Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in just a few moments we will be voting on the Coverdell conference report. The President of the United States has indicated that he will veto this measure, and he is entirely wise to do so and to call on us, the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States, to act on the sound recommendations that he has made to improve public schools. But these recommendations are not just ones from the President of the United States, but from educators across the country. They have said that these recommendations outlined by the Senator from California are absolutely essential if we are going to strengthen academic achievement and accomplishment for the young people of this country. Now, you cannot isolate what we are doing here on the floor of the U.S. Senate this morning from what our Republican friends did yesterday in the House of Representatives on education. You can't just separate these. We have the House and the Senate, combined; we are dealing with education policy and we are together addressing the issue of education in our society. Now, today we are discussing legislation will spend $1.6 billion over a 10-year period to help private schools. We have gone through repeatedly, and the Joint Tax Committee has pointed out, that 7 percent of the American families send their children to private schools, and 93 percent send their children to the public schools. The benefit of this program will go where? It will go primarily to the private schools. Now, let us look at what happened yesterday in the House Appropriations subcommittee on education matters. While we are being asked here to demonstrate our great interest in the cause of improving education for the nation's young people today, yesterday in the House of Representatives, Republicans zeroed out the summer jobs program for youth across this country--zeroed it out; $871 million, gone. Find me an educator in this country who does not believe that funding those summer jobs is light-years more important than the Coverdell program that is about a potential savings that will go primarily to private schools. Find me a single educator who says knock out the summer jobs program. But that is what our Republican friends did just yesterday, just yesterday, in the House of Representatives. They will deny 530,000 teenagers the opportunity to gain valuable work experience during the summer months. What else did they do? Did we not hear last night and this morning about the importance of helping American students learn math and science? What did Republicans do yesterday? They cut back significantly the Eisenhower Math and Science Program. What does that program do? It upgrades the skills of math and science teachers. Upgrading the skills of teachers in the public schools is one of the most important investments we can make to improve student learning. What did the Republicans do? Slashed the program, the tried and true Eisenhower program, named after an important President of this country. What else did they do? They cut the title I program by $400 million below the President's level. By not investing in Title I, the Republicans are denying help for those needy children who are having difficulty in school and are falling behind. It is an enormously successful program. While we are over here on the U.S. Senate floor, saying how we are going to have a breakthrough new program that is going to provide these brilliant new ideas in education, Republicans in the House are cutting back on the title I program that has been a mainstay for needy children in this country, which has had bipartisan support, and they didn't stop there, Mr. President. They cut $137 million from the President's request for educational technology programs to try to help the public schools that are crying out for computers and computer training. There are few high schools in this country that are up to speed and on the Information Super Highway. And by denying extra support for training teachers so they can use those computers and tie them into the curriculum, we are saying to the young people that preparing for the modern workplace is not important Mr. President, in these programs alone, Republicans slashed $1.8 billion yesterday of investment on tested, worthwhile programs. And Republicans today in the U.S. Senate are saying, ``We are doing the most revolutionary thing that we can for our public school students. We are going to provide $160 million a year in tax breaks for families.'' Which families? The Joint Tax Committee says it is families who are sending their kids to private schools. Mr. President, if the President is ever-wise and ever-conscious about the importance of vetoing a piece of legislation, this is it. I was here last night and I listened to Senators that rose in support of the Coverdell legislation and talked about the great study that was done under the Reagan administration in 1983 called, ``A Nation At Risk,'' In listening to our colleagues who are supporting this legislation talk about ``A Nation At Risk,'' I wondered what the Nation At Risk report recommended? The fact is that the Nation At Risk commission recommended raising standards for student performance, devoting more time to learning, improving the quality of teachers, holding educators and elected officials responsible for providing leadership necessary to implement these reforms, and strengthening graduation requirements. Under the leadership of President Clinton in 1994, we took those recommendations and made them central to the hallmark Goals 2000 legislation. Under Goals 2000, over 90 percent of the funds go to the local community to implement standards-based reforms. What happened yesterday in the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee? They gutted the Goals 2000 program that is helping local schools implement the recommendations of ``A Nation at Risk,'' that our colleagues have hailed as a call to action in education. What hypocrisy, Mr. President. Over here, we are talking about how we are going to save our public school children, and over in the House of Representatives, the Education Appropriations Committee is gutting the essential programs that make a difference for schoolchildren. Mr. President, we ought to see the Coverdell bill go to the President of the United States as rapidly as possible. He ought to veto it as fast as he can. He ought to go to the American people and say, if you are really interested and concerned about education, let us go ahead in a bipartisan way and strengthen public schools. Let's not just reject out of hand, as our Republican colleagues have done, every one of the recommendations of the President. One of the most important recommendations the President has championed came from the Senator from Illinois, Carol Moseley-Braun, who understands the importance of having school facilities and buildings that are going to be worthy of teaching our children in. Senator Moseley-Braun is here on the floor at the present time. She can speak to this issue. When we send our children to dilapidated schools, we are sending them a very important message: Education doesn't really count. We're saying that we don't really care if young people go to dilapidated schools because we grownups are not prepared to put the resources toward modernizing school facilities. So, Mr. President, this is an absolute sham. The Coverdell bill is an absolute sham. People cannot in this body, given what has happened in the House of Representatives yesterday, stand up and say that this bill will really help solve our education problems and strengthen our public schools.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. I believe with the leader's time and the time available I have 10 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am happy to have the Senator speak.

Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to yield; if I could have 8 minutes, I yield the other 2 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. I will take 8 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to ask my colleague from Wyoming to help me clarify the intent of H.R. 2877 as it relates to evaluating the performance of employees. Several States with OSHA- approved State plans have expressed concern that the language regarding ``the results of enforcement activities'' could prevent them from considering the quality of an enforcement officer's reports or recommendations; the percentage of cases which are upheld or overturned in legal proceedings; the timeliness of case completion; the comprehensiveness of evaluations; and other legitimate means of evaluating employee performance. Contrary to this very broad interpretation, it is important to point out that the authors of the bill read much more narrowly the language prohibiting OSHA from evaluating employees based on ``the results of enforcement activities, such as the number of citations issued or penalties assessed.'' When H.R. 2877 was originally introduced, it prohibited the Secretary of labor from establishing ``any performance measures for any subordinate'' within OSHA ``with respect to the number of inspections conducted, citations issued, or penalties assessed.'' After the administration expressed concerns that the language could adversely impact the ability of OSHA supervisors to assign inspection work and ensure employee productivity and accountability, new language was negotiated. The intent of that language, which is contained in the version of H.R. 2877 that we are about to pass, was intended to prevent OSHA from establishing any quota or goal requiring OSHA inspectors to assess a specific number or amount of penalties. Clearly, Congress would not want to prevent OSHA from ensuring that the penalties actually assessed by its inspectors are legally valid, based on true and accurate information, and issued in a timely, professional manner. Does the Senator agree with me that the ``results'' referred to in the legislation refer to whether an OSHA inspector is evaluated on a specific quota or goal regarding the number of citations issued or penalties assessed, rather than the other means I have outlined?

Mr. KENNEDY. I would like to present my colleague with three examples to illustrate the intent of H.R. 2877. First, assume an OSHA inspector uses falsified inspection results to justify and recommend the issuance of citations and penalties against one or more employers. Does the language in H.R. 2877 allow OSHA to negatively evaluate the inspector and proceed to dismiss him or her?

Mr. KENNEDY. What about an inspector who, in the course of a year, conducts one tenth of the inspections conducted by the average inspector? The inspector finds no violations in any of the inspections he or she conducts, leading the inspector's supervisor to suspect that the inspector may be failing to identify serious hazards in at least some of those workplaces. Does H.R. 2877 allow OSHA to examine these circumstances to ascertain whether the employee is adequately performing his or her duties?

Mr. KENNEDY. If an inspector's citations and penalties are consistently being overturned in legal proceedings, would H.R. 2877 inhibit OSHA's ability to use that experience to evaluate how well that employee is doing his or her job?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. I think the Senator has used the 2 minutes, but I appreciate it. I will return the favor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, one of the most important issues involving training in the military is the issue of gender integrated training. Women have been serving with distinction in our military forces for decades, but their opportunities have grown immensely in the past decade. Unfortunately, the recent sexual harassment scandals in the military have been used by some to oppose the integrated training of men and women in the military and to urge a return to separate training. This approach would be a serious mistake. In light of the expanded roles for women in the military it makes sense to continue to integrate all aspects of training except for direct combat training. The Services often cite ``train as you fight'' as one of their guidelines in preparation for war. Each service trains as it will fight. 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. 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. Opponents also argue for separate barracks for men and women during training. But, as anyone who has served in the military knows, military training does not end on the drill field or in the classroom. A great deal of unit cohesion is built during time spent in the barracks studying or preparing for the next day's training. Separate barracks would further complicate the commanders' task and make it more difficult to exercise the leadership that guarantees the readiness of the military unit. The barracks now used in basic training by the services all have independent sleeping areas and restrooms for men and women. Each of these areas has separate entrances. There are alarms on doors and walls around living areas, which are locked at night. Moreover, there is around-the-clock supervision by the chain of command. There is no doubt that we have safe and secure barracks. Wasting over $150 million in new construction for separate barracks that are not needed and are no more secure makes no sense. The critics of gender integrated training cite recent cases of sexual harassment as a demonstration of the need to segregate men and women during basic training. But almost none of the instances of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct were committed by recruits on recruits, but by drill instructors on recruits. That kind of sexual harassment indicates poor leadership, 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. 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.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I share the growing concern over the continuing high levels of tactical nuclear weapons in the arsenals of both Russia and the United States. We have made substantial progress in reducing the levels of strategic nuclear weapons which threaten world peace and security. This progress has been made through the cooperation and efforts of both our countries and I commend the Reagan, Bush and Clinton Administrations for their efforts. We have reduced the number of strategic missiles on each side. We have inventoried and controlled dangerous nuclear materials to prevent their theft. We have improved the safety and security of strategic nuclear weapons world-wide. But, during this time, we have left another dangerous threat untouched--the tactical nuclear weapons built and deployed for battlefield use. These dangerous weapons have received far too little attention in our arms control efforts. Although they are smaller than strategic nuclear weapons, tactical nuclear weapons are still a massive threat. In the wrong hands, in a terrorist or military attack, these weapons are almost as dangerous as strategic weapons. The potential armed conflicts facing the world today would be far more threatening if tactical nuclear weapons become an option for any side. The effect on stability and our own security could well be catastrophic. We must take every reasonable measure to ensure that such weapons are never used--not in any armed conflict, not in a terrorist attack, never. The goal of the Conrad amendment is to reduce, and eventually eliminate, the world's stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons. We must inventory the number and types of these weapons currently held in stockpiles, assess them, and work together to eliminate them. It is not too much to ask that we pursue two tracks in the effort to deal with the nuclear threat left by the legacy of the Cold War. Reducing and eliminating both strategic and tactical nuclear weapons is the right course for the United States and Russia, and the only one that will ensure our future security.