Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. In 1 more minute I will yield. It has been the Republican leadership who has denied us the opportunity to mark up this legislation in committee, to move it to the calendar, and to permit any certainty about when we would debate it. That is the record. I will be glad to yield for a question to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. And I yield 8 minutes to myself of the 10 minutes. So we have provisions supported by these four organizations: Medicare; the National Association of Insurance Commissioners; the President's Quality Commission; and the American Association of Health Plans. Now, we come to the provision regarding access to emergency care to permit individuals to go to the nearest emergency room. All four organizations agree with this. My time tonight is going to be short, so I will get back to this issue at another time when we debate it. Another provision is access to specialty care, for example when a child has cancer and ought to be able to go to an oncologist. Oh this provision, we have support from three out of the four organizations. The President's Quality Commission, the HMO trade association, and Medicare all say yes. For the direct access by women to OB-GYNs, the President's Quality Commission says yes. Continuity of care allows an individual to be able to continue to get treatment by their doctor if the doctor is dropped from an HMO. This provision is effectively favored by all of the various groups. What in these particular areas can our Republican friends complain about? Let us go on. Coverage of an individual to participate in clinical trials is absolutely essential if we are going to get breakthroughs, particularly in breast cancer, and allow patients to take advantage of cutting-edge new technology. Access to clinical trials is supported by the American Association of Health Plans. Provider networks need to ensure adequacy. If you are going to represent yourself as an HMO, all of these groups say you ought to have a balanced number of participating professionals and hospitals. Nondiscrimination in delivery of services. You cannot discriminate against sick people and cannot discriminate in the delivery of health care by race or religion. Three out of the four groups agree with this provision. Patients need information about copays, deductibles and standard information so they can make comparisons between different groups. Who can complain about this? All four groups support this provision. Prohibition on gag rules. All four groups agreed with us on this position. You should not prevent doctors from being able to tell you what is in the best interest of your health. Prohibition of improper incentive arrangements. Can you imagine we have to put legislate to prevent HMOs from putting the kind of improper incentives into their arrangements with the medical profession? It is extraordinary that we have to do this, but it is necessary. Internal appeals to have a fair appeal in cases. All four groups agree on that. The external appeals, to have a third party group. The President's Quality Commission recommends it and Medicare has been doing it for years. And finally, to hold plans accountable in State courts. We had a vote here in the U.S. Senate the other day not to give blanket freedom of any kind of liability for the tobacco industry, and it passed by two- thirds to three-quarters of the U.S. Senate. We want to give the same kind of protections and accountability on the issues of health care. We will have a chance to debate that. If the Republicans don't want us to do that, then let's have a rollcall vote on that. These are the essential aspects of the Patients' Bill of Rights. They have been taken from these four different organizations. Most of these items are supported by two, three, in many instances all four, of the different groups. This is a commonsense protection for the patients of this country. If Republicans differ with those kind of protections, let us stand up and debate them. Let us hear their alternative. We have heard in the last few days that the right to hold plans accountable is going to drive the health care costs through the roof. Read in the Wall Street Journal today an article on a study by Coopers & Lybrand that showed it will only cost pennies a day for this protection. Don't just read the Journal article, but also look at what has happened to the 23 million Americans--most of them State and county officials--who have those kinds of protections, and look at the cost of their premiums. Their premiums are not any higher. This result is better than any study that can be done by the Chamber of Commerce or other group that is wholeheartedly opposed to this legislation. These are the essential elements of the Patients' Bill of Rights, introduced by Senator Daschle. Perhaps they have to be altered, or maybe they ought to be strengthened, or maybe others in this body have better ideas to achieve these kinds of protections. But let us hear the opposition and the reasons for it. Let us hear the reasons. Let them advance those causes. But the silence is deafening. The American public deserve better. The Republican leadership will have a chance to debate the issue, because Senator Daschle and others will continue to press it until we get a time to debate it. If that is wrong, so be it. Some of us are committed to protecting the American family, to make sure that doctors and nurses and patients are going to be making the health care decisions and not the insurance companies. That is the issue, plain and simple. We will challenge the Republican leadership tonight, tomorrow, and every other day for the 35 days remaining in this session, to give us a time to debate this issue. It is interesting that the essence of this legislation is supported by Republicans in the House of Representatives, including Congressman Ganske, who is a doctor and was at our press conference. Congressman Ganske didn't believe this ought to be a partisan issue. Dr. Norwood, a Republican, didn't believe this ought to be a partisan issue. But here in the U.S. Senate, the Republicans are making this a partisan issue. Here in the U.S. Senate we are told: No, not only you won't have any one of us support it, but we won't even give you the time to debate it. That is wrong. How much time remains?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the unholy alliance between the Republican leadership in Congress and the health insurance industry is working overtime to prevent enactment of meaningful patient protections to end the abuses of HMOs and managed care health plans. The tactics of the Republican leadership yesterday made that crystal clear--and continue the obstruction that has been taking place since the beginning of this Congress. Yesterday, the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, offered our Patients' Bill of Rights as an amendment to an appropriations bill, to address the worst abuses of managed care. The Republican leadership didn't want to debate our amendment in the Senate, because they know that they cannot sustain a position that protects insurance industry profits at the expense of patients. So what did they do? They pulled down the important appropriations bill in order to avoid a vote on the Patient's Bill of Rights. Then they filed an immediate cloture petition on the Product Liability Bill, to avoid having to debate the Patient's Bill of Rights on that legislation. And I have no doubt that they will continue to engage in any other parliamentary maneuver they can devise--in an attempt to avoid debating and voting on the Patient's Bill of Rights. They are ready to impose a gag rule on the United States Senate, if that is necessary to prevent us from ending gag rules on the Nation's doctors. It is long past time for Congress to act on the issue of reforming managed care. Individuals and families are increasingly apprehensive about how they will be treated when they are sick. A survey last year found that an astonishing 80 percent of Americans believe that their quality of care is often compromised by their insurance plan to save money. And, too often, their belief is well-founded. Our Patients' Bill of Rights will end abuses of HMOs and managed care plans across the country. Too often today, managed care is mis-managed care. Decisions on health care should be made by doctors and their patients, not by insurance industry accountants bent on protecting profits instead of patients. For more than a year, the Republican leadership has been delaying action. I introduced patient protection legislation with Congressman John Dingell nearly a year and a half ago. Since that time, the President's non-partisan blue ribbon commission has recommended nearly identical protections. Under Senator Daschle's leadership, we have introduced the Patients' Bill of Rights legislation in both the House and Senate--and it is supported not only by Democrats but by Republicans as well. More than 170 organizations have endorsed it. These groups represent tens of millions of patients, doctors, nurses, persons with disabilities or chronic illnesses, those in the