Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, Mr. President, this is the problem. Some companies distort and misrepresent what these amendments are. All The Senator has to do is read the amendment. In the recruitment area, our amendment says: Take such steps to include a good faith recruitment in the United States using procedures that meet industry-wide standards. Those are industry-wide standards. All we are trying to do is protect American workers. If there is a job out there and an American can do it, we are saying let him or her have the first crack at it. Let's not displace an American worker with a foreign worker and then find the corresponding pressure that is put upon them. As I mentioned before, over 90 percent of the workers who are coming in are making $75,000 or less. So it is difficult for me to listen to the Senator from Washington talk about the kind of esoteric job he was looking at in terms of what might be needed for Microsoft and relating it to the more than 90 percent of workers who earn less than $75,000 per year. These are the workers--75 percent earn less than $50,000 and 16 earn more than $75,000. It seems to me we ought to be able to develop the training programs for those workers. I would like to read through a few of the letters we have here that I mentioned earlier. One is from February of this year from Mr. Whittlinger in Torrance, CA. Chalk up a Republican's support for your stand on not allowing foreign high tech immigrants in until and unless more Americans are given a chance first. I am unemployed (downsized) and cannot get a job, yet I see companies bring in foreign programmers over hiring me who is already trained (although perhaps not to latest technology/ program languages). But I also see a reduced quality and wages (which I think is the primary goal of these companies.) This is from a technology information worker who expressed his views on this particular provision. Jay Roberts from the State of Maryland writes: Currently, I work in the information industry as a senior level individual. My observation is there is little if any shortage. This is a recruiter who says he is in the information industry. And he says: We are quite capable of hiring all the qualified help that we need at currently prevailing wages. Should there be any question on this point, prepare the most qualified software resume of which you can think and send it to Microsoft. There is a 95 percent chance that they will not even acknowledge it. There not being a true software professional shortage makes us face this for what it is--the H1B program is in effect an indentured servant program. H1B workers typically work at lower wages than Americans, and with less complaint. * * * * * The current technology revolution has the promise of restoring broad middle class prosperity, which has been severely eroded. . . . * * * * * If wages do increase to reflect temporary shortages, this soon corrects itself by more college graduates and career challenges. * * * * * Please demonstrate that you support the goals, prosperity, and future of your constituency by opposing increases in the H1B quotas. Furthermore, please begin efforts to force H1B employers to proactively demonstrate that they are hiring and training U.S. citizens prior to any H1B approval. This is to President Clinton on the same issue, from Mr. Burns, of Portland, OR. If companies are truly so desperate for engineers they should try raising salaries or expanding in areas of the US outside of Silicon Valley. And if the visa limit must truly be raised, then companies who hire H1B engineers should be willing to never layoff US citizen engineers, but I doubt they'll ever accept that. High-Tech companies are always in favor of a free market and want to limit government intervention. But, when it comes to employment, they demand special treatment rather than letting supply and demand dictate salaries. I guess he must be referring to what the GAO report showed, that there hadn't been any noticeable, significant increase in salaries in these areas. Generally, when you get a shortage of the professional personnel, salaries go up: Supply and demand. The GAO review of the Commerce Department's study indicates there is no increase, virtually, in these salaries. That is what we are seeing, and we are hearing from a lot of these American workers, who are trying to find employment. Here is a letter dated February of this year: Dear Mr. President, I am graduating with a degree of computer science this spring. I am in deep debt and hope to find work quickly so I may repay it. If you allow them to raise or eliminate the current 60,000 person quota on foreign computer workers it will be nothing less than a knife in my heart. * * * * * I hope you are on the side of indebted college students on this one. You know, the list goes on. Here is the letter from Martin Rojo, San Mateo. He said: . . . I am a professional software engineer who conducts hiring interviews. I can state that in my experience there is no shortage of qualified workers. While it is rare that someone exactly matches a job description in the esoteric world of software and hardware, the candidate's mental acumen is a more important indicator of success than any specific language or platform. The real purpose behind any attempt