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to congratulate the Senator from Georgia in bringing the legislation to where it is at the present time out of the conference. I admire his persistence, but I believe he is fundamentally wrong in his approach to education. I want to just mention very briefly, when I arrived over here, the good Senator was talking about the Nation At Risk report. I was in the Senate when the Nation At Risk study was done. We had very extensive hearings on it. The Nation At Risk was primarily a report done by a superb group of education leaders. While I was listening to my friend from Georgia, I was harkening back to the various recommendations of those who had done that extensive study to which the Senator referred. The fact of the matter is, the Nation at Risk report authored by a bipartisan commission, made recommendations that mirror the recommendations that were made by the President of the United States this year. With all respect to the Senator from Georgia, there is no reference in there about the tax breaks and voucher programs that he has described. What was recommended in the report is the hard work that has been recommended by, not only the Nation At Risk panel, but most of the educators since that time. What we need is more and better teachers. This is very important, particularly given the fact we are going to need some 2 million more teachers over the period of the next 10 years. The Nation At Risk commission thought that upgrading the skills of teachers is one of the most important things we can do. They also said that raising standards for children so they will be challenged to meet their highest educational ability, instead of dumbing down the curriculum to the lowest expectations. The Nation At Risk report recommended that we devote more time for learning. That means afterschool programs and extended day programs. And we know that spending more time on learning works. In my own State of Massachusetts, the Timility Middle School in Roxbury, MA, was long known for its low test scores and high suspension rates for students. Under Project Promise, the school extended learning time by 90 minutes 4 days a week and opened for 3 hours on Saturday. The result is more students receive the help they need, parents are more involved, student attendance is up, student absence is down, reading and math scores have improved--by investing in public schools, not abandoning them. In addition, there is general recognition that you cannot teach children in antiquated schools or schools that are falling apart--yet so many of the nation's schools are. In fact, the GAO found that over $100 billion is needed for help and assistance to rebuild and modernize our schools in our cities, suburbs, and rural communities. But the Coverdell bill will spend $1.6 billion over 10 years. Is that going to solve all of the problems that have been outlined by my friend from Georgia? That is quite a stretch, particularly because it doesn't help the public schools. The Coverdell bill is not trying to give support for these kinds of initiatives that are facing communities across this country, with many of these children who are sons and daughters of working families who do not have the ability and resources to be able to put aside the money that would be necessary in this program. In Waltham, MA, 215 math teachers are learning innovative techniques in teacher training programs. They are working with bankers, engineers, high-tech experts, and college math professors to learn more about math, how to teach it well, and how to link it to the real-world experience of the students. The early indications are that when these teachers go back to their schools, they are seeing improved academic achievement from the students. But under the Coverdell bill, we won't get any kind of help and assistance for these kinds of innovative programs that are taking place. This legislation does nothing to support innovative programs like these. It does nothing to strengthen public schools. Instead, it uses a regressive tax policy to subsidize vouchers for private schools and gives no significant financial help to working families and no help to children in the Nation's classrooms. What it does is provide an unjustified tax giveaway to the wealthy and to private schools. Public education is one of the great success stories of American democracy. It makes no sense for Congress to undermine it. Yet this bill turns its back on the Nation's longstanding support for public schools and earmarks tax dollars for private schools. It is an unwarranted step in the wrong direction for education, for public schools, and for the Nation's children. It would spend the $1.6 billion over the next 10 years on subsidies to help the wealthy pay the private school expenses they already pay and do nothing to help the children in the public schools get a better education. It is important to continue the national investment in children and their future. We should invest more in improving public schools by repairing crumbling facilities, by recruiting more and training better teachers, by reducing class size, by developing responsible afterschool activities, and by taking many other steps. If we add $1.6 billion to spend on elementary and secondary education, we should spend it wisely on these problems, not waste it on bad education policy and bad tax policy. We should rebuild our public schools, not build new tax shelters for the wealthy. According to the Joint Tax Committee, over half of the benefits--$800 million--will go to 7 percent of the families with children in private schools. Did you note when my friend from Georgia was here he said: 70 percent of the families that can use this tax break will be making under $70,000. But let's find out where the money is going, Senator. We are not just talking about who may be able to use the program. Let's look at what the Joint Tax Committee says. Let's read the next line. Let's ask where the money is going, not who ``may benefit.'' I heard that out here four or five times in the last hour, look who is going to benefit, all of these families below $70,000--``may benefit.'' May benefit. The fact is, the Joint Tax Committee has indicated that $800 million, half of all the money, will go to the 7 percent of families whose children are already in private schools. If you are going to fight for a particular program, at least have the intellectual honesty to state what it is going to do and try to defend it. I can understand why those who support this program run from all the details, try to really say it's doing something that it does not do. With all respect, when I listen to those who have been supporting the program, I have to wonder how this program is going to solve the education problems for the young people? Proponents use the National at Risk as a starting point, but they, again, don't tell you the next line. The Nation at Risk gave recommendations on how to improve education, but they are not the ones included in the Coverdell bill. Here it is. The Joint Tax Committee: 93 percent of the children in the country go to the public schools; 7 percent go to private schools; and 48 percent of the monetary benefit that will come from here will go to the public schools; but 52 percent--more than half--will go to the 7 percent of the children who go to the private schools. You can say 70 percent of the families that are eligible for this tax break go to the public schools. But that's not where the money goes. And we all know that where the money goes is what counts around here. The money goes to families who already send their