Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, further reserving the right to object, would this unanimous consent request permit debate and discussion on the principal concerns outlined in the President's letter to the majority leader? Would this request permit a full discussion and debate on each of these? They all appear to be relevant. And could we have the assurance that the minority leader would have the opportunity to formulate amendments and have a debate and discussion of at least these particular proposals?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege on behalf of the administration to introduce the Immigration and Nationalization Service Restructuring Act of 1998, and I urge the Senate to support it. The purpose of the act is to strengthen the enforcement of the Nation's immigration laws at the borders and in other parts of the country, and also to strengthen the many immigration and citizenship services that the INS provides. The Nation has a long and distinguished history of welcoming immigrants and refugees who come to this country legally. But because the United States is widely viewed around the world as a land of extraordinary economic opportunities, these opportunities are often a magnet for illegal immigration. The Immigration and Naturalization Service has two equally important missions. It provides services and benefits to immigrants and refugees eligible for assistance under our laws, and it enforces the laws that prevent illegal immigration. In recent years, the effectiveness of the INS in carrying out these two complex and often competing missions has been increasingly criticized. Many critics say that the agency is suffering from ``mission overload'' and proposals have been made to dismantle the agency and assign its responsibilities to other parts of the Federal Government. One such proposal was made by the Commission on Immigration Reform, which conducted a comprehensive study of the functions and capabilities of the INS. The Commission's report contains some well-reasoned findings and excellent recommendations. However, the Commission's proposal for structural reform is highly controversies because it seeks to reassign core INS responsibilities to other federal agencies, the services and benefits function would be assigned to the Department of State, and the enforcement function would be assigned to the Department of Justice. Under Commissioner Doris Meissner's impressive leadership, the Immigration and Naturalization Service has made significant progress in identifying its problems, developing strategies to correct them, and implementing successful reforms. A prime example is the significant achievements of the INS in expediting the asylum process. Today, asylum applications are processed in weeks, not months, and legitimate refugees fleeing persecution are granted prompt asylum. Nonetheless, Commissioner Meissner is the first to admit that the agency faces continuing serious challenges that impede the agency's ability to carry out its basic responsibilities. The most significant problems are insufficient accountability between field offices and headquarters, the lack of consistency in its actions, the need for greater professionalism overlapping internal responsibilities, and weaknesses in regional and local management. The administration has concluded, and I agree, that the most effective way to address these problems is by modifying the agency, not dismantling it. After considerable study and analysis, the administration has developed worthwhile reforms to address the problems. The Immigration and Nationalization Service Restructuring Act of 1998 will untangle the overlapping and often confusing organizational structure of the INS and replace it with two clear chains of command-- one for enforcement and the other for the provision of services. These two equally important divisions will report, through their respective directors, to the INS Commissioner. The proposed act will maintain the integrity of the agency, and preserve its vast knowledge, skills and abilities, and use them in a more effective and efficient framework. I urge my colleagues to support this approach and approve this needed and important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege on behalf of the administration to introduce the Immigration and Nationalization Service Restructuring Act of 1998, and I urge the Senate to support it. The purpose of the act is to strengthen the enforcement of the Nation's immigration laws at the borders and in other parts of the country, and also to strengthen the many immigration and citizenship services that the INS provides. The Nation has a long and distinguished history of welcoming immigrants and refugees who come to this country legally. But because the United States is widely viewed around the world as a land of extraordinary economic opportunities, these opportunities are often a magnet for illegal immigration. The Immigration and Naturalization Service has two equally important missions. It provides services and benefits to immigrants and refugees eligible for assistance under our laws, and it enforces the laws that prevent illegal immigration. In recent years, the effectiveness of the INS in carrying out these two complex and often competing missions has been increasingly criticized. Many critics say that the agency is suffering from ``mission overload'' and proposals have been made to dismantle the agency and assign its responsibilities to other parts of the Federal Government. One such proposal was made by the Commission on Immigration Reform, which conducted a comprehensive study of the functions and capabilities of the INS. The Commission's report contains some well-reasoned findings and excellent recommendations. However, the Commission's proposal for structural reform is highly controversies because it seeks to reassign core INS responsibilities to other federal agencies, the services and benefits function would be assigned to the Department of State, and the enforcement function would be assigned to the Department of Justice. Under Commissioner Doris Meissner's impressive leadership, the Immigration and Naturalization Service has made significant progress in identifying its problems, developing strategies to correct them, and implementing successful reforms. A prime example is the significant achievements of the INS in expediting the asylum process. Today, asylum applications are processed in weeks, not months, and legitimate refugees fleeing persecution are granted prompt asylum. Nonetheless, Commissioner Meissner is the first to admit that the agency faces continuing serious challenges that impede the agency's ability to carry out its basic responsibilities. The most significant problems are insufficient accountability between field offices and headquarters, the lack of consistency in its actions, the need for greater professionalism overlapping internal responsibilities, and weaknesses in regional and local management. The administration has concluded, and I agree, that the most effective way to address these problems is by modifying the agency, not dismantling it. After considerable study and analysis, the administration has developed worthwhile reforms to address the problems. The Immigration and Nationalization Service Restructuring Act of 1998 will untangle the overlapping and often confusing organizational structure of the INS and replace it with two clear chains of command-- one for enforcement and the other for the provision of services. These two equally important divisions will report, through their respective directors, to the INS Commissioner. The proposed act will maintain the integrity of the agency, and preserve its vast knowledge, skills and abilities, and use them in a more effective and efficient framework. I urge my colleagues to support this approach and approve this needed and important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Enzi and the other original cosponsors of this bill, Senator Jeffords, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Brownback, in celebrating the final passage of the Postal Employees Safety Enhancement Act. I especially want to commend Senator Enzi for his leadership on this bill. His tireless devotion to the safety and health of the nation's workers has resulted today in passage of significant improvements for employees of the United States Postal Service. I am pleased to have worked with him on the passage of this important legislation, which will extend coverage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act to employees of the United States Postal Service. The bill has broad bipartisan support, and it is supported by the Administration as well. Few issues are more important to working families than health and safety on the job. For the past 28 years, OSHA has performed a critical role--protecting American workers from on-the-job injuries and illnesses. In carrying out this mission, OSHA has made an extraordinary difference in people's lives. Death rates from on-the-job accidents have dropped by over 60% since 1970--much faster than before the law was enacted. More than 140,000 lives have been saved. Occupational illnesses and injuries have dropped by one-third since OSHA's enactment--to a record low rate of 7.4 per 100 workers in 1996. These numbers are still unacceptably high, but they demonstrate that OSHA is a success by any reasonable measure. Even more lives have been saved in the past two places where OSHA has concentrated its efforts. Death rates have fallen by 61% in construction and 67% in manufacturing. Injury rates have dropped by half in construction, and nearly one-third in manufacturing. Clearly, OSHA works best where it works hardest. Unfortunately, these efforts do not apply to federal agencies. The original OSHA statute required only that federal agencies provide ``safe and healthful places and conditions of employment'' to their employees. Specific OSHA safety and health rules did not apply. In 1980, President Carter issued an Executive Order that solved this problem in part. It directed federal agencies to comply with all OSHA safety standards, and it authorized OSHA to inspect workplaces and issue citations for violations. President Carter's action was an important step, but more needs to be done. When OSHA inspects a federal workplace and finds a safety violation, OSHA can direct the agency to eliminate the hazard. But OSHA has no authority to seek enforcement of its order in court, and it cannot assess a financial penalty on the agency to obtain compliance. The situation is especially serious in the Postal Service. Postal employees suffer one of the