mental health community, workers and families, consumers, small businesses, religious organizations, non-physician providers and many others. Yet, despite this support and the obvious need for action, the Senate leadership continues to delay. The special interests that profit from the status quo have designed a campaign of misinformation to obscure the real issues and prevent action. There is no mystery about what is going on. The Republican leadership's position is to protect the insurance industry instead of protecting patients. They know they can't do that in the light of day. So their strategy has been to work behind closed doors to kill the bill. Keep it bottled up in committee. Prevent any debate or vote by the full Senate. Willis Gradison, the head of the Health Insurance Association of America, was asked in an interview published in the Rocky Mountain News to sum up their strategy. According to the article, Mr. Gradison replied ``There's a lot to be said for `Just say no.''' The author of the article goes on to report that At a strategy session . . . called by a top aide to Senator Don Nickles, Gradison advised Republicans to avoid taking public positions that could draw fire during the election campaign. Opponents will rely on Republican leaders in both chambers to keep managed care legislation bottled up in committee. Instead of participating in a productive debate on how to give patients the protections they need, insurance companies and their allies in the business community have heeded the call of the Republican leadership, in the words of a leadership aide acting on behalf of Senator Lott, to ``get off their butts and get off their wallets.'' They are contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars to GOP candidates who toe their line, while simultaneously preparing to spend millions of dollars on TV ads to defeat the Patients' Bill of Rights. But before we swallow their phony charges of excessive increases in costs and in the number of the uninsured, let's examine their credibility on this issue. Insurers say it is too costly to guarantee that treatment decisions are made by doctors and patients. Yet, they pay their CEOs and high- ranking executives multi-million dollar compensation packages and spend millions of dollars on luxury accommodations for corporate headquarters. How can the insurance industry tell the American people with a straight face that this legislation will raise costs, when it is spending millions of dollars--derived from premiums paid by hard working families--on a scare campaign to intimidate patients and deny them the protections they need, deserve, and thought they had paid for? Mr. President, we have, and I will include in the Record, a summary of the various protections that are included in this legislation. But before I do, I think it is interesting to know where we are with regard to the scheduling of this particular provision. The Patient's Bill of Rights was offered last evening by the Senator from South Dakota, Senator Daschle, and was sent back to the desk. We have been denied an opportunity for a markup on this legislation in the Labor and Human Resources Committee. The Republican leadership has refused to schedule this legislation on the floor of the U.S. Senate, with the exception of the phony unanimous consent request. The consent request indicated that when we had the debate on this legislation, and after a vote on or in relation to this legislation, it would be in order for the majority leader to return the legislation to the calendar. That means that after we voted on the legislation, even if we voted for good legislation that protects the consumers in this country, under this consent request, the Republican leader would have been able to send it back to the calendar. The Republican leader would not send it to the House of Representatives for action. The Republican leader would not even take legislation if it was sent over from the House of Representatives and we acted upon it. The Republican leader would not send it to the President of the United States: instead, the Republican leader would put the legislation back on the calendar. This is a phony initiative by the Republican leadership. There isn't a Member of this body who wouldn't read it and understand how phony it is. It is insulting to the millions of patients in this country who have suffered to say that if we take action to try to protect you, and we have a positive vote in the Senate of the United States, the leader of the Republican Party can put it back on the calendar and frustrate every other Member in the Senate. This is the first time in 36 years I have ever seen a consent request like this. Last night, the Republican leaders said, ``But, oh, wasn't the Senator from Massachusetts here when there was objection to the leader's request?'' Here is the consent request. I will put it all in the Record, Mr. President: ``it be in order for the majority leader to return the legislation to the calendar,'' effectively killing it. To add insult to injury, Mr. President, it points out that we will not be in order to offer any other health care measures for the rest of the session. Isn't that a beauty? We will not be able to offer any other health measures for the rest of the session. We will not be able to deal with medical records confidentiality issues; we will not be able to deal with Medicare issues. We will not be able to deal with any other health care issue for the remainder of this session. Why? What is it about debating the health care issues which are of such fundamental importance to families in this country that we cannot get a debate on it? What is it, Mr. President? What does the Republican leadership fear about debating these issues on the floor of the U.S. Senate that are of central concern to every family in America? That is the question we ask. And you know what our answer is? You know what our answer is, Mr. President? Our answer is that tomorrow at 10 o'clock we are going to vote on the IRS conference report. We are going to vote on cloture of the product liability bill. Are we then going to proceed to health care? No. We are instead going to have a 2-hour debate on agricultural sanctions. Then are we going to proceed to health care? No. We are instead going to the higher education reauthorization. With the higher education reauthorization, by prior agreement that was made many weeks ago, we are prohibited from offering any amendments. And then this week is finished. It is gone. Starting tomorrow, thirty-five more days are left in this session. This week is gone without any opportunity to debate this important issue. I see members of the Republican leadership here. Maybe the Senator from Oklahoma can explain why we cannot debate health care issues on the floor of the U.S. Senate. We had the opportunity to have health care raised yesterday by the Senator from South Dakota. And here we have the Republican leadership agenda. The vote on the IRS conference report is important and we are going to vote on it. But is the conference report on the IRS more important than the fact that tonight, across this country, insurance company agents are making decisions on health care that will imperil the health of families? Can we say that the IRS is more important? What about the vote on the product liability bill? Is that more important than this debate? The Republican leadership says that we're going to have a 2-hour debate on agricultural sanctions. And it goes on and on.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent for 10 more minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in the area of the Patients' Bill of Rights, we have provisions supported by four different groups. One group is the President's Quality Commission. The Commission is made up of a number of extraordinary individuals from the insurance industry, from HMOs, from consumer groups. This is a bipartisan group that is universally respected. Another group is the NAIC, which is the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. The NAIC includes both Republicans and Democrats alike across the country. A third group is the American Association of Health Plans, which is the trade organization of HMOs.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator will have an opportunity to do so. I waited last night until after the Senator finished. But I will be glad to yield to respond to a question, if you have one, or I will continue.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself the last 2 minutes. In summary, the Patients' Bill of Rights guarantees the access to specialists, emergency rooms, and other needed care. It expands choices. It ensures independent appeals. It holds plans accountable for the medical decisions, restores doctor-patient relationship, establishes quality and information standards. The American people are entitled to these rights in their health care. Children in this country are entitled to them. Senior citizens in the country are entitled to them. Hard-working men and women in this country are entitled to them. Doctors are entitled to the kind of protections we provide. The major insurance companies and HMOs should be held to a standard like every other industry in this country. If that is wrong, let's call the roll and find out who believes in it and who does not. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