to lift visa restrictions is, in my opinion, to allow importation of cheap labor. Part of my past coworkers were hired on H-1B visas, and they were tied to an employer in the manner of an indentured servant, while perfectly qualified American citizens did not get the job. This might be fine in farm labor, but there are many Americans who would fill the open positions if allowed. We are basically saying OK, let's increase the numbers in a temporary way. But let us also develop training programs so Americans can fill those jobs in the future. And let's say no to displacing American workers with foreign temporary workers. And let's also say that there must be at least minimum efforts to recruit Americans, following whatever the industry standard is. All they have to do is attest, check the box, ``We have followed the industry standard and attest we have tried to hire an American.'' I find it difficult to understand, among our colleagues here--what is wrong with seeking American workers for these jobs? What is wrong with just asking employers to observe a requirement to recruit American workers? That is what these amendments do. They ensure that employers are at least going to make an effort to try to recruit Americans and make assurance they are not going to lay off Americans and to displace those Americans from a job that will then be filled by a foreigner. It seems to me, if we had those two measures and an effective training program, then we could respond to whatever the needs of the information technology industry are for the best and the brightest workers. But it comes down, Mr. President, to what we do for American workers who, despite doing a good job, in many instances, have been displaced. We find out that there is basic prejudice and discrimination against them. I think that is wrong. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just while my friend from the State of Washington is here, I would ask him if he would read through both the amendments which I intend to offer about protection against displacement of U.S. workers, because the Senator has misstated what my amendment does and then differed with it. The amendment is very clear. It says: For purposes of this section the term ``replacement'' means the employment of the nonimmigrant at the specific place of employment in the specific employment opportunity from which the United States worker with substantially equivalent qualifications and experience in the specific employment opportunity has been laid off. That is identical language to what is in the Abraham amendment. So it is difficult--when the Senator talks about Microsoft talking about laying off some employee, not being able to hire someone for 6 months is completely inaccurate. I intend to speak further, but if the Senator wanted to make some comment I would be glad to hear it. But I hope perhaps he might look at page 2 at the definitions of the amendment and I think he would find it is different from what the Senator has stated.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I note that this bill contains authorization for programs that will assist in educating and training American workers for these positions. It is essential that we include education and training provisions within this bill, but I believe it is important that we go further. In particular, I believe that employers who are using this program to fill short term needs should also contribute to programs that will educate and train American workers to fill these positions in the future. If we are going to increase the immigration quota, then I believe we have an obligation to assure American workers that they can get the training to compete for these goods jobs. So Mr. President, I would hope that as this bill moves forward, we can continue to work together to secure funding for these programs as an integral component of this legislation, and in ways that assure that we are not taking away resources from other training programs to meet this need.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, currently the Labor Department can investigate violations under the H-1B program only if a complaint has been filed by an aggrieved party. The complaint can be filed by a temporary foreign H-1B worker, and affected American workers. Few complaints are filed because workers are afraid of retaliation. And the H-1B workers are afraid if they complain, they could lose their jobs and then have to leave the country. American workers are afraid they will be blackballed in the industry if they complain. So this amendment offers them the whistle-blower protection, and it penalizes employers if they retaliate against a whistleblower. So whether the whistleblowers are H-1B workers or affected American workers, the employer cannot retaliate against them. In addition, under my amendment workers who filed a successful complaint against an employer can switch jobs if they wish and still remain in the United States for the duration of their visa. They just have to let the INS know their new address. Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have no objection to it and urge the support for it, as we do the same, as I understand, with regard to United Nations personnel. This would provide a sense of equity in both of those areas. It seems to make sense.