highest injury rates in the federal government. In 1996 alone, 78,761 postal employees were injured on the job--more than nine injuries and illnesses for every hundred workers. The total injury and illness rate among Postal Service workers represents almost half of the rate for the entire federal government, even though less than one-third of all federal workers are employed by the Postal Service. Fourteen postal employees were killed on the job in 1996--one-sixth of the federal total. Workers' compensation charges at the Postal Service are also high--$538 million in 1997. This legislation will bring down these unacceptably high rates. It permits OSHA to issue citations for safety hazards, and back them up with penalties. This credible enforcement threat will encourage the Postal Service to comply with the law. It will save taxpayer dollars currently spent on workers' compensation costs. Most important, it will reduce the extraordinarily high rate of injuries among postal employees. Ever worker deserves a safe and healthy place to work, and this bill will help achieve that goal for the 860,000 employees of the Postal Service. They deserve it, and I am pleased to join my colleagues in providing it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as we begin the August recess, the American people should understand that the Republican leadership is still bent on blocking meaningful HMO reform. I believe that Senator Lott owes it to Congress and the American people to schedule a full and fair debate as the Senate's first order of business when we return in September, but he has refused to do so and continues to hide behind the unreasonable restrictions on fair guidelines for the Senate's debate. The Republican leadership in Congress deserves the failing grades it is getting for fumbling the issue on HMO reform. At least since last January when the press reports began noting that Oscar-winning actress Helen Hunt in ``As Good as it Gets,'' who electrified audiences with her attack on HMOs, it has been clear that a tidal wave of support is building to end the managed care abuses and stop HMOs from profiting in ways that jeopardize patients' health or their very lives. The GOP's HMO line of defense continues to be to block any strong legislation, refuse to allow fair debate, and to give the HMO industry antireform TV ads a chance to bite. The genie is out of the bottle, and that cynical strategy will fail. If the majority leader has not already done so, I urge him to see the film during the recess. I have a videotape of the film here. I ask a page to deliver it to the majority leader. I urge the leader to see the film in a theater so he can judge the audience reaction and be more convinced of the genuine public outrage that exists over the abuses of HMOs and managed care. It is long past time for the Congress to end these abuses. Too often, the managed care is mismanaged care. No amount of distortion or smokescreens by insurance companies or GOP campaign ads can change the facts. A real Patients' Bill of Rights can stop these abuses. Let's pass it now before more patients have to suffer. All we want is a chance, in the time-honored tradition and the regular order of this body, to present a full and complete debate on this issue. We have had 5 days of debate and discussion on agriculture, with 55 amendments. We have had 6 days of debate on the defense authorization, with 105 amendments. We have had 7 days of debate on the budget, with over 100 amendments. We are entitled to an opportunity for a full and fair debate. If there are provisions to be included in the Daschle bill, we would like to hear about them and what the objectives are. We believe that this debate offers the best opportunity to make sure that we are going to have the doctors and patients make decisions and not the insurance companies. That is the central and fundamental issue that we ought to be debating. We are going to continue to press this issue until we have that debate. The Senate Republican leadership plan is not a bill of rights--it's a bill of wrongs. It cannot withstand a full and fair debate on the floor of the Senate. Its supporters know that--so they are refusing to bring it up for full debate, or at least agree on a fair number of amendments. The goal of the Republican leadership and their friends in the insurance industry is to prevent legislation this year, or to pass only a minimalist bill so weak that it would be worse than no bill at all. The initial Republican strategy--the stonewall strategy--lasted for more than a year. But it broke down last month in the face of overwhelming public demand for action. Their minimalist approach pays lip service to reform without the reality of reform. They refuse to let the Senate debate it, because they know their plan is more loophole than law. The Republican record of delay and denial is clear. Congressman Dingell and I first introduced patient protection legislation 17 months ago--on February 25, 1997. Senator Daschle introduced the Patients' Bill of Rights four months ago--on March 31, 1998. We have repeatedly asked for committee action or consideration by the full Senate of this important legislation, but the Republican leadership has repeatedly said ``no.'' Now, they know they can no longer just say ``no.'' So the Leadership is trying the next best thing. Instead of bringing up the bill for full and fair debate, they have offered up a series of phony consent agreements that they know are unacceptable. They don't want a full debate with an opportunity to amend their Patient Bill of Wrongs, because they believe that the less the American people know about their sham proposals, the better they will be able to protect their friends in the health insurance industry. In fact, the Republican leadership has gone to extraordinary lengths in the past six weeks to prevent a full debate on HMO reform. On June 18, Senator Lott proposed to bring up the bill, but on terms that made a mockery of legislative process. That proposal would have allowed the Senate to start debate on HMO reform, but Senator Lott would have been permitted to pull the bill down at any time, and the Senate would have been barred from considering it further for the rest of the year. So if Senator Lott did not like the direction the bill was headed, he could withdraw 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 him to allow a full debate and votes on the merits of the Patients' Bill of Rights before the August recess. In response, on June 24, Senator Lott simply repeated his earlier unacceptable offer. On June 25, Senator Daschle proposed an agreement under which Senator Lott would bring up a Republican health care bill by July 6, Senator Daschle could offer the Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights, and other Senators could offer only amendments relevant to the HMO reform issue. We would not allow amendments on any other subject--just those relevant to the Patients' Bill of Rights. However, Senator Lott rejected this offer. And on June 26, he offered once again an agreement that allowed Senator Lott 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, after a long silence, Senator Lott made yet another offer. This time he proposed an agreement that allowed for no amendments. He could bring up his bill. We could bring up ours. And that is it. It would be all or nothing. The American people would be denied votes on specific issues. No vote on whether all Americans should be covered, or just one-third as the Republicans propose. No vote on whether there should be genuine access to emergency room care. No vote on whether patients should have access to the specialists they need when they are seriously ill. No vote on whether doctors should be free to give the medical advice they feel is appropriate, without fear of being fired by the HMO. No vote on whether patients with cancer or Alzheimer's disease or other illnesses should have access to clinical trials after conventional treatments fail. No vote on whether patients in the middle of a course of treatment can keep their doctor if their health plan drops the doctor from the network, or the employer changes health plans. No vote on whether patients should have meaningful independent review of plan decisions--or whether health plans should continue to be judge and jury. No vote on whether the special health needs of persons with disabilities, and women, and children should be met. No vote on whether health plans should be held responsible for decisions that kill or injure patients. The list goes on and on. But the Republican Leadership just wants an all-or-nothing vote on their plan and our plan. They don't want a genuine debate on patient protection. They don't want to be held accountable by the American people for defending industry profits instead of patients. They want to gag the Senate, and allow HMOs to continue to gag doctors. On July 16, Senator Daschle proposed that we agree on a limited number of amendments--20 per side, directly related to the legislation, not on extraneous issues. This offer by Senator Daschle reflects the best traditions of the Senate. It is consistent with the conditions under which we have debated many major legislative proposals in the Senate this year. 