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. If the Senator will further yield, as I understand it now, as a result of the action of the majority leader, the Ag appropriations bill has returned to the calendar and the VA-HUD appropriations bill has returned to the calendar. So it appears, would the Senator not agree with me, that it is not the Democrats who are holding up the appropriations process and procedure--we were prepared to move ahead--but evidently it is the majority leader who has sent these matters back to the calendar when it is our responsibility to go forward? I am just wondering if the leader can tell us whether he has had any opportunity to talk to the majority leader about when we will have an opportunity to at least have discussion or debate on the measures that evidently are objectionable to the majority leader? Are we going to have any opportunity to debate these measures, or are we going to be required to continue this charade and continue to try to offer these amendments on other appropriations as well?

Mr. KENNEDY. Just finally, and I thank the Senator, does he find it somewhat ironic that the Republican leadership is effectively gagging the Senate from debating rules on HMOs which are gagging doctors from giving the best health care advice? That we are being gagged here on the floor of the U.S. Senate, so to speak, as well, by Republican leadership who have refused to permit a debate on this issue? There is a certain irony in that.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am encouraged certainly by the comments of the acting floor leader now that he says we will have an opportunity to debate the issues on the Patients' Bill of Rights. We look forward to that opportunity. But I will just take a few moments of the Senate's time--I will not take a great deal of time--to really correct the Record. As the Senator from Oklahoma remembers, and should remember very clearly, the U.S. Senate overturned in 1995 the longstanding rule that we would not have legislation on appropriations. And it was the Republican Party that overturned that concept. Every single Republican, including the Senator from Oklahoma, voted to overturn the ruling of the chair and allow legislation on appropriations. So, now we have legislation on appropriations. I think it is regrettable, and should the Republican leader want to alter and change that, I think he would find that there would be strong support for that. But, Mr. President, I want to get back and talk for just a moment or two about what the issues really are. We have just listened to our friends from the States of Washington and Oklahoma speak on the floor about what cannot be done, or what should not be done. Earlier this afternoon, in a time-honored process and procedure, the minority leader, Senator Daschle, sent to the desk of the U.S. Senate an amendment to provide for a Patients' Bill of Rights, a recognition that in this country too often those who are making health care decisions are actually insurance company accountants rather than doctors. Too often the doctors, who represent the best interests of the patients, are caught in this extraordinary dilemma and understand that they are put between a rock and a hard place. Too often in our country we find that managed care is mismanaged care. And we have heard examples of this on the Senate floor time and time again over the period of these past weeks. I dare say that we have had few days that have gone by when Senators have not spoken about particular tragedies that have been experienced in their States. Senator Daschle's amendment should have allowed the Senate to debate the issue of the Patients' Bill of Rights, debate it this afternoon, debate it this evening, debate it tomorrow, but debate it and reach some kind of a conclusion on the issue. The President has spoken. He spoke as recently as this afternoon in support of the legislation that was included in Senator Daschle's proposal. That is what this is about. We have that opportunity to debate managed care reform. The Democratic leader offered the Patients' Bill of Rights. It is an issue that Republicans and Democrats across the country want us to do something about. We are being denied that opportunity because the majority leader pulled the bill down and put it back on the calendar, as was his wont to do, and we are again denied the opportunity to debate this critically important issue. So our efforts to move toward that debate have been temporarily deferred--deferred perhaps for a day or two, but certainly not longer than a day or two. We are going to come back to that issue and keep coming back. And our friends on the majority side better get used to it. They may get into a situation where they are going to put appropriations bill after appropriations bill after appropriations bill back on the calendar because the Senate will want to debate a Patients' Bill of Rights, and the Republican Leadership will want to continue to deny us that opportunity. Mr. President, we will continue to demand debate because the American people are demanding it. You can say, Why are we in this kind of a situation? Why aren't we following a regular order, the procedure that everyone learns in civics class and in their study of American history, that says when legislation is introduced, it goes to the committee, the committee marks it up, it comes to the floor, it is acted upon on the floor, the two bodies get together in a conference, and, if they agree, they send it to the President of the United States? The reason the Senator from South Dakota offered the amendment is because we could not get a markup and we could not get a hearing in the appropriate committee. We were denied that opportunity--denied it, turned down, thumbs down to the Senators who supported that legislation. No, you can't have a hearing on that legislation in our committee. The Republicans told those of us on the Labor and Human Resources Committee that not only can't you have that hearing, but, if you introduce the legislation, we will not give you a markup on it. We will not let you have a debate in the committee. We are going to obstruct the whole committee process so you will not be able to advance your issues, and the issues of the American people. I did not hear that talked about by the Senator from Washington. I did not hear that talked about from the Senator from Oklahoma. The majority leader has put forward several lists of his priorities for the session, and the Patients' Bill of Rights is not on any one of them-- not on any one of them. The Republican leadership wants to stonewall-- stonewall on this issue, which is of such great importance to families all across the country. That is why the Democratic leader offered this amendment, because the Republican leadership is trying to stonewall it. So, Mr. President, are we going to say--those of us who favor patient protection legislation--that we are going to be denied consideration of the committee, we are going to be denied a markup in the committee, and we are going to be denied floor debate by the majority leader and the Republican leadership, that we are not even going to consider this issue in the U.S. Senate? No. That is not the kind of U.S. Senate that our Founding Fathers intended, nor has today been one of our best and greatest days. But we are going to debate this issue, and we are going to act on it. Make no mistake about it. And we are going to come right back after that and consider an increase in the minimum wage. Our Republican friends better hear that as well. We can't get the markup on the increase in the minimum wage for workers in this country--workers who have not benefited by the extraordinary explosion of the stock markets and the extraordinary increase in the accumulation of wealth. These are men and women who are working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year, primarily single women, primarily women who are heads of households with children. This is a women's issue. It is a children's issue. It is a fairness issue. And we are going to consider it this year. We know Republican leaders are opposed to that. What else is new? They were opposed to it last time. And we were able to be successful. It wasn't on the Republican agenda the last time we saw an increase in the minimum wage. The increase in the minimum wage has never been on the Republican agenda. Yet we have been successful in doing so. And we will be successful in doing so this time. So that is why we find ourselves where we do this evening. And here the Democratic leader offers our amendment, makes a brief comment--a brief comment--about it. And then, bingo, the bill is pulled. Now we hear from the Republican leadership that, Oh, well, you objected to a consent agreement that could get this proposal before the Senate and to act on it. I would love to take the time of the Senate to go through this, but let me just include the