children to private school. We believe that we should not abandon the public schools. We ought to commit ourselves to helping and assisting the public schools and the children who attend them. The bottom line is clear. The scarce tax dollars should be targeted to public schools. They don't have the luxury of closing their doors to students who pose special challenges, such as children with disabilities, limited English-proficient children, or homeless students. This bill will not help children who need help the most. Parental choice is a mirage. Private schools apply different rules from public schools. Public schools must accept all children. Private schools can decide whether to accept a child or not. The real choice belongs to schools, not to the parents. It belongs to schools, not to the parents. Public schools must accept all children and develop programs to meet their needs. Private schools only accept children who fit the guidelines of their existing policy. So, if we are talking about public funds that are contributed from working families, we ought to be using those funds where the children of those working families go to school. And that means supporting the public schools. But the majority of the money goes to the seven percent of families sending their children to private schools. We have a series of recommendations that have been made by the top education community in this country. They are common-sense recommendations: Smaller classrooms, modernizing schools, upgrading teacher training, and expanding afterschool programs. These have all been outlined here, and they were all rejected on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Then we are asked to accept this bill to support private schools or nothing. We are asked to accept this or nothing. We even had a modest rehabilitation program by our friend and colleague, the Senator from Florida, Senator Graham, that was dropped in the conference, to try to increase assistance for school construction. Another program that the President talked about is the Educational Opportunity Zones to provide support to those school districts that are willing to invest in major restructuring, reorganization, and innovation in order to improve student academic achievement. The program provides some incentives for those exciting programs. You can say, what is an example where that program would work? Chicago is the example for that. Chicago is really doing a very important and effective job to try to give some help and assistance to its schools and to its parents and teachers who are trying to do the job of educating children, to do it right. We recognize that there are many communities that are trying to improve their schools, and we should support them. I am proud of what the city of Boston is doing, Mr. President. We saw just yesterday the Boston Globe was reporting on the most recent math and reading tests in that city and how, for the first time in many years, there was increased performance of students across the board in reading and math, and in some of the most difficult schools with high suspension rates, dropouts rates--the most troubled schools--how they have been able to see a significant improvement in academic achievement and accomplishment. That is happening in the public schools among some very needy children in a major city. Why? Because we have had a superintendent and a mayor who are committed to providing resources and discipline to enhance the education of the public schools--not abandon them. We have nothing against the private schools. There are many wonderful private schools. But we are talking about, in a budget with scarce resources, funds paid in by working families through their taxes. And, in the consideration of the budget, after the President's programs-- smaller class size, upgrading the skills for teachers, modernizing our schools, expanding afterschool programs--have been defeated, we are forced to consider this program that does what? Benefits the private schools--benefits the private schools. So, Mr. President, this proposal does not deserve to go into law. The President is right to veto this proposal. He is right to send it back to the Congress and say, ``Start over again. Start over again.'' We have time to do that. We have been fussing around here for 4 weeks debating the tobacco bill and then find that the point of order was made on it. It could have been made 4 weeks earlier in order to dismiss that as a result of big tobacco. We are not debating the education priorities of the American people. We are not debating the health care priorities of the American people, such as the Patients' Bill of Rights. People in this country want to see the reform of our health care system to eliminate the abuses of HMOs. Managed care too often means mismanaged care. The American people want these decisions made, that are affecting their health, by doctors and not insurance company accountants. We ought to be debating that. But we cannot debate that. It is nowhere on the Republican leader's schedule. And we ought to start over here, after the President's veto, and debate, what we can do as a legislative body, with scarce resources, that will make the best, most effective impact on improving the quality of education and achievement and accomplishment for the 90 percent of children in the public schools? Public money for public schools--that is the central challenge. And this particular measure fails on all accounts. So I hope, Mr. President, that we can get about the business in the remaining days of this Congress and support what we know is being done in rural, urban, and suburban communities, with scarce resources, by creative, dedicated people who are absolutely committed to their children in those communities, who are working tirelessly, exhaustively, to raise academic achievement and improve public schools. Do we have a ways to go? Yes. Will $1.6 billion solve the whole problem? No, and we should invest more--much more--in improving our public schools. But the question for us today is, Is this the best way to spend $1.6 billion of the American taxpayers' dollars to improve public schools? The answer is no. And for that reason, I believe that this measure should not win the support of the Members of this body. Mr. President, I know we are under a time fix. Whatever time remains on our side I yield to the good Senator from Minnesota. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I strongly support Susan Oki Mollway's nomination to the federal district court in Hawaii. Her nomination has now been pending before the Senate for two-and-a-half years. It is long past time to confirm this able nominee. Ms. Mollway's credentials are impressive. She is a Harvard Law School Graduate and a partner at a prestigious Hawaii law firm, where her practice has included complex civil litigation. In 1987, she was voted Outstanding Woman Lawyer by the Hawaii Women Lawyers. She successfully argued a case before the Supreme Court of the United States in 1994. Ms. Mollway has the support of every member of Hawaii's congressional delegation, and the federal judges in Hawaii hold her in the highest regard. She would be the first Asian-American woman to sit on the federal bench. Some of our colleagues opppose this nomination because Ms. Mollway served on the Board of Directors of the ACLU in Hawaii, at a time when the ACLU was active in the same-sex marriage debate in that state. In fact, much of the ACLU's involvement in that debate took place long before Ms. Mollway became a member of the Board of Directors. In addition, Ms. Mollway has emphatically stated that she never voted on the position the ACLU should take on this issue or on any other litigation or legislation. The opposition to her nomination is unjustified, and it is no basis for denying confirmation. Unfortunately, Ms. Mollway is just one of the many well-qualified women and minority nominees who have been arbitrarily delayed by the Senate and subjected to unfair ideological hazing. In fact, in this Republican Senate, women are four times more likely than men to be held up for more than a year. Forty-three percent of the nominees currently on the Senate calendar are women. In the last three months, the Senate Republican leadership has allowed only one woman to be confirmed to the federal bench, while confirming 15 men. And, 16 out of 21 --that's 76 percent--of the nominees carried over from last year's session are women or minorities. I urge my colleagues to support Ms. Mollway's nomination. It is time to end the logjam of qualified women and minority nominees. It is time to provide relief to the federal district court in Hawaii, whose caseload has doubled in the last five years. It is long past time to confirm Susan Oki Mollway. Her qualifications are outstanding and I am confident that she will serve with great distinction on that court. Frankly, the Senate should confirm her--and apologize to her as well.