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. Senator Lott has said to reporters that Democrats might be able to offer 3 or 4 amendments. But that means we would have to decide which issues of concern to the American people are debated, and which are discarded. Do we debate access to emergency rooms, but put aside all concerns about access to specialists? Do we offer an amendment to ensure that all Americans are covered by the legislation, and not just the one-third the Republican plan proposes, but put aside access to clinical trials that could save lives? This debate should not be an unfair choice. We agree that the number of amendments should be limited. But the number should be large enough to accommodate the large number of legitimate issues that need to be debated as part of this important reform. If the Republican leaders are serious about fair debate, they know how to do it. We do it every day in the Senate, and we should do it now. If they are serious about passing meaningful patient protection legislation, they should call up the bill now. All we have asked for is 20 amendments per side. It will take at least 20 amendments to even begin to remedy the major defects in the Republican proposal. Since the Republican leadership plan was introduced a week ago, we have held meetings and forums with doctors, nurses and patients to explore the critical issues that must be addressed if a Patients' Bill of Rights is to be worthy of its name. In each case, doctors, nurses and patients have reached the same conclusions. The abuses by HMOs and managed care are pervasive in our health system. Every doctor and patient knows that, too often, managed care is mismanaged care. Every doctor and patient knows that medical decisions that should be made by doctors and patients are being made by insurance company accountants. Every doctor and patient knows that profits, not patient care, have become the priority of too many health insurance companies. The message in each of these forums from doctors, nurses and patients has been the same. Pass the Patients' Bill of Rights. Reject the Republican leadership plan. It leaves out too many critical protections. It leaves out too many patients. Even the protections it claims to offer have too many loopholes. It is a plan to protect industry profits, not patients. One of the aspects of their legislation that the Republican leadership likes to tout is its alleged protections for women. As part of their ongoing disinformation campaign about their legislation, they even had a press conference this morning to proclaim the benefits of their legislation for women. But no credible organization representing women endorses their bill--because their so-called protections for women are a sham. Nowhere is the difference between the bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights and the Republican Bill of Wrongs more evident than on the issue of protecting women's health. The Republican leadership bill leaves out most key patient protections. Even the protections it does include are more cosmetic than real. And even those cosmetic protections are limited to fewer than one-third of the privately insured patients who need help. We held a forum yesterday afternoon during which leading organizations for women released a letter urging Senators to support the Patients' Bill of Rights and to reject the Republican leadership bill. The letter is signed by more than 30 women's groups, who represent millions of women in communities across the country. Last Friday, we heard from Diane Bergin of College Park, MD. She has ovarian cancer, and is currently enrolled in a clinical trial. She eloquently described the need for plans to cover such trials and the importance of having access to specialty care. Diane is a vivid example of the promise of such therapies and the need to see that patients have genuine access to specialists. Women need to know that they will receive the benefits covered by their plan and recommended by their treating physician--without being over-ruled by insurance company accountants. Women need to know that they can choose their gynecologist to be their primary care physician. Women need to know that they will never have to drive past the nearest emergency room, because a more distant hospital is part of their managed care plan. Women with mental illness need to know that they will have access to psychiatrists, psychologists and other mental health professionals. Women with ovarian cancer--like Diane Bergin--or other life- threatening conditions need to know that their health plan will let them participate in clinical trials by covering routine costs of such care. Women whose plans provide pharmaceutical benefits need to know that they will have access to drugs that are not on the plan's list. Women need to know that they will have access to a quick and independent appeal if their plan overrules their doctor. Women need to know that they have a genuine remedy when plan abuses result in injury or death. The Patients' Bill of Rights guarantees these rights to all women with private health insurance. The Republican plan guarantees none of them. In fact, the closer you look at the Republican bill, the worse it looks. They claim to provide protections for patients who seek emergency room care. But the American College of Emergency Physicians has denounced their proposal as a sham. They claim to provide independent third party appeal, but Consumer's Union analyzed their proposal and called it ``woefully inadequate and far from independent.'' Virtually every protection they claim to have included turns out to fail the truth-in-advertising test--and the protections they have left out are a dishonor roll of insurance industry abuses. Part of democracy is accountability. We have votes in the Senate to pass or defeat bills. We have votes on amendments to improve bills. We record these votes, because we are elected by the people of our states to represent them. The people have a right to know where we stand on important issues. I ask the Republican leader why he doesn't want the American people to know where members of the Senate stand on whether protections for patients should apply to all 161 million privately insured Americans-- or leave more than 100 million out. I ask the Republican leader why he doesn't want the American people to know where members of the Senate stand on allowing a sick child with cancer to have access to a specialist to treat his disease. I ask the Republican leader why he doesn't want a vote on whether doctors and patients, not accountants, should make medical decisions. I ask the Republican leader why he doesn't want a vote on whether doctors who stand up for their patients should be protected from retaliation by insurance companies. I ask the Republican leader why he doesn't want a vote on whether patients should have access to the nearest emergency room when immediate medical treatment means the difference between life and death. I ask the Republican leader why he doesn't want a vote on whether HMO decisions to deny patients the care they need should be subject to timely and independent review by an impartial third party. I ask the Republican leader why he doesn't want a vote on whether patients with deadly diseases that no conventional treatment can help should have access to clinical trials that offer them the hope of cure or improvement. I ask the Republican leader why he doesn't want a vote to insist on accountability for health plans when they kill or injure patients. Each of those votes will address a critical weakness in the Republican plan. It is obvious why the Republican leader does not want Democrats to offer these amendments. He wants to keep the Republican bill weak, so that it will protect profits instead of patients. He thinks that he can hold Republican Senators for one vote in favor of a bad bill, but he cannot keep them together on vote after vote that will show who stands with patients--and who stands with HMOs. The President will not sign--and the Senate should not pass--a bill that is a fig leaf over continued HMO abuses. If the Senate has a full and fair debate in full view of the American people, needed patient protections will pass--and that is what the Republican leadership is trying to avoid. The House Republican plan is so flawed that President Clinton has already sent a strong veto message. But the Senate Republican plan is even weaker than the House Republican plan--it's ``Gingrich Lite.'' We know we can do better, and we will do better if we have a fair opportunity for full debate. The Senate Republican plan protects industry profits instead of protecting patients. It is so riddled with loopholes that it's a license for continued abuse. It allows insurance company accountants to continue to make medical decisions, not doctors and patients. Patients with cancer, heart disease, or other serious illnesses will not have timely access to specialists and the treatment they need. Managed care plans are immunized from liability for abuses that injure or even kill a patient. No other industry in America has this immunity--and the managed care industry doesn't deserve it either. Just as managed care plans gag their doctors, the Republican leadership wants to gag the Senate. Just as insurance companies delay and deny care, the Republican leadership is trying to delay and deny meaningful reform. Just as health plans want to avoid being held accountable when they kill or injure a patient, the Republican leadership wants to avoid being held accountable for killing patient protection legislation. Yesterday, Senator Chafee offered a proposal that is a major improvement over the Senate Republican leadership plan, and it provides significant patient protections. But it lacks many of the most important protections in our Patients' Bill of Rights. Key provisions omitted in the Chafee plan include the lack of needed protection for breast cancer patients from drive-through mastectomies and access to reconstructive surgery--the lack of fair opportunities for patients to join health plans allowing them to go to the physician or specialist of their choice--the lack of protection for health professionals who point out problems in the quality of care provided by health plans or facilities--and the lack of adequate remedies for patients injuries or killed by HMO abuses. All of these reforms are needed, and all of them are strongly supported by an unprecedented alliance of physicians, nurses, patients, and working families. Despite these significant gaps, the Chafee plan shows that the wall of opposition by Senate Republicans to genuine reform is continuing to crack, and it shows that at least some Republicans in the Senate are serious about reform. Now is the time for the Republican leadership to respond. As the Chafee plan shows, their industry profit protection plan is becoming less and less tenable with each passing day. The American people demand action, but the Republican leadership still refuses to bring patient protection legislation to the floor for full debate and action. The Republican Leadership in Congress deserves the failing grades it's getting for fumbling the issue of HMO reform. At least since last January--when press reports began noting that Oscar-winning actress Helen Hunt in the movie ``As Good As It Gets'' was electrifying audiences with her attack on her HMO--it has been clear that a tidal wave of support is building to end managed care abuses and stop HMOs from profiteering in ways that jeopardizing patients' health or their very lives. The GOP-HMO line of defense continues to be to block any legislation, refuse to allow fair debate, and give the HMO industry's anti-reform TV ads a chance to bite. But the genie is out of the bottle, and that cynical strategy will fail. It's time for Congress to end the abuses of patients and physicians by HMOs and managed care health plans. Too often, managed care is mis- managed care. No amount of distortions or smokescreens by insurance companies can change the facts. A real Patients' Bill of Rights can stop these abuses. Let's pass it now, before more patients have to suffer. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two articles on the film ``As Good As It Gets'' be printed in the Record. The first is a March 29 Boston Globe column by Ellen Goodman. The second is a January 12 article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which to my knowledge is the first report of the extraordinary impact of the film on the HMO debate, and which mentions State Representative Thomas Holbrook of Belleville, Missouri as the first elected official to recognize this impact.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Department of Defense and many other government agencies are increasing their use and reliance on information technology for a wide variety of applications. The growing frequency and increasing sophistication of attacks on the Defense Department's computer networks is cause for concern. Other government agencies, as well as the private sector, are also subject to these attacks on their network infrastructure. Last year, the Administration organized an exercise to test the Pentagon's ability to deal with cyber attacks. In this exercise, several computer specialists from the National Security Agency targeted computers used by our military forces in the United States and our forces in the Pacific. Using computers, modems, and software technology widely available on the Internet, these friendly ``hackers'' were able to penetrate unclassified military computer networks in Hawaii, Washington, D.C., Chicago, St. Louis and Colorado. We need to do more to protect the Defense Department networks that are critical for the operation of our military forces around the world. My amendment, which is fully offset, adds $8 million to the Air Force Information Systems Security Program. The additional funds will be used for research by the Air Force and will rely on the expertise of two federally funded research and development centers currently working on issues of information security. These efforts will facilitate the development of information security technology for the Armed Forces, and I urge the Senate to approve it. amendment no. 3431 (Purpose: To provide additional funding for repair of the Korean War Veterans Memorial) On page 99, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, final passage of the Workforce Investment Act is a landmark achievement in which we can all take pride. For years, Congress has struggled to design an employment training system that would provide America's workers with the skills they need to succeed in the 21st century workplace. I believe this legislation will accomplish that enormous task. Few bills which we consider will have a greater impact on more Americans than the Workforce Investment Act we pass today. An educated workforce has become the most valuable resource in the modern economy. Our nation's long term economic vitality depends on the creation of an effective, accessible, and accountable system of job training and career development which is open to all our citizens. Schools must assume more responsibility for preparing their students to meet the challenges of the 21st century workplace. Disadvantaged adults and out of school youth need the opportunity to develop job skills which will make them productive members of the community. Dislocated workers who have been displaced by the rapid pace of technological change deserve the chance to pursue new careers. Individuals with disabilities need the opportunity to fully develop their career potential. The way in which we respond to these challenges today will determine how prosperous a nation we are in the next century. The importance of highly developed employment skills has never been greater. The gap in earnings between skilled and unskilled workers is steadily widening. For those who enter the workforce with good academic training and well-developed career skills, this new economy offers almost unlimited potential. However, for those who lack basic proficiency in language, math and science and who have no career skills, the new economy presents an increasingly hostile environment. Over three million young men and women between the ages of 16 and 24 in this country did not complete high school and are not enrolled in school. Many more graduate from high school without the level of knowledge and skill that a high school diploma should represent. They will require more education and job training in order to obtain stable, well-paying employment. Without it, they are in danger of becoming a lost workforce generation. Effective job training is also essential to the success of welfare reform. More than 40 percent of those in the JTPA program for disadvantaged adults have come from the welfare rolls. Under the welfare reform legislation, an additional 1.7 million people will be entering the job market. Most of these individuals have little or no work background and very limited employment skills. In many cases, they are also the sole support of young children. They are making urgent new demands on a job training system that is already burdened beyond its capacity. In addition, the combination of rapidly changing technology and the shift of manufacturing jobs overseas is creating an alarming number of dislocated workers. These individuals have extensive work experience, but their skills are no longer in demand. We must give them the opportunity for retraining, and for the development of new skills to enable them to compete in the 21st century workplace. The accelerating pace of technological change has made much of the existing job training system obsolete. Broad reforms are clearly needed to meet the demands of the modern workplace. The Workforce Investment Act will provide employment training opportunities for millions of Americans. It responds to the challenge of the changing workplace by enabling men and women to acquire the skills required to enter the workforce and to upgrade their skills throughout their careers. It will provide them with access to the educational tools that will enable them not only to keep up, but to get ahead. The legislation is the product of a true bipartisan collaboration. I want to publicly commend Senators Jeffords and DeWine for the genuine spirit of bipartisanship which has made this effort possible. Senator Wellstone and I appreciate it. This spirit of collaboration was also shared by the House conferees. The resulting legislation will, I believe, truly expand career options, encourage greater program innovation, and facilitate cooperative efforts amongst business, labor, education and state and local government. I also want to recognize the important role President Clinton has played in bringing about this dramatic reform of our current job training system. He has consistently emphasized the need for greater individual choice in the selection of career paths and training providers. The philosophy behind his skill grant proposal is reflected in our legislation. The Workforce Investment Act is designed to provide easy access to state of the art employment training programs which are geared to real job opportunities in the community through a single, customer-friendly system of One Stop Career Centers. Over 700 such Centers are already operating successfully across the country. This legislation will ensure that every individual in need of employment services will have access to such a facility. The cornerstones of this new system are individual choice and quality labor market information. In the past, men and women seeking new careers often did not know what job skills were most in demand and which training programs had the best performance record. All too often, they were forced to make one of the most important decisions of their lives based on anecdotes and late-night advertisements. No training system can function effectively without accurate and timely information. The frequent unavailability of quality labor market information is one of the most serious flaws in the current system. This legislation places a strong emphasis on providing accurate and timely information about what area industries are growing, what skills those jobs require, and what earning potential they have. Extensive business community and organized labor participation are encouraged in developing a regional plan based on this information. Once a career choice is made, the individual must still select a training provider. At present, many applicants make that choice with a little or no reliable information. Under this bill, each training provider will have to publicly report graduation rates, job placement and retention rates, and average earnings of graduates. Because of the extensive information which will be available to each applicant, real consumer choice in the selection of a career and of a training provider will be possible. The legislation establishes individual training accounts for financially eligible participants, which they can use to access career education and skill training programs. Men and women seeking training assistance will no longer be limited to a few predetermined options. As long as there are real job opportunities in the field selected and the training provider meets established performance standards, the individual will be free to choose which option best suits his or her needs. An essential element of the new system we have designed is accountability. As I noted earlier, each training provider will have to monitor and report the job placement and retention achieved by its graduates and their average earnings. Only those training programs that meet an acceptable performance standard will remain eligible for receipt of public funds. The same principle of accountability is applied to those agencies administering state and local programs. They are being given wide latitude to innovate under this legislation. But they too will be held accountable if their programs fail to meet challenging performance targets. The rapid pace of technological change in the workplace has produced an alarming number of workers who have become dislocated in mid-career. The dislocation has been compounded by the increasing number of labor intensive production employers relocating their businesses abroad. This trend has been particularly acute in the manufacturing sector. We have a special obligation to these dislocated workers who have long and dedicated work histories and now are unemployed through no fault of their own. The Workforce Investment Act makes a commitment to them by maintaining a special dislocated worker program, supported by a separate funding stream, which is geared to their retraining