appropriate parts of this proposal. Let me just mention a very interesting aspect of the consent agreement, to which the Senator from Washington referred. I asked him to yield so we could go through this agreement together. He refused the opportunity to do so. I can understand why, too. I might have wanted to do the same if I had to defend this proposed agreement. This is what was included in the agreement. And I will include the whole agreement. But let me read a section: I ask unanimous consent that the Chair not entertain a motion to adjourn or recess for the August recess prior to a vote on or in relation to the majority leader's bill and the minority leader's amendment. And that following those votes: It be in order for the majority leader-- Listen to this-- to return the legislation to the calendar. ``Return the legislation to the calendar.'' And the Senator from Washington has the audacity to say on the floor of the Senate that the consent that was offered by the majority leader would have actually gotten these measures up? You know what this proposal is effectively saying? This says that after the votes, even if we win the Patients' Bill of Rights with a majority of the Members of the Senate, it will be in order for the majority leader to--send it to the President of the United States if the House has already acted on it? No. To send it to the House of Representatives if they have not acted on it? No. Under the majority leader's proposal, if we pass it, after a debate, the majority leader sends it right back up there to the desk. It is over. Good-bye, farewell, so long, to protections for the patients of this country. Now, that is a farce, an absolute farce. I could go through the whole consent agreement, but it should not be given any more attention because it is a farce offered, evidently, only to make a political point. The Patients' Bill of Rights is a commonsense plan that guarantees fundamental protections that every good insurance company already provides and that every American who pays insurance premiums deserves to have when serious illness strikes. But the Republican leader's position is to protect the insurance industry instead of protecting the patients. They know they cannot do that in the light of day, so their strategy is to work behind closed doors to kill the bill, keep it bottled up in committee, no markup, no floor debate, no vote. That has been the strategy. Ask any Member of this body whether they can contest that. They cannot. No markup, no floor debate, no vote, no fair time agreement. Mr. Willis Gradison, the head of the Health Insurance Association of America, when asked in an interview published in the Rocky Mountain News to sum up the strategy of the businesses opposed to patient protections, replied: There's a lot to be said for ``just say no.'' ``Just say no.'' The author of the article goes on to report that at a strategy session last month called by a top aide to Senator Don Nickles, Gradison advised Republicans to avoid taking public positions that could draw fire during the election campaign. Opponents will rely on Republican leaders in both Chambers to keep managed care legislation bottled up. Well, they have done a good job of bottling it up tonight. We would have had an opportunity for debate if they had not pulled down the underlying legislation. But, no, they bottled it up by sending the bill right back to the calendar. That has been the strategy for the past year--keep the Patients' Bill of Rights bottled up, engage in a campaign of misinformation and disinformation, cater to the special interests, ignore insurance company abuses, and ignore the will of the American people. We are seeing that strategy in this Chamber this evening. Now, Mr. President, the rights that are included in our legislation are commonsense components of quality care that every family believes they were promised when they signed up for insurance coverage and paid their premiums. Virtually all of the protections that this legislation provides already apply to Medicare, are recommended by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, which is a bipartisan group, or were recommended by the President's Advisory Commission, another nonpartisan group, or even established as voluntary standards by the managed care industry itself through their trade association. These commonsense rights include access to appropriate specialists when a patient's condition requires specialty care. It would allow people with chronic illnesses or disabilities to have referrals to the specialists they need on a regular basis. It assures that patients whose plans cover prescription drugs can have access to drugs needed to save their life or protect their health even if the drugs are not included on their plan's restricted list. They are assured that persons suffering from serious symptoms can go to the nearest emergency room without worrying that their plan will deny coverage. No patients with the symptoms of a heart attack should be forced to put their life at risk by driving past the emergency room down the street to the managed care hospital farther away, and that is happening here in the United States tonight. No patient with symptoms of a stroke should be forced to delay treatment to the point where paralysis and disability are permanent because an accountant in the managed care headquarters does not respond promptly and appropriately. Reforms must protect the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship. Gag clauses and improper incentive arrangements should have no place in American medicine. They are absolutely appalling, Mr. President. This amendment only says that any reform worthy of the name must guarantee that insurance plans meet the special needs of women and children. Women should have access to gynecologists for needed services. No woman with breast cancer should be forced to endure a drive-through mastectomy against the advice of her doctor or be denied reconstructive surgery following breast cancer surgery if that is her choice. No child with a childhood cancer should be told that a urologist who happens to be in the plan's network will treat him, even if that urologist has no experience or expertise with children or with that type of cancer. Patients should have the right to appeal their plans' decisions to independent third parties. Today, if a health plan breaks its promise, the only recourse for most patients is to go to court, a time- consuming, costly process that may not provide relief in time to save a life or prevent a disability. Independent review was recommended unanimously by the President's Commission. Republicans and Democrats alike recommended independent review unanimously. It has worked successfully in Medicare for more than three decades. Families deserve the basic fairness that only a timely, impartial appeal can provide. Without such a mechanism, any rights guaranteed to patients exist on paper only, and they are often worth no more than the paper on which they are printed. When the issues are sickness and health, and often as serious as life and death, no health insurance company should be allowed to be both judge and jury. When health plan's misconduct results in serious injury or death, patients and their families should be able to hold those plans accountable for their actions. Every other industry in America can be held responsible for its actions. Why should health plans whose decisions can truly mean the difference between life and death enjoy this unique immunity? We had a debate on the issues of immunity not long ago with regard to the tobacco industry, and this body voted overwhelmingly not to give immunity to tobacco. These health plans have immunity today under the ERISA provisions. That is not right and we ought to address it. Every day and every night that we delay it, the health, the good health of American families is threatened. You would think, when you listen to the Republican leadership talk about scheduling, that it doesn't matter a twiddle whether this debate goes on today or tomorrow or next week or next month or next year. It does. And every day we delay means that more families' health protections are threatened. Under the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act, patients whose lives have been devastated or destroyed by the reckless behavior of their health plan have no ability to go to court to obtain appropriate redress. ERISA preempts all State remedies, so patients are limited to Federal ERISA remedies, which will only cover the cost of the procedure for which the plan failed to pay. Just the cost of the procedure--some remedy. You can be crippled for life by cancer of the spine because the plan refused to authorize a test costing a few hundred dollars to detect the cancer in its early stages, and all you can get back to help support your family is the cost of the test. That is no remedy. That is wrong. And our bill does something about it. During the debate on the tobacco legislation, as I mentioned, Republicans and Democrats alike voted overwhelmingly to support the proposition that no industry in America should be exempt from accountability because