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I hope very much that in the coming days, we will be able to begin debate in the full Senate on another major issue of vital importance to the country--the reforms needed in our health care system to end the abuses by HMOs and health insurance companies. Critical decisions on health care should be made by doctors and their patients, not by insurance industry accountants. It is long past time for Congress to act to protect patients and end these abuses. We face a growing crisis of confidence in health care. A recent survey found that an astonishing 80 percent of Americans now believe that their quality of care is often compromised by their insurance plan to save money. And, too often, they are absolutely right. One reason for this concern is the explosive growth in managed care. In 1987, only 13 percent of privately insured Americans were enrolled in HMOs. Today 75 percent are in some form of managed care. This issue goes to the heart of health care and the fundamental doctor-patient relationship. At its best, managed care offers the opportunity to achieve greater efficiency and greater quality in health care. In too many cases, however, the priority has become greater profits, not greater health. HMOs and conventional insurance companies alike have abused the system by denying coverage for treatments that their customers need and that their premiums should have guaranteed. In California, a Kaiser Foundation study found that almost half of all patients reported a problem with their health plan. Substantial numbers reported that the plan's actions caused unnecessary pain and suffering, delayed recovery, or even resulted in permanent disabilities. Projected to the national level, these results indicate that 30 million Americans develop additional health problems because of their plan's abusive practices--and a shocking 11 million develop permanent disabilities. The dishonor roll of those victimized by insurance company abuse grows every day. A baby loses his hands and feet because his parents believe they have to take him to a distant emergency room rather than the one close to their home. A Senate aide suffers a devastating stoke, which might have been far milder if her HMO had not refused to send her to an emergency room. The HMO now even refuses to pay for her wheelchair. A woman is forced to undergo a mastectomy as an outpatient, against her doctor's recommendation. She is sent home in pain, with tubes still dangling from her body. A doctor is denied future referrals under a managed car plan, because he told a patient about an expensive treatment that could save her life. The parents of a child suffering from a rare cancer are told that life-saving surgery should be performed by an unqualified doctor who happens to be on the plan's list, rather than by a specialist at the nearby cancer center equipped to perform the operation. A San Diego paraplegic asks for referral to a rehabilitation specialist. Her HMO refuses, and she develops a severe pressure wound that a rehabilitation specialist would have routinely checked and treated. She is forced to undergo surgery, and is hospitalized for a year with round-the-clock nursing care. A child suffers a severe shoulder dislocation in a gym class. Frantic school officials make repeated calls to her HMO for authorization to call an ambulance. The accident has cut off the flow of blood to her arm. Fortunately, a mother who was also an emergency room physician was there and was able to give immediate treatment. Otherwise, the child might have lost her arm. The list of these abuses goes on and on. Many of us in Congress have offered legislation to end these abuses. Our proposal is a common sense program that guarantees the American people the 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 Leadership's position on these protections is to protect the insurance industry instead of protecting patients. They know that they can't do that in the light of day before the American people. So their strategy has been to work behind closed doors to kill the bill. Keep it bottled up in committee. No markup. No floor vote. Delay, deny, and obfuscate--and hope the clock runs out. And while the Republican Leadership keeps the bill bottled up, they call on the insurance companies and their right-wing allies to use their vast resources to manipulate public opinion. The National Journal reported in November that ``a coalition of business groups, corporations, and health care associations is planning a $1 million- plus public relations and grass roots blitz to derail new legislation calling for increased regulation of health plans.'' Just a few weeks ago, it was reported that the special interest opponents have now spent more than $3 million to defeat our common sense proposals. According to the Washington Post of November 5 last year, ``Three years after they killed President Clinton's massive health plan, Republican leaders in Congress have embarked on a crusade to block a new generation of federal efforts aimed at regulating the quality of medical care Americans receive.'' The article goes on to report that members of the antireform coalition were invited to what was billed as the first in a Series of Briefings for Republican Staff Members. ``Clinton Care Returns: The Trojan Horse Strategy.'' That is what the invitation said to the briefing, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and Senate Majority Whip Don Nickles--``Clinton Care Returns: The Trojan Horse Strategy.'' It is obvious that the Senate Republican leadership is no friend of health reform. According to a memo from one of the participants in the briefing, ``The message we are getting from House and Senate leadership is that we are in a war and we need to start fighting like we are in a war.'' It went on to say, ``Republican leadership is now engaged on this issue and is issuing strong directives to all players in the insurance and employer community to get activated.'' Their message: ``Get off your butts; get out your wallets.'' The special interests have responded. They are now pouring millions of dollars into a PR campaign to confuse and intimidate patients, and they are pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into Republican campaign committees. One of the directives the GOP leadership gave to their anti-reform coalition was to ``write the definitive piece of paper trashing all these bills''--trashing all these bills. It apparently did not matter to the Republican leadership what was actually in the bills--they were all to be trashed. 