needs. The current dislocated worker program served approximately 540,000 dislocated workers nationwide in the most recent year. Of those who completed the program during that year, 71 percent were employed when they left the program, earning on average 93 percent of their previous wages. America's dislocated workers have earned the right to assistance in developing new skills which will allow them to be full participants in the 21st century economy. There is no challenge facing America today which is tougher or more important than providing at-risk, often out-of-school, youth with meaningful education and employment opportunities. Far too many of our teenagers are being left behind without the skills needed to survive in the 21st century economy. I am particularly pleased with the commitment which the Workforce Investment Partnership Act makes to these young men and women. This legislation authorizes a new initiative focused on teenagers living in poverty in communities offering them few constructive employment opportunities. Each year, the Secretary of Labor will award grants from a $250 million fund to innovative programs designed to provide opportunities to youth living in these areas. The programs will emphasize mentoring, strong links between academic and worksite learning, and job placement and retention. It will encourage broad based community participation from local service agencies and area employers. These model programs will, we believe, identify the techniques which are most effective in reaching those youth at greatest risk. Another important program for young people who face the highest barriers to employment is Job Corps. Most of the participants grow up in extreme poverty. Their educational opportunities are limited. Job Corps, at its best, moves them from deprivation to opportunity. But, for many of them, it is an extremely difficult transition. As a result, critics of the program are always able to point to failures. But for each story of failure, there are many stories of success. Job Corps is a program worth preserving and worth expanding too. Our legislation decisively rejects the view that Job Corps should be dismantled. Instead, it strengthens the program in several ways. It establishes closer ties between individual Job Corps Centers and the communities they serve. It ensures that training programs correspond with the area's labor market needs. It extends follow-up counseling for participants up to 12 months and established detailed performance standards to hold programs accountable. The legislation also provides for the continuation of summer jobs as an essential element of the youth grant. For many youth, summer jobs are their first opportunity to work and their first critical step in learning the work ethic. The summer jobs program also provides many youth with quality learning experiences and follow up during the school year. Studies by the Department of Labor's Office of the Inspector General and research by Westat, Inc. have reported positive findings regarding the program, concluding that work sites are well-supervised and disciplined, that jobs provide useful work, that the education component teaches students new skills that they apply in school, and that students learn the value of work. I believe that the summer jobs program needs to continue to be available on a significant scale with sufficient funding. This bill recognizes the critical importance of the summer youth program by requiring that it be a part of each local area's youth program and allowing local communities to determine the number of summer jobs to be created. The Workforce Investment Act includes titles reauthorizing major vocation rehabilitation and adult literacy programs. Both programs will continue to be separately funded and independently administered. We have incorporated them in the Workforce Act because they must be integral components of any comprehensive strategy to prepare people to meet the demands of the 21st century workplace. Vocational rehabilitation offers new hope to individuals with disabilities, allowing them to reach their full potential and actively participate in their communities. The Rehabilitation Title of the Act will ensure that all working-aged individuals with disabilities, even those with the most significant disabilities, have realistic opportunities to obtain the resources and support they need to reach their employment goals. Adult literacy programs are essential for the 27% of the adult population who have not earned a high school diploma or its equivalent. Learning to read and communicate effectively are the first steps to career advancement. This legislation will increase access to educational opportunities for those people most in need of assistance and enhance the quality of services provided. The Workforce Investment Partnership Act will make it possible for millions of Americans to gain the skills needed to compete in a global economy. In doing so, we are also enabling them to realize their personal American dreams. I would like to recognize the substantial contributions made by several individuals to this enormous legislative effort. On my staff, Jeffrey Teitz has worked on the development of the workforce and education titles of this bill for nearly eighteen months and done an outstanding job. Connie Garner has devoted a comparable effort to the vocational rehabilitation title. Jane Oates' assistance throughout the conference process has also been invaluable. I am proud of their work. I also want to call the Senate's attention to the role of my longtime friend, William Spring of Boston. Bill is a leader on training and education issues in Massachusetts and his creative recommendations are incorporated throughout this legislation. There is one further person who deserves special mention. Steven Spinner worked for me during the 104th Congress until his tragic and untimely death. His invaluable efforts helped to lay the groundwork for our success in reforming the workforce system.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator from Michigan. As the Senator knows, the Judiciary Committee, of which we are both members, is starting hearings at this time as well. I appreciate his kindness in permitting me to address the Senate at this time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield? Last evening I had asked the majority leader just for 5 minutes at some time during the period when he was propounding the consent request. I am glad to cooperate with the floor managers on when would be the most appropriate time to do so, but since we are starting off on an amendment, I don't want to interrupt the debate on the amendment, and I am glad to inquire of my friend from Michigan what period of time he intends to take.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you.

Mr. KENNEDY. Five.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I don't intend to, may I just have scheduled, between 12:30 and 1:30, 5 minutes?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, it is a privilege to join Senator Graham, Senator Mack, Senator Abraham and our other distinguished colleagues in supporting legislation to provide permanent residence to Haitian refugees. Last year Congress enacted the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act, which enabled Nicaraguan and Cuban refugees to remain permanently in the United States as immigrants. That legislation also enables Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Eastern Europeans and nationals from the former Soviet Union to seek similar relief on a case-by-case basis. Haitian refugees deserve no less. Haitians have seen their relatives, friends and neighbors jailed, or murdered, or abducted in the middle of the night and never seen again. Like other refugees, they have fled from decades of violence and brutal repression by the Ton Ton Macoutes, and later the military regime which overthrew the first democratically elected president of Haiti. The Bush and Clinton Administrations found that the vast majority of these refugees were fleeing from political persecution in Haiti. Thousands of these Haitians were paroled into the United States after establishing a credible fear of persecution. Many others filed bona fide applications for asylum upon arrival in the United States. This legislation also includes a significant number of unaccompanied children and orphans who did not have the capacity to apply for asylum for themselves. Senator Abraham and I proposed an amendment which was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee to include these deserving children in this legislation. This legislation concerns basic fairness. The United States has a long and noble tradition of providing safe haven to refugees. Over the years, we have enacted legislation to provide Hungarians, Cubans, Yugoslavs, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Poles, Chinese, and many other refugees with permanent protection from being returned to unstable or repressive regimes. Last year, we adopted legislation to protect Nicaraguans, Cubans and others, but, the Haitians were unfairly excluded from that bill. The time has come for Congress to remedy this flagrant omission and add Haitians to the list of deserving refugees. By approving this legislation, we can finally bring to an end the shameful decades of unjust treatment to Haitians. Throughout the 1980s, less than 2 percent of Haitians fleeing the atrocities committed by the Duvalier regimes were granted asylum. Yet, other refugee groups had approval rates as high as 75 percent. Haitian asylum seekers were detained by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, while asylum seekers from other countries were routinely released while their asylum applications were processed. Until recently, Haitians have been the only group intercepted on the high seas and forcibly returned to their home country, without even the opportunity to seek asylum. Like other political refugees, Haitians have come to our country with a strong love of freedom and a strong commitment to democracy. They have settled in many parts of the United States. They have established deep roots in their communities, and their children born here are U.S. citizens. Wherever they have settled, they have made lasting contributions to the economic vitality and diversity of our communities and the nation. This legislation has strong bipartisan support. It is also supported by a range of nation-wide organizations, including the U.S. Catholic Conference, the Church World Service, the American Baptist Churches, the Mennonite Central Committee, the Council of Jewish Federations, the Lutheran Immigration Refugee