of its actions, but because of the ERISA preemption, one industry alone--the health insurance industry--enjoys this protection. That is wrong and today the Senate should have the opportunity to say it is wrong. ERISA preemption applies to the millions of Americans who get their coverage through a private employer, but it does not apply to 23 million State and local employees and their families. It does not apply to Medicaid patients. It does not apply to Medicare. And we have not heard a shred of evidence that the ability of State and local employees, Medicaid patients and Medicare patients to sue their health plans has imposed significant costs on those plans. That case has not been made. Mr. President, 23 million State and county employees have that kind of ability to sue, and we have not seen that the costs of their plans have been higher than others. So I challenge my colleagues who oppose this provision to explain to the American people why State and local government employees should be able to hold their taxpayer-financed health plans accountable if they are injured or killed by the plan's behavior, but equally hard-working Americans employed by private companies should be denied this basic right. Explain that to me. Our legislation simply removes the Federal preemption provision. It creates no Federal right to sue and lets States take whatever steps they see fit. So many of those who oppose this legislation are fond of talking about the need to keep Washington out of decisions by States, but when the profits of special interests are at stake, it suddenly becomes better for bureaucrats in Washington rather than elected State and local officials to decide what is best for people in their State. This amendment should not be controversial for any Member of the Senate who is serious about protecting patients from insurance company abuse. It is supported by the American Medical Association--and more than 170 other organizations, Mr. President. Let me just give you a few. The Patients' Bill of Rights is supported by the American Medical Association, the Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities, the American Cancer Society, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the National Partnership for Women and Families, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, the AFL-CIO, the American Association of Retired Persons and many other groups representing physicians, health care providers, children, women, families, consumers, persons with disabilities, small businesses, Americans with serious illnesses, religious organizations, and working families. Find me another piece of pending legislation that has that kind of support. But we are told we cannot even debate it tonight. We are told we cannot even consider it tonight. We are told we cannot even move this legislation to have a rollcall vote to see who is for it and who is against it. It is rare for such a broad and diverse coalition to come together in support of legislation. But they have done so to end the flagrant abuses that hurt so many families. The choice is clear. The Senate should stand with patients, families and physicians, not the well- heeled special interests that put profits ahead of patients. The American people know what is going on. Movie audiences across the country erupt in cheers when actress Helen Hunt attacks the abuses of managed care in the film ``As Good As It Gets.'' Helen Hunt won an Oscar for that performance, but managed care is not winning any Oscars from the American people. Everyone knows that managed care today is not as good as it gets. It is time for Congress to end the abuses of patients and physicians by HMOs and managed care health plans. Too often, managed care is mismanaged care. No amount of distortions or smokescreens by insurance companies can change those facts. A Patients' Bill of Rights can stop these abuses, and let's pass it before more patients have to suffer. We want to tell our friends on the other side of the aisle that they are going to see this amendment day after day after day after day, until this body has a chance to debate it and vote on it. Let me give the assurance of that. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, am I correct that the Senator from South Dakota had offered an amendment to the appropriations bill on the Patients' Bill of Rights and that, if we had not had the majority leader's requests at this time, tonight we in this body would be debating the Patients' Bill of Rights? Am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I welcome this opportunity to recognize the valuable service given to Massachusetts by our state District Court Judge Maurice H. Richardson, who retired in June after serving the citizens of Norfolk County with great distinction for nearly a quarter century. Judge Richardson dedicated his career in the law to serving the people of our state. As a judge he applied the law with great wisdom and compassion. He was well known for his ability to distinguish between hardened, habitual criminals and those who could take advantage of opportunities for rehabilitation. He encouraged many to seek counseling, enter a drug or alcohol treatment program, or take other steps to put their lives and their families back together. During his years on the bench, Judge Richardson was also a skillful and tireless advocate for mental health. For many years he presided over mental health commitment hearings for several Massachusetts facilities. He was dedicated to finding the most effective assistance for the mentally ill, and often worked closely with doctors, patients and their families. Judge Richardson also took the lead in the state judicial system and state legislature to improve the way the mentally ill and the mentally retarded are treated by the state courts, and his efforts enhanced the quality of life for countless individuals and their families. Judge Richardson has earned well-deserved recognition for his leadership and his achievements. Throughout his distinguished career, he received numerous awards, including the District Court Award for Judicial Excellence from the Massachusetts Judges' Conference, the Annual Award from the Bar Association of Norfolk County, and the Commissioners Award from the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health. I am sure that my colleagues join me in commending Judge Richardson for his distinguished service. We congratulate him on his extraordinary career and we extend our warmest wishes to Judge Richardson and his family on his retirement.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, a few months ago, the American Immigration Lawyers Association held its second annual essay contest, entitled ``Celebrate America'' for fifth grade children across the country. The children were asked to write essays on the subject, ``Why I am Glad America is a Nation of Immigrants.'' Thousands of children entered the contest, and I congratulate all the participants. Five winners were selected, and were judged by a panel that included our colleague Senator Abraham, Washington State Governor Gary Locke, New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Alan Page, and myself. The winner of this year's contest is Jaclyn Mals, from Decatur Classical School in Chicago, who wrote about her great-grandfather's immigrant experience. In addition, four other students were honored for their essays--Tony Kudron of Livonia, MI, Samantha Fonseca-Moreira of Lexington, MA, Mandi Steiner of West Hills, CA, and Kayla Weinstein of Encinitas, CA. All of the essays are an expression of the pride that we all share in our immigrant heritage, and emphasize what the nation gains from immigrants. I congratulate each of these students, and I ask unanimous consent that the five winning essays from the ``Celebrate America'' contest be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, upon our return in July, it is my hope that the Senate will turn to full and open debate of patient protection legislation at the earliest appropriate time. The American people are concerned about the state of our health care system. Earlier this month, a survey by the Pew Research Center showed HMO regulation at the top of the list of issues important to individuals and the country. We have a proposal, the Patients' Bill of Rights (S. 1890), which would restore confidence in our system. A critical provision in our bill would allow patients who receive their benefits through their employer to hold their plans accountable for medical or coverage decisions that result in injury or death. Currently, approximately 123 million Americans are precluded from seeking any meaningful redress when they are permanently disabled or when they lose a loved one because of insurance company abuses that put profits ahead of patients. Patients who purchase in the individual market can hold their plans accountable. Patients enrolled in plans that serve state or local employees can hold their plans accountable. But people insured through ERISA covered plans cannot. No industry deserves to be exempt from liability for their actions. Last week, William Welch, a reporter with USA Today, wrote an article that eloquently outlines this issue and how it affects families across the country. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I oppose the House version of the Reading Excellence Act, and I also oppose the process by which it is being brought to the Senate at the last minute in an effort to pass this bad bill under the pressure of the July 1 funding deadline. On May 13th, six weeks ago, the Labor and Human Resources Committee approved an alternative bill on this issue, with unanimous bipartisan support, and with the strong backing of educators, reading specialists, and community organizations across the country. Despite this overwhelming support for the Senate committee bill, the Republican leadership refused to allow the full Senate to act on it. Instead, they did nothing for six weeks. Now, as the July 1 deadline is upon us, they insist that we swallow the deeply flawed House bill. What is at stake here is nothing less than the way teachers and schools across the country will be allowed to help children learn to read. Organizations throughout the nation who know this well are adamantly opposed to the House bill. These groups include the American Association of School Administrators--the International Reading Association--the Council of Chief State School Officers--the National School Boards Association--the National Parent Teacher Association--the National Council of Teachers of English--the American Federation of Teachers--the National Education Association--the National Association of Elementary School Principals--the National Conference on Language and Literacy--the Conference on College Composition and Communications--the National Association of State Boards of Education-- Reach Out and Read. All of these groups are doing the hard day-to-day work, helping children learn to read. They say that no bill would be better than the House bill, because the House bill will not help them do the work they need to do. In last year's appropriations legislation, Congress reserved $210 million for a child literacy program if enacted by July 1. By missing the July 1 deadline, we miss an initial opportunity. But we will have many other opportunities this session to pass a bill we can all support--and fund it accordingly. Many successful models to help children learn to read well now exist, but they are not yet available to all children. As a result, far too many children in communities across the country are denied the opportunity to learn to read well. The statistics are appalling. Forty percent of 4th grade students do not achieve the basic level in reading, and 70 percent of 4th graders do not achieve the proficient level. We must do more--much more--to help all children learn to read well. Many of the reading difficulties experienced by teenagers and adults today could have been prevented by adequate intervention in early childhood. By working to ensure that all children learn to read well in the early grades, we can also reduce the need for costly special education instruction in later grades. The time has come to pass a bill that will help all children learn to read well. Child literacy is an important goal, and if we are to reach this goal, we need well-educated, well-trained teachers prepared to give children the special assistance they deserve. We need dedicated and trained volunteer tutors. We need support for successful community programs to improve family literacy and teach parents how to read more effectively with their children at home. We need support for innovative community efforts to help children learn to read before they enter school. This House-passed bill is not an adequate response to these problems. This bill undermines state and local responsibility for public education. My Republican colleagues want to create a new state bureaucracy and new federal control over public education. These are the same Republicans who say they want school vouchers and block grants, in order to give parents and communities more choice and more control over their children's education. State and local education agencies and school administrators are doing well in creating, implementing, and coordinating innovative efforts to help children learn. We should do more to support these efforts. We should provide community organizations with the resources they need to bring successful programs to more people. Instead, my colleagues want to bypass state leadership, undermine local control, and create a new state bureaucracy, when states and communities are already prepared to implement new literacy programs and oversee the use of new Federal funding. State Departments of Education and local education agencies are already working successfully to coordinate local, State, and Federal resources to improve education and provide higher quality education to children. It makes no sense to bypass the current State leadership and require states to create a new State bureaucracy. Another serious problem with this bill is that it brings Federal control into the classroom and dictates how teachers teach reading. This bill specifies only one way to teach reading skills. It ignores the research and recommendations of the leading educators. During the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee hearing on child literacy, we heard from two of the most distinguished researchers--Doctor Catherine Snow of the Harvard Graduate School of Education, who chairs the Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties at the National Academy of Sciences, and Doctor Reid Lyon of the National Institutes of Health. They emphasized that the best way to help all children learn to read is to promote a variety of the best practices and give local educators the freedom to tailor programs to meet local needs. Doctor Snow testified that a solution to reading problems has not been achieved because of an: Unrealistic desire for a simpler answer. Reading is a complex and multifaceted outcome, determined by many factors. Ensuring adequate reading progress for every child . . . requires providing all of the many, varied experiences that will benefit their reading. Doctor Lyon testified that: Learning to read requires different skills at different levels of development. . . . It does not have anything to do with philosophy, and it does not have anything to do with politics. It has to do with making sure the kids get the ideas. That is it. . . . To be able to read our language, you have to know the sounds. You have got to know how to map it onto the letters . . . you have got to do it quickly, and you have got to know why you are reading and have good vocabulary and the things that Dr. Snow spoke about. It is never an either/or. This bill will prevent teachers from following that sound advice. Instead, teachers will be forced to follow a mandate from Washington requiring all teachers across the country to follow one formula to teach reading--regardless of local needs. Is this what the Republicans mean when they ask for more local control of education? Schools and communities already have control over education. The Federal Government shouldn't start micro-managing their reading programs. We should be doing more, not less, to ensure that teachers and school districts are free to design programs to meet the unique local needs of the children. The Reading Excellence Act approved by the Senate Committee by a unanimous, bi-partisan vote would give local educators the flexibility and training the experts say they need. This bill doesn't just take control away from public schools. It also takes money away from public schools. We all recognize that recruiting and training more tutors is an important goal. President Clinton began his effort two years ago, with his ``America Reads Challenge.'' The Senate Committee bill would build on the success of that program, so that local schools will benefit from available community resources. The House bill is a detour away from these worthy goals. Instead of helping schools capitalize on volunteer tutors and community resources, it wastes funds on private tutoring programs. It denies support for successful school-based programs in which tutoring assistance is closely linked to a child's classroom instruction. The bill also requires local schools to spend time, money, and other scarce resources overseeing private tutoring programs. Funneling scarce public dollars into these private programs will undermine accountability for academic results and expenditure of federal dollars. This bill has major flaws. It does little or nothing to help public school children learn to read or improve their chance of receiving a good education. Other provisions in the bill are worthwhile, because they encourage better teaching, more trained volunteer tutors, and more support for community-based family literacy programs. These initiatives will ensure that many children get the extra assistance they need to learn to read well and early. These issues are too important for us to leave this House bill as the final word. I will do all I can to pass a strong bipartisan bill in the Senate in the coming months--the nation's children deserve no less.