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 the coalition's 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 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 in committee.'' So there you have it. Keep patient protections bottled up. Order your special interest friends to ``get off their butts and get out their wallets.'' Deliver a massive campaign of misinformation and disinformation. Just say yes to the special interests--and just say no to the American people. We saw the results of that strategy in the Senate yesterday when the Republicans put the interests of the tobacco companies ahead of the interests of the American children. Next, it is good medical care for American families that will be sacrificed on the altar of special interest profits, if the Republican leadership has its way. But those leaders are feeling the heat. Yesterday, the Republican leader tried a new tactic to try to persuade the American people that he is not trying to block managed care reform. But the tactic was another transparent attempt to dodge full and fair debate on this important issue of health reform. The Republican leader proposed an agreement under which the Senate could potentially take up our legislation, which is called the Patients' Bill of Rights. But the proposal is clearly not defined to allow a fair debate or give American families the protections they need. Instead, it is designed to give Republican Senators yet one more excuse for not taking up this critical legislation. First, it puts off action for several more weeks, even though time is clearly running out in this session of Congress, even though the American people have already been waiting for more than a year for action, even though every day we delay, more abuses take place and more patients suffer needless pain and illness. Next, the agreement proposed by the Republican leader would let him bring up any health care bill at all--not a hint of what that could be. Yet he would limit Democrats to offering the text of S. 1891, as introduced, without revisions. The Republican leader is not even proposing that we bring up the complete Patients' Bill of Rights, which is S. 1890. Instead, he wants us to offer a companion bill that does not provide patients with the right to hold health plans accountable for medical decisions that result in injury or death. It does not provide protections for those who buy health insurance on their own, without assistance from an employer. It is not the real Patients' Bill of Rights. In addition, the proposed agreement asks for a vote ``on or in relation to'' the unnamed Republican bill and the Democratic substitute. Again, a Trojan horse. This does not guarantee a clear vote or final action. The Republican leadership could meet this requirement by simply having procedural votes--on cloture, a point of order, or motion to table. Under this proposal, the American people will never find out where the Senate stands on patient protections. Adding insult to injury, the proposal further states that even if we win a vote--even if we win a vote--he reserves the right to kill the bill by returning it to the Senate calendar after the vote. This is what his proposal says: . . . and following those votes, it be in order for the majority leader to return the legislation to the calendar. So even if we win the vote, this gives the authority to the majority leader to send it back to the calendar. Generally, if you win the vote around here on a piece of legislation, it goes to the House of Representatives, or if it has been in the House of Representatives, it goes to the President of the United States. That is the way you legislate--but not under the proposal of the Republican leadership, and not on the issue of the Patients' Bill of Rights, which he continues to refuse to schedule in this session of the Congress. This is bizarre, Mr. President. I know he announced it at a press conference, rather than sharing it with the Democratic leader and those who have been involved in the issue, which is generally the process and procedure. I don't know whether he thought that by issuing it at a press conference he would be able to flummox the American people into thinking he was really doing something, in order for the majority leader to return the legislation to the calendar. So after we debate for weeks, he is instructing the Democrats which bill to bring up, while he is keeping open his options. He is saying that any vote that is in relation to it, any vote at all, will answer the requirements of the proposal; and if we win the final vote, he can still put the legislation right back on the calendar. Mr. President, that is not even the end of it. Finally, the proposed agreement states that no other health care proposal--no bills, no amendments--can be considered this year on the issue. No health care proposal--none. This could even preclude further consideration of tobacco legislation. This is what it says, Mr. President: Finally, I ask unanimous consent that it not be in order to offer any legislation, motion, or amendment relative to health care prior to the initiation of this agreement, and following the execution of the agreement, it not be in order to offer any legislation, motion, or amendment relative to health care for the remainder of the 105th Congress. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this unanimous consent request be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. So you can't offer anything to do with the health care of the American people prior to this, or after this, or after the Republican leader puts this proposal back on the calendar to shelve it. In other words, the Republican leadership says to the Senate of the United States: You can't deal with anything affecting the health care of the American people for the rest of this Congress. Come on, Mr. President. Come on, Mr. President. This is just the day after the Republican leadership tried to sink the tobacco bill. Now they are out there trying to deny us the opportunity to debate one of the most important health care bills that is before the American people. Mr. President, it is just unbelievable to me to think that the majority leader's proposal was going to be considered in good faith by our Democratic leader, or by any Member--not just leadership--by any Member. We are all equals in this body. Those who are interested in health care ought to be concerned when a proposal is put forward to muzzle the U.S. Senate on health care. What does the Republican leadership fear? What do they fear about a full and open debate on the Patients' Bill of Rights? What do they fear in a debate about trying to give an opportunity for the Senate to express itself to permit our uninsured citizens between the ages of 55 and 64 to be able to buy into the Medicare system? What do they fear about having an open and full debate on that issue, if the individuals are going to pay full premiums? What do they have to fear about the possibility of requiring that companies of 50 or more employees have some requirement to provide health care for their employees? Can't we have a debate on that issue? Can't we have a rollcall on that issue? Some will agree. Some will differ. Let the American people make a judgment about how their representatives stand. No, no, not if the majority leader, on behalf of the Republicans, have their way. This proposal says ``not be in order to offer any legislation, motion, or amendment relative to health care prior to the initiation of the agreement,'' which is sometime just before the August recess, for the next several weeks, and for the rest of this session following completion of this proposed agreement. If we were to proceed with it, we would be absolutely curtailed from any kind of effort to try to address health care for the American people. This could even preclude further consideration of tobacco legislation, or proposals to extend health insurance to uninsured Americans between the ages of 55 and 64, or improvements in Medicare package for senior citizens, or appropriations for the National Institutes of Health and other health programs, or