Qadafi rejects this offer and refuses to transfer the suspects to the Netherlands to stand trial. The Security Council is scheduled to conduct the next periodic review of Libyan sanctions on October 30. All of us hope that Colonel Qadafi will accept this plan before that date. To send a clear message to Colonel Qadafi, this resolution calls on him to transfer the indicted suspects to the Netherlands promptly, so that they can stand trial before the Scottish court in the Netherlands. The resolution supports the commitment by the United States Government not to negotiate with Colonel Qadafi on the details of the proposal. If Colonel Qadafi fails to transfer the suspects to the Netherlands before the end of October, the resolution calls on the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations to introduce a resolution in the Security Council to impose a worldwide embargo against Libya and actively seeks its enactment. The families of the victims of Pan Am 103 have waited too long for justice. The Administration's plan is a reasonable opportunity to end the long impasse over these suspects, and achieve a significant victory in the ongoing battle against international terrorism. I urge my colleagues to approve this resolution.