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am strongly opposed to the Byrd amendment which would require that all military services separate men and women during basic training. I am opposed to this amendment for two reasons. First, yesterday during the deliberations of the Snowe amendment it was stated that it was premature to make a determination on this issue, that we should let the commission complete its work, that we should wait for the final findings of the commission before taking any action. Nothing has changed. We have charged the commission with a task that we seem to have no intention of letting them complete. Only upon careful study of the commission's final report is it prudent to make a judgment that could fundamentally alter the way in which the services conduct basic training. Second, the decision on how to train recruits should be made at the individual service level, not by the Congress for every service, as if they all had the same training requirements. To do otherwise is to do a disservice to the men and women in our armed services. Men and women numerous other overseas postings were trained in a gender integrated environment. As a result, they are performing superbly in all aspects of military life, in a gender integrated force. The Marines and Army direct ground combat units conduct gender- segregated basic training. For all other non-direct ground combat roles, the services conduct gender integrated training. This is how they will fight. And these decisions were made at the individual service level, as one component of a larger force structure. And the Congress should not now attempt to reverse these decisions. Some ask, why should basic training be any different? But basic training is where new recruits learn basic military values. Integrated initial training makes sense. They will train and fight as an integrated force for their entire military careers. There is no reason why they should not begin to do so as early as possible. Doing so increases the readiness of all our military forces. The critics of gender integrated training will list recent incidents of sexual harassment as an argument for gender segregation. However, these incidents were largely committed by senior personnel against junior personnel. This kind of sexual harassment indicates poor leadership and not a gender integration problem in training. All of the Services acknowledge the importance of improving the quality of recruit training. Commanders and drill instructors will exercise closer supervision over all recruits. That is the best way to eliminate these abuses and ensure the high level of readiness required for our national defense. The Senior Noncommissioned Officers in each service say that one training policy, which applies across all services, will have a negative impact on readiness. Then why are we attempting to sacrifice military readiness to gender-segregation? Numerous other military officers and veteran's groups have weighed in on this issue each supporting gender-integration. The senior officer in each service supports gender-integration and moreover, believes that the decision should be properly made at the service level--not in Congress. We have come a long way toward full acceptance of women in the military. But more needs to be done to ensure that the progress goes forward in the coming years. Women will not continue to serve in a military which discriminates against them. I look forward to a day when more policies and programs affecting service members are implemented without regard to gender. Women in the military deserve no less. I urge you to reject this amendment. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, sixty years ago today, President Roosevelt signed into law an historic piece of legislation. The Fair Labor Standards Act established a number of basic protections for workers, including one of the great landmarks of American law--the federal minimum wage. President Roosevelt called that Act ``the most far-reaching, far- sighted program for the benefit of workers ever adopted here or in any other country.'' And he was right. 700,000 workers got a raise in 1938. The minimum wage helped pull the country out of the Great Depression. And, in the decades that followed, it helped to lift millions of working families out of poverty. Our standard of living has improved steadily and dramatically since 1938. And, for thirty years, the minimum wage kept pace with those improvements. But the last thirty years have seen an about-face. The real value of the minimum wage has dropped steeply since 1968. To have the purchasing power today that it had thirty years age, the minimum wage would have to be $7.38 and hour--40% higher than its current level of $5.15. Working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, minimum wage workers today earn just $10,700 a year--$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 Americans are 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 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 are teachers' aides and home health aides. They care for our children in child care centers and our parents and grandparents in nursing homes. They sell us goods at the corner store, and serve us coffee at the local coffee shop. They clean office buildings in communities across the country. 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.'' That's why we say now is the time to raise the minimum wage. Our proposal will raise the minimum wage by 50 cents on January 1, 1999 and 50 cents more on January 1, 2000--bringing the minimum wage to $6.15 an hour at the turn of the century. Twelve million working families across the country deserve no less. Our Republican friends just cut capital gains taxes for the wealthiest Americans by more than $300 million over the next five years. Yet they oppose giving minimum wage workers an additional $1 an hour. ``Let them eat cake,'' they say. Plums for the rich and crumbs for everyone else is the wrong priority. We need to do more for hard-working families in communities across America, and we can do more. We can raise the minimum wage. And with the strong support of President Clinton and Democrats in the Senate and House, we will raise it. I intend to offer the minimum wage on the first available legislation after the July 4th recess. No one who works for a living should have to live in poverty.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 1999. The need for a strong and capable military was clearly demonstrated during the Iraqi crisis over the UN-mandated inspections. Our forward-deployed forces were quickly strengthened by additional personnel as the crisis deepened. The diplomacy of United Nations Secretary General Khofi Annan, backed up by the credible, on-scene forces of the United States Armed Forces, successfully kept the peace. This bill provides the proper support for our military forces while maintaining a realistic balance between readiness to take care of immediate needs, and the needed investment to develop and procure new systems for the future. The bill provides for those who serve in uniform today, and those who gave this country so much during their careers in military service. A fully funded and well-deserved 3.1% pay raise for military personnel is included in the bill. Additionally, the bill includes a provision for the Department of Defense to initiate a comprehensive test plan to evaluate the best way for us to provide health care to retired military personnel and their families who have reached the age of 65. The plan will build on the Medicare test program included in last year's Bipartisan Budget Agreement. The new expanded plan will include test sites for participation in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan, the Department of Defense's Tricare health care program, and a mail order pharmacy program to reduce out-of-pocket costs. The daily operations of our military forces have obvious risks and dangers. All branches of the Armed Forces have made progress in improving safety in the military, but more remains to be done. I commend the Department of Defense for its accelerated installation of needed additional safety systems on military aircraft that carry passengers. This bill also includes a worthwhile provision to evaluate the way the Pentagon investigates aviation accidents. We must ensure that no stone is left unturned in finding the cause of every accident and taking the necessary corrective action to reduce the risk of future accidents. The growing frequency and sophistication of attacks on the Pentagon's computer networks highlight the need for improved protection of critical network infrastructures. This bill includes research and development funding for the exploration and development of defenses against cyber attacks. This step will greatly improve the Pentagon's focus on this growing threat. In the past eight years, the Navy-Marine Corps team has responded to over 90 contingencies--almost one per month. As the Ranking Democrat on the Seapower Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, I am pleased that the bill provides the support necessary for our naval forces