legislation on the privacy of medical records--the list goes on and on. Many of us believe that as we move on into the millennium, it is going to be the millennium of the life sciences with extraordinary scientific breakthroughs. And the Republican leader wants to silence us from having some opportunity to debate that priority? Mr. President, it prohibits consideration of any legislation dealing with the problems of the privacy of our medical records, and the dangers that exist in terms of the proliferation of medical records. There are enormously important issues relating to the privacy of medical records that Republicans and Democrats have tried to address. But we are foreclosed from any opportunity to consider that under this proposal. Mr. President, it often takes, as we all know, many votes to pass legislation important to American families. Rarely can we do so on the first attempt. These arbitrary, unfair restrictions serve only to strengthen the power of the special interests. We have heard where those special interests are. We understand what they are doing at the present time--raising millions of dollars, and going on with these distortions and misrepresentations. The networks were hardly quiet after the tobacco industry was able to disrupt the kind of successful conclusion of legislation here in the U.S. Senate that would protect our children. The airwaves are polluted again with distortions and millions of dollars in trying to do a similar job on the Patients' Bill of Rights. They are not going to succeed in either one, Mr. President. It is said that you can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time. This unanimous consent request isn't going to fool any of the people any of the time. The American people want patient protections. They deserve them and know parliamentary maneuvers. No public relations campaign is going to allow the Republican leadership to avoid responsibility if this Congress does not pass strong HMO reform legislation this year.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Domenici, Senator Kerry, and Senator Bingaman in introducing the ``The Program for Investment in Micro-Entrepreneurs'' Act--the PRIME Act. This legislation will encourage investment in micro-entrepreneurs by supporting the kinds of education and training needed to help build new small businesses. Today, the nation's entrepreneurial spirit is thriving, fueled by the extraordinary economic growth and prosperity we currently enjoy. But new entrepreneurs still face challenges that limit their ability to turn innovative ideas into successful businesses and create new jobs. They deserve assistance in learning the basics to take their ideas to the next level--starting their own firms. The ``PRIME'' Act is designed to help small entrepreneurs bridge the gap between worthwhile ideas and successful businesses. It will offer $105 million over the next five years to build business skills in key areas such as record-keeping, planning, management, marketing and computer technology. The Clinton Administration strongly supports these initiatives. The Treasury Department's Community Development Financial Institutions Fund has become a lead agency for micro-enterprise activities across the country, and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton is one of their strongest advocates. The PRIME Act will enhance all of these efforts. It will provide grants for micro-enterprise organizations across the country to assist disadvantaged and low-income entrepreneurs and provide them with essential training and education. It will encourage the development of new micro-enterprise organizations, and expand existing ones to reach more micro- entrepreneurs. It will sponsor research on the most innovative and successful ways of encouraging these new businesses and enabling them to succeed. Under the Act, grants will be available each year to organizations that work with entrepreneurs. Local groups will leverage these funds with private and local resources to increase the impact of the federal seed money. Massachusetts and New Mexico are leaders in this effort. The business community and local banks have made a significant investment in creating loan capital for micro-entrepreneurs to start their businesses. By investing in micro-entrepreneurs, we will be harnessing the spirit and ideas of large numbers of Americans and creating new opportunities for self-sufficiency. We will be encouraging new small businesses that will strengthen the local economy in communities across the country. And that result in turn will help to keep our national economy strong as well. I look forward to working closely with our colleagues in the Senate and the House to enact this important measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Domenici, Senator Kerry, and Senator Bingaman in introducing the ``The Program for Investment in Micro-Entrepreneurs'' Act--the PRIME Act. This legislation will encourage investment in micro-entrepreneurs by supporting the kinds of education and training needed to help build new small businesses. Today, the nation's entrepreneurial spirit is thriving, fueled by the extraordinary economic growth and prosperity we currently enjoy. But new entrepreneurs still face challenges that limit their ability to turn innovative ideas into successful businesses and create new jobs. They deserve assistance in learning the basics to take their ideas to the next level--starting their own firms. The ``PRIME'' Act is designed to help small entrepreneurs bridge the gap between worthwhile ideas and successful businesses. It will offer $105 million over the next five years to build business skills in key areas such as record-keeping, planning, management, marketing and computer technology. The Clinton Administration strongly supports these initiatives. The Treasury Department's Community Development Financial Institutions Fund has become a lead agency for micro-enterprise activities across the country, and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton is one of their strongest advocates. The PRIME Act will enhance all of these efforts. It will provide grants for micro-enterprise organizations across the country to assist disadvantaged and low-income entrepreneurs and provide them with essential training and education. It will encourage the development of new micro-enterprise organizations, and expand existing ones to reach more micro- entrepreneurs. It will sponsor research on the most innovative and successful ways of encouraging these new businesses and enabling them to succeed. Under the Act, grants will be available each year to organizations that work with entrepreneurs. Local groups will leverage these funds with private and local resources to increase the impact of the federal seed money. Massachusetts and New Mexico are leaders in this effort. The business community and local banks have made a significant investment in creating loan capital for micro-entrepreneurs to start their businesses. By investing in micro-entrepreneurs, we will be harnessing the spirit and ideas of large numbers of Americans and creating new opportunities for self-sufficiency. We will be encouraging new small businesses that will strengthen the local economy in communities across the country. And that result in turn will help to keep our national economy strong as well. I look forward to working closely with our colleagues in the Senate and the House to enact this important measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support the Jeffords/Roth Amendment to the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, which will substantially increase funding for renewable energy programs. The Jeffords/Roth amendment is critical to an industry that will be at the forefront of energy production in the next century. Renewable energy will bring major economic benefits and major environmental