Service, the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society, the Presbyterian Church (USA) and many, many more. We should do all we can to end this current flagrant discrimination under the immigration laws. Haitians refugees deserve too--the same protection we gave to Nicaraguans and Cubans last year. We need to pay more than lip service to the fundamental principle of equal protection of the laws. Finally, the amendment has been modified to resolve a budget problem, deeming approximately 1000 Haitians ineligible for Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid. A similar budget concern was not raised last year when the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act was considered. I am hopeful that this new injustice can be remedied as the Haitian legislation moves forward. I urge the Senate to accept this amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I urge the Senate to approve the amendment by Senator Snowe and Senator Reid to provide fairness in prescription coverage for family planning. The provisions of this amendment will benefit millions of American women by helping to make the cost of preventing unintended pregnancy more affordable. They will also help to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies by providing women with greater access to a broad range of safe and effective family planning services. Too often, insurance companies refuse to cover these costs. Only a third of all private health plans currently cover oral contraceptives-- the most widely used prescription method of family planning. According to a study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, nearly half of all large- group plans do not cover such prescriptions--despite the fact that 97 percent of traditional fee-for-service plans routinely cover prescriptions for other medicines and medical devices. In a recent column in the Washington Post, David Broder called this lack of coverage ``one of the great stupidities in the health care system.'' The result in that women are too often forced to rely on family planning without the full range of available methods. Women pay 68 percent more than men in out-of-pocket health care costs--in large part because of the high cost of preventing unintended pregnancies. As Ellen Goodman noted in a column in The Boston Globe, ``Some women are making hard economic choices between paying their bills and buying pills.'' Too often, women are forced to settle for the family planning method that is most affordable, rather than the one that is most effective. Inevitably, many of them are forced to settle for no method at all. The result is large numbers of unintended pregnancies each year, and large numbers of abortions. Clearly, greater access to reliable methods of birth control will substantially reduce the number of abortions. In the United States, it is estimated that half of all pregnancies each year are unintended. Three million women use no method of birth control, and they account for half of all unintended pregnancies. Greater access to insurance coverage will significantly reduce this number. As an editorial in the American Journal of Public Health points out: ``Contraception is the keystone in the prevention of unintended pregnancy.'' The vast majority of women who use some form of birth control do not have insurance coverage to defray the cost. Often, they are forced to choose inexpensive methods with high failure rates. The proposal by Senator Snowe and Senator Reid is an important step in the right direction. It requires private insurance companies to cover FDA- approved, prescription birth control drugs and devices in a manner comparable to all other prescription drugs and devices. Just as more effective birth control means fewer unintended pregnancies and fewer abortions, it also means more savings in health costs. An April, 1995 study in the American Journal of Public Health estimated that women who use prescription contraceptives will avoid far more in other health costs than the cost of the prescriptions. According to the Guttmacher Institute, the increased cost to employers who provide this coverage to their employees would be $17.00 a person per year. That's an increase of just one-half-of-one percent over current costs per employee. This bill is sound public policy. It is supported by all major family planning organizations and by the vast majority of the American people. In surveys, 75 percent of Americans express support for increasing access to family planning services. And, 73 percent of survey respondents continue to be supportive, even if contraceptive coverage modestly increases their insurance premiums. Support for increasing this coverage clearly crosses party lines. It is sound public policy that has been too long in coming. I urge the Senate to approve it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the nation was stunned as we learned of the tragic deaths of John Gibson and J.J. Chestnut, two veteran officers of the Capitol Police who lost their lives in the line of duty in the tragic and senseless shootings last Friday. The extraordinary dedication and heroism of these two courageous officers clearly prevented greater loss of life in the Capitol, and I join all Americans in mourning their deaths. These brave men represented the very finest traditions of American law enforcement. They protected a building--the nation's Capitol--and in doing so they were also defending our democracy. Unless citizens can come freely into the Capitol building and meet with their elected Senators and Representatives, our democracy and our freedoms are greatly diminished. Special Agent Gibson and Officer Chestnut understood this, and with professionalism and dedication, they served Congress well and served the country well too. It is fitting that these two brave men will lie in state tomorrow in the Capitol building where they gave their lives. They made the ultimate sacrifice to protect us, and we will forever owe them and their families a debt of deep gratitude. Our thoughts and prayers go out especially to the Gibson and Chestnut families. My family too has suffered the sudden loss of loved ones, and I know that there is no greater tragedy, no greater sadness for a family. Special Agent Gibson is a son of Massachusetts, and we were all especially proud of him. He loved his family, his country, his church, and his Capitol. Our hearts go out to his wife Lynn and his three children during this very difficult time of loss. Officer Chestnut, too, was well known by anyone who entered the Document Room door. He was always friendly to everyone, and was a consummate professional in the conduct of his duties. I join Wendy and the rest of Officer Chestnut's family in mourning his loss. We cannot help but be angry at the senseless act that led to the death of these two extraordinary officers. One minute, the Capitol building is full of the people's business--with debates and meetings and visitors from across the country in this great and open symbol of our free government. The next minute, the nation was shocked to learn the news that a man who had no business possessing a handgun had taken the lives of these officers in two brutal acts that shocked the conscience of Congress and the country. In the days ahead, we will consider what steps may be taken to ensure a secure--and yet open--Capitol. I hope Congress will also consider further actions to keep guns out of the hands of those who so easily misuse them. As we saw on Friday, our failure to do so leads to tragedy far too often. The Gibson and Chestnut families know that all of us in Congress embrace them at this sad time. The nation loves them. We are grateful for their extraordinary service, and saddened by their tragic sacrifice. Mr. President, on Saturday, at Andrews Air Force Base, President Clinton spoke eloquently and movingly about the loss of these two brave officers. I ask unanimous consent that his remarks be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Human Services Reauthorization Act before us today is landmark legislation and is backed by a broad bi- partisan coalition. It represents legislation at its best, with Members on both sides of the aisle working closely together and with the Administration to achieve better results for America's children. I commend Senator Jeffords, Senator Coats, and Senator Dodd for their leadership in making this bill a reality. Together we have produced legislation that preserves and enhances these needed family programs while addressing the concerns that have been raised. Our bipartisan goal is to take these worthwhile programs and make them even better. The pending bill is an important step toward a more effective family policy. This legislation consolidates, reorganizes, and reauthorizes services for poor families and their children by investing in programs to strengthen families, promote child development, and build communities. In keeping with efforts to reinvent government, the Act promotes one-stop shopping by consolidating several existing categorical programs into more comprehensive and coordinated programs. It improves performance by developing outcome measures and monitoring progress, and it puts families first by promoting self-sufficiency. We have worked carefully to draft a bill that addresses the concerns of Senators on both sides of the aisle. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill, and I urge my colleagues in the House, both Democrat and Republican, to join together as we have to provide services to America's families. Title I: Head Start Act of 1998 Title I of the bill reauthorizes Head Start while making improvements in this strong and effective program. The 1994 Act significantly improved the quality and scope of Head Start services. The bill before us today recognizes these successes and builds on them. Before we acted in 1994, the Carnegie Foundation had released a report which called for a greater national effort to support low-income children, particularly those under age 3 who are at the greatest risk. The period between birth and age three is critical to be a child's development. Synapses not formed in a child's brain period can never be formed later. We responded to these findings by introducing the Early Head Start program to provide comprehensive services to families who qualify for Head Start and who have children under age 3. We introduced this program by phasing it in gradually over 4 years, and it is now providing crucial services to 40,000 of the nation's neediest infants and toddlers. The present bill continues to gradually expand this vital program, in keeping with advice from experts on child development. Early Head Start will be expanded to twice its size by 2002, so that 80,000 children can receive these services. This expansion will still serve only 1 out of every 25 eligible babies and toddlers, but it will give us more knowledge and experience on how to help most at this crucial period in children's lives. We have also added to Early Head Start a training and technical assistance fund which will enable the program to grow in quality. To maximize its effectiveness, it is important to ensure the highest possible quality. The set-aside in Head Start has helped to maintain and improve the quality of these services, and Early Head Start needs similar safeguards. In 1994, we also made significant improvements to Head Start by implementing stringent quality standards. As a result, dozens of programs not meeting these standards were closed down, and many more were brought back to health and now serve as strong programs. Today, we build on these improvements by adding requirements that ensure that children with disabilities will receive services appropriate to their needs and that Head Start centers will be physically accessible to children and their families. We have also sought more research, so that we can continue to build on this program in the most effective ways possible in future years. This legislation also includes three other priorities. It reauthorizes and amends the Community Services Block Grant and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and it creates demonstration projects to study the benefits of Individual Development Accounts. title ii: community services block grant act of 1998 This bill recognizes the strength of the Community Services Block Grant program and leaves it largely unchanged. I am proud to have been a supporter of the Community Action Agencies funded under the CSBG block grants as long as I have been in the Senate. Robert Kennedy, as a Senator, sponsored the original Community Development Corporation legislation that is now funded under these block grants. Community Action Programs were created to respond to the complex social problems that face low-income individuals, families, and communities. These community-based public-private partnerships are a central part of the low-income service delivery network. In reauthorizing the Community Service Block Grant, we are promoting self sufficiency, family stability, and community revitalization. title iii: liheap This legislation also reauthorizes the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program through the year 2004. For over four million LIHEAP beneficiaries across the nation, including 112,000 in Massachusetts, this program has made a major difference in the lives of thousands of working families and elderly households. Last week in Texas, for example, LIHEAP funds were made available to help families suffering from the triple-digit temperatures. LIHEAP does more than just keep households warm in the winter and cool in the summer. It is also a lynchpin for self-sufficiency. Many working parents are concerned about the health of their families. Researchers at Boston City Hospital have found that higher utility bills during the coldest months force low-income families to spend less money on food--the so-called ``heat or eat'' effect. Unfortunately, the House Appropriations Committee voted to eliminate funding for this important program. Unless this funding is restored-- and I am confident that it will be in the Senate--it will be a very cold Winter for millions of LIHEAP recipients across the nation. By reauthorizing LIHEAP, the Senate will be placing this program on a solid footing for the future. I am especially pleased that this legislation includes provisions that I sponsored with Senators Jeffords and Senator Harkin to clarify the criteria for the President to release emergency LIHEAP funds, so that needed funds can help low-income families adversely affected by hot or cold weather, ice storms, floods, earthquakes, and other natural disasters get through the emergency. In addition, it will enable the release of emergency LIHEAP funds if there is a significant increase in unemployment or home energy disconnections. title iv: individual development accounts Finally, this bill establishes Independent Development Account demonstration projects. This program will determine whether providing matching funds to poor individuals using savings accounts is an effective way to encourage them to save for their futures and develop self sufficiency. States and towns with such programs have seen impressive results. The demonstration projects in today's bill will enable us to see whether these programs can be effective nationwide. This bipartisan bill puts families first. It is an excellent example of what happens when we work together in the interest of American families. This legislation will benefit millions of families living in poverty, and will bring immeasurable benefits to our society as a whole. I urge the Senate to approve it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I, too, want to thank my friend and colleague from West Virginia, because the Senator heard that I wanted to address the Senate on this matter, which I considered of some importance, and was willing to accommodate my schedule as well, for which I am very grateful. It is typical of the great thoughtfulness that all of us have understood to be a part of the Senator from West Virginia but which we are reminded about so frequently. I thank the good Senator for his generosity and for his thoughtfulness.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. For two things: Because they were late getting to a specialist, and because they were excluded from any opportunities for the clinical trials. The HMOs thought they could handle it. The HMOs thought they had someone on their panel who could handle this particular kind of cancer, even though right down the street there was a major international center that specialized in this very program. Under the Republican program, access to clinical trials is not guaranteed--it isn't even an appealable item. Even if it were, will the appeal be established by an independent group? No. It will be established by the HMO. They name the people whom this will be appealed to. Then, if that person is harmed with grievous bodily injury, or death, under our Republican program there is no remedy. Mr. President, this is the kind of issue that we ought to have an opportunity to debate. We just took one provision today with regard especially to clinical trials. We had a few others. But the time has moved on and I will wait for another time. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, since the Republican leadership plan on the Patients' Bill of Rights was introduced a week ago, we have been holding meetings and forums with doctors and nurses and patients to explore the critical issues that must be addressed if a Patients' Bill of Rights is to be worthy of the name. In each case, the message has been the same. The problems created by HMOs and managed care are pervasive in our health system. Every doctor and patient knows that. Too often, managed care is mismanaged care. Every doctor and patient knows that medical decisions that should be made by doctors and patients are being made by insurance company accountants, and every doctor and patient knows that profits, not patients' care, have become the priority of too many health insurance companies. And at each of the forums we have held, the message from doctors and nurses and patients has been the same: Pass the bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights. Reject the Republican leadership plan; it leaves out too many critical protections and it leaves out too many patients. Even the protections it claims to offer are full of loopholes. It is a program to protect industry profits, not patients. One of the most critical issues that needs to be addressed in legislation is the right of people with serious illnesses, like cancer, to get the high-quality specialty care they need. If the conventional treatments fail, they should have the opportunity to participate in clinical trials that offer them hope for improvement or a cure, and that can contribute to finding a better treatment for future patients. Our legislation provides for these rights; the Republican plan does not. Yesterday, we heard from Dr. Casimir, a distinguished Texas oncologist. Dr. Casimir talked about some heartbreaking stories of cancer patients whose HMOs delay and deny access to specialty care, often until it is too late. She said that when she gets a patient whose cancer progressed substantially from the initial diagnosis to the time they are allowed to receive specialty care, she often flips to the front of the chart, and 9 times out of 10, the insurer is an HMO. Every centimeter a cancer grows can mean the difference between a good chance at life and the likelihood of death. Every centimeter represents potentially devastating and avoidable pain, suffering and sometimes the death of a patient. Dr. Casimir's message was clear: Pass the Patients' Bill of Rights so that more patients will not die needlessly. Today, we heard from Dr. Bruce Chabner, a distinguished clinical oncologist and cancer researcher. This is what the doctor had to say: My name is Bruce Chabner and I am a medical oncologist and cancer researcher. I am here to support the Patients' Bill of Rights that would require HMOs and insurance companies to support clinical research. I would like to explain briefly the role of insurance coverage in research. Most of the costs in clinical research are associated with the cost of discovery. Laboratory experiments in the development of new treatments are supported by the Government grants, by industry, and by institutional commitments by hospitals and medical schools. These contributions provide the hundreds of millions of dollars that lead to new treatments and new hope to millions of our patients with cancer. However, the clinical treatment of these patients requires support for the routine care associated with these clinical trials. The only source of such support for routine care costs is health insurance and HMO contributions. This is the final step in proving that a new treatment or a new device actually works in people. Without this step, research is meaningless and has no impact on people, nor does it save lives. We are not asking the insurance companies and HMOs to support the vast effort to discover new treatments or to bring them to the clinics. We are not asking for support for the cost of analyzing data and support during the clinical trials. We are only asking them