as they modernize to meet the challenges of tomorrow. The bill includes the necessary advance procurement funding for Fiscal Year 1999 for the Navy's next aircraft carrier, CVN-77. The Navy's procurement schedule for the next carrier, revised from its budget submission of last year, will be under the cost cap mandated in last year's defense bill. Also, much of the new technology being developed for the next generation aircraft carrier, the CVX, will be included in CVN-77. The budget request for the Navy's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the Marine Corps' MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft is fully funded. The Super Hornet combines the outstanding characteristics of earlier F/A-18 models with cutting edge technology in an affordable aircraft with significantly improved performance and endurance. The MV-22 Osprey is a vertical take-off and landing aircraft designed to replace the Marine Corps' aging fleet of CH-46 and CH-53 helicopters. In contrast to these aspects of this bill, I do have concerns about reductions in the Administration's budget request for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, demilitarization of chemical weapons, and the nuclear weapon stockpile stewardship program. I hope that these reductions will be corrected in the final bill. The Cooperative Threat Reduction program is the most cost-effective program for reducing the dangers of nuclear weapons. Thousands of nuclear warheads remain in the nations of the former Soviet Union. The Cooperative Threat Reduction program plays a key role in the control and dismantling of these weapons. We must continue this all-important program and ensure that every single nuclear warhead is secure, and eventually destroyed. Funding reductions in the chemical weapons de-militarization program will endanger our ability to comply with the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Conventions Treaty approved last year. As a world leader and the only superpower, we have an obligation to lead the worldwide effort to eliminate chemical weapons. I urge the restoration of these funds. All of us have grave concerns over the recent nuclear testing in India. Russia and the United States continue to work hard to reduce the world's stockpile of nuclear weapons. India and other nations must also be involved in the reduction and eventual elimination of all nuclear weapons. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is a major milestone on the road to a nuclear free world. A cornerstone of the implementation of this treaty is the Department of Energy's Stockpile Stewardship Program. We must be able to certify that our remaining stockpile of nuclear weapons is reliable, while reducing the number of nuclear weapons through START II and, hopefully, a START III treaty. The Stockpile Stewardship Program is the key component in verification of the reliability of our nuclear weapons. The program has experienced a fundamental shift in policy since the United States ceased live testing of nuclear weapons. The Department of Energy is developing new capabilities to complete this certification without live testing of nuclear weapons. The funding cuts in the budget request will hinder these efforts. I urge the restoration of these funds to the Stockpile Stewardship Program. In closing, I welcome the opportunity to commend the distinguished services of the members of the Committee, particularly the extraordinary services of the three members who will be leaving the Senate at the end of this Congress. Their efforts have added significantly to this year's Defense Authorization bill. The Airland Subcommittee has benefited from the efforts and insights of Senator Glenn and Senator Coats. Senator Kempthorne's able leadership of the Personnel Subcommittee has ensured that the needs of our service men and women are paramount in this legislation. It has been a privilege to work with these able members of the Committee over the years, and we will miss their leadership in the years ahead.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to support the amendment offered by Senator Murray. This provision would take the long overdue step of repealing the current ban on privately-funded abortions at U.S. military facilities abroad, so that women in the armed forces serving overseas can exercise their constitutionally-guaranteed right and have safe abortion services. This is an issue of fundamental fairness for the women who make significant sacrifices to serve the nation. They are assigned to military bases around the world to protect our freedoms, and they serve with great distinction. It's wrong to deny them the kind of medical care available to all women in the United States. They should be able to depend on their base hospitals for all their medical services. It is not fair for Congress to force women who serve overseas to face the choice of accepting medical care that may be of lower quality or else returning to the United States and for the care they need. Without good care, abortion can be a life-threatening or permanently disabling procedure. This danger is an unacceptable burden to impose on the nation's servicewomen. Congress has a responsibility to provide safe alternatives in these situations. Opponents of this amendment are exposing service women to substantial risks of infection, illness, infertility, and even death. The amendment does not ask that these procedures be paid for with federal funds. It simply asks that the appropriate care be made available. It is the only responsible thing to do. In addition to the health risks of the current policy, there is a significant financial penalty on servicewomen and their families who make the difficult conclusion to have an abortion. The cost of returning to the United States from far-off bases in other parts of the world to obtain adequate care can often involve significant financial hardship for young women. This is a cost that servicewomen based in the United States do not have to bear, since non-military hospital facilities are readily available. If military personnel cannot afford to return to the United States on their own for an abortion, they will often face significant delays waiting for military transportation. The health risks increase each week, and if the delays in military flights are long, a woman may well decide to rely on questionable medical facilities overseas. As a practical matter, women in uniform are being denied their constitutionally-protected right to choose. A woman's decision on abortion is a very difficult and extremely personal one. It is unfair to impose an even heavier burden on women who serve our country overseas. Every woman in America has a constitutionally-guaranteed right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. It is time for Congress to stop denying this right to military women serving abroad. It is time for Congress to stop treating service women as second-class citizens. I urge the Senate to support the Murray amendment and end this flagrant injustice under current law.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I was greatly saddened to learn of the death today of Paul O'Dwyer of New York City. To all of us who knew him and worked with him and loved him, he was a great friend, a great champion of democracy and civil rights, a great friend of working families, and a great friend of Ireland. He will be dearly missed. Paul was born in County Mayo in Ireland, and immigrated to the United States in 1924 at the age of seventeen. He put himself through law school at night, and formed his lifelong commitment to the political and social causes which were so important to him and for which we all admired him. He was a proud supporter of Ireland all his life. He was a hero to the people of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and to Irish Americans as well. At the same time, he recognized the importance of reaching out to the Protestant community in Northern Ireland to achieve peace and reconciliation in that troubled land, and he always insisted on meeting with Protestant leaders visiting this country. Paul was elected to a number of offices in his long and brilliant career, including President of the New York City Council. Once, when asked about his decision to come to America as an immigrant, Paul said ``I thought of going back, but something that grips you as an immigrant is the sense of freedom here.'' As few individuals have ever done, he worked hard and long and well to provide that freedom for all Americans. We will miss his leadership, and we will miss his friendship.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 15 seconds more. They might have some credibility if they stood up and said we deplore that the President's proposals have been rejected, but we also want to fight for this one and we will fight to restore those funds. But there has been absolute silence on that. Mr. President, I think this measure should be defeated. We don't have the votes to defeat it, but I certainly hope we try. Our goal should be to strengthen public schools, not abandon them. I yield whatever time we have to the Senator from Illinois.