Mr. KENNEDY. Time on the amendment. How much time remains on the amendment?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might use on my other amendment called the layoff amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. I will just make some brief comments here and then I will yield. My amendment says that before employers can bring in foreign workers under the H-1B visa program, they must attest that they have tried to hire U.S. workers first. These are good well-paying jobs created by the high tech American economy. My amendment assures that U.S. workers will get first crack at these jobs. If employers cannot find U.S. workers who are ready, able, and willing to do the job, then--and only then--should foreign workers be available. Employers should be required to recruit in Boston, Detroit, and Los Angeles before they recruit in other countries. We hear a great deal about the impressive contributions of foreign workers to our economy. We should welcome outstanding workers who are exceptional in their fields and have impressive track records of accomplishment. In fact, my amendment rolls out the red carpet for such workers. It exempts universities and non-profit research institutions from this requirement. The researchers they bring in from abroad under this program help to train college students for the future. There is no significant evidence of abuses in their recruitment. But 80 percent of the applications received under the visa program are for jobs paying $50,000 or less. Half the applications are for computer programmers, most of them at lower levels. A quarter of the applications are for health care workers, particularly physical therapists. Other applications are for teachers, accountants, dietitians, piano tuners, drafters, realtors, construction workers, and many others. Many of these workers are in the early stages of their careers. As the Republican views in the Committee report on this bill correctly note, ``many H-1Bs are foreign students recruited off U.S. college campuses.'' U.S. workers should have first priority for these jobs. In fact, American college students are specializing in computer studies in growing numbers. According to the Computer Research Association, the number of college students majoring in computer science increased by 91 percent from 1995 to 1997. My amendment will assure that when they graduate, they will not have to worry that they must compete with foreign workers for U.S. jobs. Some argue that this amendment creates unnecessary additional paperwork. In fact, the amendment requires only that employers attest-- on a simple, one-page H-1B application form--that they have tried to recruit U.S. workers for the job and failed. They are required only to use recruitment procedures that are common for the industry. If the standard practice among computer companies is to post the job on the internet for five days, that's all they have to do to satisfy this requirement. The Labor Department does not investigate the application in advance of the foreign worker coming here. In fact, the Labor Department is required to act on the application within seven days. So all the employer would do, under my amendment, is complete the one-page form. Nothing more. Most high tech companies should have no problem meeting this simple requirement. They say they recruit in the U.S. constantly and still have hundreds of openings. All they have to do is check the box on the form, and send it in. The problem is that many American workers have applied for high tech jobs, only to be turned away. Peter Van Horn is a 31-year-old from Mountain View, California. He has a master's degree in computer science. He is an expert in computer graphics. But he can't get a job in his field. Bard-Alan Finlan is a computer engineer in his 40s. He knows the latest computer languages. He's received one interview in a year and a half, and still no job. Kurt Granzen is an electronics worker. He was laid off from a Silicon Valley firm after it started hiring H-1B workers. He has been unable to find a job in his field for the past four years, after hundreds of interviews. These well-trained U.S. workers deserve to know that we will not allow employers to bring in foreign workers before they have a fair opportunity to fill these jobs. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. I see other colleagues who desire to speak so I will withhold at this time, Mr. President.

Mr. KENNEDY. I will just reserve the other time for general debate, if I could. And then I could stop and put that in. But I think this is OK with the chairman, or if the Senator wants to make some comments.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield such time as I might use. Mr. President, as of May 7 the immigration quota for skilled temporary foreign workers was full. The 65,000 visas available each year under the H-1B visa category have been claimed. For the remainder of the fiscal year--almost 5 months--no more visas are available. The quota filled rapidly this year because U.S. high-tech computer companies are bringing in foreign programmers in record numbers. America's high-tech industry is undergoing extraordinary growth, and the demand is high for more workers, so they have turned to the immigration laws to bring them in from abroad. A temporary increase in the immigration quota is justified. We all want to ensure that our high-tech industries get the workers they need to remain healthy and competitive. I have always felt that with regard to our immigration laws we ought to, first of all, recognize the importance of families and family reunification; and then, secondly, if they are going to bring in those who have special skills, which is going to expand the American economy, a case could be made for those individuals. They could make that-- particularly in the years of 1980 and as we came into 1990, we are facing the unemployment that we are facing, we did recognize the importance of these special skills that will result in expanding the American economy and expanded employment. That does make sense. The demand for more foreign workers is an embarrassing indictment of our failure to provide adequate training for American workers. These are good high-tech jobs in the modern economy. Over the next decade, it is estimated that high-tech computer companies will need 1.3 million additional employees, and American workers deserve help in obtaining the skills to compete for them. It is not enough just to raise the immigration quota. Any bill that passes this Congress should, I believe, have two additional things. First, it must assure American workers that they will get the training opportunities they need to compete for these good jobs. It makes no sense to throw