to continue support for the patients' care costs. I am sure that every Member of Congress who is faced with the awful dilemma of cancer would want this kind of continued support for their family members. The research provides the only hope our patients have of conquering this disease and the only hope our society has for curing cancer. Now, I just want to mention this one more time, Mr. President. Under our Patients' Bill of Rights, we are guaranteeing the specialty care and clinical trials. For example, if your family or you were affected by cancer, you would not only be able to go to an oncologist, but you would be able to go to one of the great cancer centers that we have in this country to be able to get treatment. You would be able to get the specialty care that you need. If you believe you are being denied that particular care, you are able to go in to have an internal appeal and an external appeal, which must be responded to promptly. But you will get it; we guarantee it, under the Patients' Bill of Rights. We guarantee that you will be able to participate in a clinical trial if it is medically necessary--if your doctor says it is medically necessary. Clinical trials can be the source of enormous hope for millions of Americans who are afflicted by cancer. There are 47,000 women who die each year from breast cancer, and there is extraordinary research that is taking place that offers great hope for millions of women. Under this proposal, under the Patients' Bill of Rights, we are guaranteeing that if it is medically proven, you can get into a clinical trial. What kind of financial burden does this place on an HMO? Does it say to the HMO, well, you are going to have to pay all of these additional expenses? Absolutely not. The clinical trial is being paid for by the medical center; the clinical trial is being paid for by the pharmaceutical company; the clinical trial is being paid for by the financial strength of the particular clinical center. The only thing that the HMO would have to pay for is routine services--do we understand that?--which they would otherwise be required to pay. Those that oppose this provision say, well, if you require that they get clinical trials, it is going to bankrupt the HMO. That is preposterous, that is wrong, that is deceptive, and that is a critical misinterpretation of our legislation. As our distinguished clinical researchers pointed out today, once again, the kind of treatment that is necessary for these clinical trials is provided by the center, not by the patient or the HMO. The only requirements by the HMO would be routine care. Quite frankly, the HMO would be obligated to provide routine care in any event. So that does not adversely impact the HMO financially. Still, we have the reluctance and resistance to guarantee this in the Patients' Bill of Rights. I don't understand it. That is one of the reasons we ought to have a debate on this issue. How many Members in this body know the allocation of expenditures on clinical trials? I doubt if there are 5 or 10. I cannot understand why any Member of the Senate is saying not do it if it is medically necessary, because the HMO is not going to be burdened with substantial additional costs. That isn't the way it works. As I mentioned, 47,000 women die every single year. There are these clinical trials that are taking place in the great medical centers all over this country. And if a doctor says he believes, based upon the type of clinical trial and the kind of need that you are facing--to a woman that has been biopsied in her breast, and where a tumor is present--there is an opportunity and likelihood that you might survive, we believe that ought to be available. That is the best medical practice. Insurance companies were providing that protection for years before we had the HMOs. This wasn't even an issue for years and years, Mr. President. Now it is. And the principal reasons that the cancer oncologists and the cancer organizations support our proposal is because they see the fact that HMOs are denying this kind of treatment. Mr. President, we had Ms. Stekley, who was the head of clinical research at the Lombardi Center out here in Washington, D.C. She said that 80 percent of their administrative time is spent arguing with the HMOs to let people into their clinical trials--not because they are profiting financially, but because they believe that they can help the people, from a health point of view--80 percent of their administrative time. This person was almost in tears saying, ``Senator, we can help people survive, and it isn't going to cost the HMO any additional resources. Your proposal does the trick.'' What is possibly wrong with having that particular inclusion in any protection for a Patients' Bill of Rights? I cannot understand it, Mr. President. I cannot believe that we don't have a full opportunity to debate this issue in this body on this one issue, and that we will not be successful. It is enormously important to do two things: One, to have a guarantee that you can have a specialist; and, two, if it is medically recommended, you can have a clinical trial based upon medical evidence. And if you do not, then you are going to get a speedy right of appeal. And you contrast that with the top researchers who testified just yesterday, how they look at their patients, and have seen the various tumors that have grown day by day, week by week, month by month, and seeing the chance of these women's survival declining dramatically--because of what? Because of two things.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support H.R. 1151, the Credit Union Membership Access Act, but I strongly oppose the amendments being offered by Senator Gramm and Senator Shelby. Credit unions have a distinguished history of providing affordable financial services to America's low- and moderate-income communities. This legislation will help them continue to do that. It is ironic that we are now debating the issue of whether banks and credit unions should serve low- and moderate-income communities and to reinvest in the communities in which they receive deposits. Massachusetts has 317 credit unions, at 1.7 million members. They have had community reinvestment obligations for many years, and they have done an excellent job of meeting needs of consumers at all income levels. Massachusetts credit unions are a model for the Nation. The vast majority of banks take their community reinvestment obligation seriously in meeting these obligations. The Massachusetts Bankers Associations, whose member banks are doing excellent work in community reinvestment, does not support the Shelby amendment. Institutions which have received outstanding ratings, like Bank of Boston and Citizens Bank, are using the Community Reinvestment Act to provide profitable lines of business. Senator Shelby's amendment to eliminate the Community Reinvestment Act for 85 percent of the banks would eliminate an important source of affordable credit and financial services from low- and moderate-income families who are bankable. Massachusetts banks do not support this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Senator Gramm's amendment would say to credit unions who are being granted expanded power, they have no obligation to serve members of modest means. Both these amendments are bad policy. In this period of sustained economic growth, it is vital that all families have the opportunity to obtain credit in order to buy a home, start a small business, or send a child to college. The Community Reinvestment Act has a long history of success. Since 1992, it has helped banks to extend over $800 billion in loans for housing, small businesses, economic development and local communities across the Nation. As many have said, there is no capitalism without capital. We should oppose any effort to reduce access to credit which families need in order to buy a home, to start or expand a business, and send their children to college. The Community Reinvestment Act is not charity. It creates a positive obligation for banks to reinvest in communities from which they receive deposits. It is good business and it helps communities, businesses, and families nationwide; requiring similar investments by credit unions is good policy. I urge my colleagues to pass this important piece of legislation and to oppose these two amendments. It hurts all those who want a better future for themselves and their families, and it hurts our inner cities and rural communities who are rebuilding. Most of all, they reverse 20 years of successful reimbursement in our neighborhoods, and it deserves to be defeated.

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask the Chair to let me know when I have 3 minutes remaining.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent to be able to proceed for 15 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. President, as I have expressed, I have serious concerns about the development of this program. Similar kinds of programs have been considered and rejected by the Hesburgh Commission. The Barbara Jordan Commission, which really had many thoughtful men and women on it, reviewed these kinds of programs and expressed the same kinds of concerns that I have expressed here briefly this afternoon. For that reason, as well as the very important adverse impact that I think it will have on wages; and because of its impact in terms of opening up some unpredictable, unknown, and uncertain aspects of immigration policy that I oppose this. Having said all that, I commend my friends, Senator Smith and Senator Wyden. They have appeared before our committees on this issue. They have been enormously constructive and positive and responsive to those that had differing views on this. They have, brought a very considerable amount of thought to this issue and they have impressed me, as I know they have all Members, about their willingness to try and work this thing through in a constructive way. I intend to vote in opposition for the reasons outlined. But I want to work with them and see if we cannot respond to these kinds of concerns. Both of them have expressed their deep-seated concerns about these issues as well. We do have differences, but they have demonstrated on this issue, as in other areas, a willingness to try and find common ground. I thank them for their courtesies to date and for their willingness to continue to develop something that is going to be effective. I and others who share this view will look forward to working with them. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield whatever time I have to the Senator from Oregon. Mr. SMITH of Oregon addressed the Chair.