benefits to the nation. This amendment provides us with the opportunity to become leaders in this booming global market. At the same time, increased renewable energy technology will decrease our dependence on foreign oil and reduce the trade deficit. We will have greater protection from harmful oil price shocks. Funding for renewable energy now will clearly strengthen our competitiveness in the worldwide energy market for the 21st century. Equally important, the Jeffords/Roth amendment reaffirms the nation's commitment to the environment. Renewable energy enables us to reduce the emissions from other energy sources that are polluting our air and water. It helps to curb the largest current source of pollution in the United States--energy production and energy use. Bringing innovative research from the laboratory to the market will also ensure the protection of our limited natural resources for a sustainable future. Currently, millions of Americans already obtain electricity from renewable energy sources. These advances are just a hint of the possibilities of cleaner, safer energy production in the years ahead. This amendment allows the U.S. to maintain its leading role in global clean energy technology. I support this amendment, and I commend Senators Jeffords and Roth for their leadership in protecting our environment and our economy.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator withhold that for 2 minutes so I can make a comment?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have just seen an opportunity for the Senate to address the issue of public health for the children of this country once again, with the introduction of the legislation by Senator Daschle. This is going to be the first of many attempts to try to ensure that the Senate is going to take action to try to protect the young people of this country. That is what this issue is all about. What we have just seen as a result of the vote is that the Republican Party is stonewalling action here in the U.S. Senate and, evidently, still kowtowing to the power of big tobacco and their campaign contributions. We are not going to be silent on this issue, and we are going to continue to raise it. We believe that it is the most important public health issue, certainly for the children of this Nation, and it is an issue that is not going to go away. So maybe today there is one more opportunity, by a narrow margin, to defeat those forces and for a reasonable and responsible approach on this issue. This issue is not going to go away. Our Republican friends had better get used to addressing it because they are going to have the opportunity to do it many more times until we get responsible action here, where the Senate is responding to the people's needs, the families' needs, not the interest of big tobacco. This amendment by Senator Daschle would have given the Senate a second chance--an opportunity to reconsider its ill advised action of last night. A minority of Republicans used a transparent parliamentary ploy to frustrate the will of a majority of the Senate. The two votes last night proved that a bipartisan majority of the Senate supports tough antismoking legislation. It also proved that an obstructionist group of Republicans will stop at nothing to prevent fair consideration of the McCain bill. Those Republicans put the interest of the tobacco industry above the health of America's children. For the last four weeks, they have parroted the messages being broadcast in cigarette company advertisements. Last night, they gave their votes as well as their voices to Big Tobacco. This issue will not go away. It will haunt the Republicans until they allow the bipartisan majority which exists to pass strong antismoking legislation to do so. Just as the Democratic leader brought the issue back to the floor today, we will bring it back again and again. This willful band of Republican obstructionists may have killed a bill last night and blocked consideration of the Daschle amendment today, but they cannot kill an idea whose time has come. Make no mistake, the time has come to protect our children from the evil influence of the tobacco industry. The times has come to stop 3,000 children a day from beginning to smoke. The time has come to save those children from a lifetime of addiction and premature death caused by smoking-induced illness. The time has come to raise the price of cigarettes so they will not be easily affordable to children. The time has come to stop the tobacco industry's targeting of children with billions of dollars of seductive and misleading advertising. The time has come to protect millions of nonsmokers from the health hazards of secondhand smoke. The time has come to prevent the 400,000 deaths caused each year by tobacco use. No power on Earth--not even the Republican leadership of the Senate-- can stop an idea whose time has come. The time has come for the Senate to reject the perverse influence of Big Tobacco, and to do what is right for America's children. Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Children's Gun Violence Prevention Act, together with Senator Boxer, Senator Durbin, Senator Dodd and Senator Reed. The continuing epidemic of gun violence involving children demands action by Congress. The wave of school shootings in communities across the country is a wake-up call for the nation. We need to do more--and we can do more--to protect children from guns. Every day in the United States, 14 children are killed by a gun; 24 percent of children say they have access to a gun at home; 10 percent have recently carried a gun to school. We need to deal more effectively with all aspects of the culture of violence that is killing our children. The legislation we propose today is a concrete step to do more to keep children safe from gun violence. I know that some in Congress are reluctant to challenge the National Rifle Association, but there are common sense steps that we can take and should take to protect children from guns. Our bill says that gun owners must take responsibility for securing their guns so that children can't use them. It says that gun dealers must be more vigilant in not selling guns and ammunition to children. It says we must develop child-proof safety locks and other child safety features for guns. We do more today to regulate the safety of toy guns than real guns, and that's a national disgrace. The legislation we are introducing today is the least we can do to stop more schoolyard tragedies and to deal more responsibly with the festering crisis of gun violence involving children. In a press conference earlier today, we heard what gun violence has done to Susan Wilson of Jonesboro with the loss of her daughter Brittheny, and what it has done to the families in Oregon, and the thousands of other families who lose children to gun violence every year, and we know that action is needed. I want to commend Sarah Brady and Handgun Control for their leadership on this legislation, and for bringing us to this point today. Practical steps can clearly be taken to protect children more effectively from guns, and to promote greater responsibility by parents, gun manufacturers, and gun dealers alike. This legislation calls for such steps and it deserves to be enacted this year by this Congress. Mr. President, I ask that the full text and a description of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is not the end of this issue. It may very well be the beginning of the issue, because the Democratic Party and the American people are not going to let this effort die. It may very well be that the final vote on this issue is cast on election day. This is not a whodunit. We know who has done it. It is big tobacco and the Republican Party. They may mug this bill in the Senate of the United States today, but they cannot kill it because it will not die, and we won't let it die.