in the towel by increasing the immigration quota, even temporarily, without also investing substantially in the training of U.S. workers. We must not give away these good jobs forever. We must invest in our workers, and that means putting real money on the table for training American workers. The bill that came out of our committee, I believe, failed. It was a good-faith effort to try to do so, but I believe it failed in making that kind of commitment. We have been working with the chairman of the committee to address that particular issue. There is no reason in the world why we should not provide these kinds of skills for American workers. That is really what this debate here this afternoon is all about. We recognize that we may very well have a need to increase this category in order to bring in some of those that have particular skills that might be important in terms of our American industry, and we can have a chance to go over the record on that particular issue. I think, quite frankly, it is a mixed issue. Nonetheless, given the evaluation of the information that is out there, I think we should take a temporary step. But beyond that, there is no reason why we should not develop the kinds of training programs and the kinds of initiatives to make sure, to the extent possible, that we are going to provide the skills to American workers so they can have the jobs, and not just have a more open-ended immigration policy in these categories for foreign- trained workers. That really is an important part of this debate. A second very important part of this debate is how we are going to treat the American workers. We find that at least we will have a chance, probably, to go into this in some detail, and that there is at least a record out there that a number of these individuals come into this country, and they know that if they have their job terminated, they are effectively deported; they can't retain their green card. There is some evidence that these individuals have displaced American workers who were holding those jobs. Then, subsequently, there has been an adverse impact on the wages of those workers who are virtually handcuffed, so-to-speak, and trying to complain about it, because if they complain, they are shipped back overseas. We want to make sure that, one, as a great Nation that has the capacity to train our workers, we are going to provide skills for those workers. For every worker that goes into the job market today, they are going to have seven different jobs. Under the excellence bill, which was passed just over a week ago by the leadership of Senators DeWine, Jeffords, and Wellstone, we have tried to bring our training programs up to the demands of the turn of the century, so that Americans are going to have a continuing possibility for upgrading their skills. They are going to need that. We as a nation should make sure that those kinds of opportunities for self-improvement are going to be available to working families in this country. That is very, very important, I believe. The Senate went on record a week ago with a very strong bipartisan vote to do just that. We don't want to carve out an area. We don't want to say we will train Americans for some jobs but we are not going to train them for the computer jobs in this Nation. That makes no sense. That virtually turns our back on what we committed to American working families just a week ago. We shouldn't carve this area out and say, ``We are not going to provide that.'' That is why we have been working with our friend and colleague, the Senator from Michigan, to try to address that. I think we have seen some important movement on this issue. I certainly appreciate his understanding of that importance. We are trying to work out an approach on that. That is going to meet some of the concerns that he and others have. But a second important point is that we don't want to say to American workers who are working in the computer industry now, to have their boss come up to them and say, ``You are fired because we have someone else who will replace you at the same wage.'' That is legal in America today. Any of these large companies can bring in the temporary workers having met some rather fundamental kinds of requirements and just displace Americans. I think that is wrong. I think that is absolutely and fundamentally wrong. We will have an amendment to try to address that issue. Second, we want to make sure that there is going to be at least an effort, some effort. All we are talking about in this case is an attestation; we are saying to the employer that you attest that you have made an effort to try to hire an American worker. What we are saying is we are not setting up any type of rule or regulation. We are saying whatever the industry requires, whatever the pattern is in the particular industry. So if a particular industry is just publishing something on the Internet, e-mail, whatever, that is sufficient in terms of meeting that requirement. Whatever the industry does, we say that is fine. All the company has to do is just say OK, we have done that. That is all. That is the total amount of paperwork. But what we are trying to do is say that we are going to give some priority to American workers. The company is just going to have to follow whatever the industry does in recruiting, is going to have to do so with regard to these workers. I think that is very important. We don't want to displace American workers, and we want to make sure than an American worker who has those kinds of skills is going to be able to get that job. Those aren't, I don't think, very radical kinds of concepts if we are talking about what we are interested in--looking after American workers' families. What are these jobs? When you come down to it, we will probably come back to revisit this issue a little later in the debate. But, according to Department of Labor figures, from 1997 on the H-1B jobs, on the certification of what these jobs are, and what they pay, this chart is an indication of what the pay is for these particular jobs. If you look at this particular chart, Mr. President, you will see that 76 percent of these jobs are from $25,000 to $50,000 a year. These are good jobs. It is difficult for me to believe that we cannot develop training and education programs so that American workers can get those particular jobs. Those are good jobs for working families. We are not prepared to say that we are going to turn our back on Americans for these kinds of jobs. Another 16 percent go from $50,000 to $75,000. Those are good jobs, too. What you are talking about here is that more than 5 percent of those are below $75,000. Then you have these in the smaller group, approximately 5 percent, that are in excess of that $75,000. Those are represented by those, I think, that we call the ``Best and the Brightest'' in this category. We said they don't have to go and have an attestation or requirement in terms of seeking alternatives for those individuals who are going to universities or doing research. They don't have to go through even these very preliminary steps. What we are trying to do is to say for the basic jobs that are in these categories that fall roughly in $75,000 or less that they should not displace American workers and that American workers ought to get the first crack at it. That is basically what the amendment I will be offering later this afternoon calls for, and what we, I believe, should bring to our attention. Mr. President, it matters to U.S. high-tech companies that want more visas. But it also matters to workers who are laid off by unscrupulous employers and replaced by foreign workers. It matters to middle-aged computer programmers who work hard to keep up their skills but are laid off in favor of younger workers who will work longer hours at cheaper pay. And it matters to working families who would love to get one of these jobs and make $30,000, $40,000, or $50,000 a year. Many of the workers who come in under the H-1B visa program are obviously talented. We should put out the welcome mat for accomplished people who have unique skills to improve our economy and create jobs, but accomplished workers represent only a fraction of the foreign workers who come to the United States under the H-1B program. I have indicated that more than 75,000 would be about 5 percent. We might even stretch it to up to 20 percent. Most of those who are coming into this program are lower-level computer programmers. Many are physical therapists, occupational therapists, nurses, and 80 percent are paid less than $50,000, as I referred to. These are good jobs, and the working families of America should get the first crack at them. The bill before us does little or nothing to enhance the accountability and enforcement of the H-1B visa program. Some say the current program is satisfactory. They cite the low number of violators found by the Labor Department as evidence that the terms of the program are widely observed. But the reason so few violations are discovered is that the Labor Department's hands are tied. The Department cannot intervene unless a complaint is filed. And few workers dare complain. As I mentioned before, if they complain, they are shipped overseas and they are gone. No matter how poorly they are being trained and how overworked they are being worked, if they complain about that part and get fired, they lose their green card, and it is back to their country of origin. That has to be, and it is, an important factor. The fact that we have not had the complaints is because to do so would jeopardize their immigration status. So they either accept the abuses or change employers. But they don't complain. We know there are serious problems. This is the issue. Two years ago, the Labor Department's inspector general completed the largest study of the program. That is the basic program, the fundamental, the temporary worker program, which is the issue that we are talking about here today. They reviewed some 720 cases in 12 States. The results were appalling. In 75 percent of the cases, the inspector general could not even tell from the employer's records whether the employer paid the H- 1B foreign worker the proper wage. If those are good documents on what they paid, 19 percent of the employers paid less than the wage that they had promised on their applications. Any bill that the Congress sends to the President must remedy this problem. The Labor Department should have the same authority to enforce the rules under this program as they have to enforce workplace standards and the minimum wage, and they should have the same authority that the Immigration and Naturalization Service has to ensure that employers do not hire illegal immigrant workers. That means giving the Labor Department authority to enforce the rule where there is reasonable cause to believe that they have been broken. We permit the enforcement. If we do not have enforcement, we have abuses. Your rights are diminished if you do not have the ability to have a remedy. That is just basic fact. We don't have to spend the time on the floor to really debate that issue. Unless we are going to have that kind of protection, you are going to have the kind of abuses that have taken place and continue to take place. Stephen Schultz is an engineer who was laid off from his job in Modesto, CA. He was then asked to come back to his company on a temporary basis in order to train his foreign replacement. There was nothing Mr. Schultz could do about it. He was laid off and replaced by a foreign worker. To add insult to injury, he was asked to train his foreign replacement. Can you imagine that, Mr. President. Here is the person who is laid off. The company hires someone from overseas, brings them over here, puts them in that job and then hires the worker that had been working there, I believe in this case 5 to 7 years he had been working there, to train that worker to fill that person's job. That was happening. That was happening. Now, that is absolutely and fundamentally wrong, and we do not want to permit, as we are seeing in the expansion of this program, those kinds of practices. I commend Senator Abraham for recognizing the problem, but unfortunately the antilayoff provisions in the bill, I believe, are inadequate. They apply only in a very limited circumstance. The employers who lay off U.S. workers and replace them with foreign workers can be penalized under this bill only if they break the law first. Only if they break the law first. Under this bill, you can lay off American workers and replace them with foreign workers as long as you don't underpay them or use them as strikebreakers or commit some other violation first. We should require employers to state that they have been unable to find qualified workers in this country before they apply for workers from abroad. Now, a high-tech facility in New Mexico announced a hiring freeze and refused to accept job applications, but at the same time they brought in 53 foreign workers under the H-1B visa program. Alan Ezer, a 45- year-old computer programmer with 10 years of experience in the field, has kept his skills up to date. He was willing to take a cut in pay to stay in the industry. After he was laid off, he sent out 150 resumes. He got one job interview and no job offers. Rose Marie Roo is an experienced computer programmer. When no one would hire her to do computer work, she and her husband opened a bed and breakfast in Florida. Peter Van Horn, age 31, with a masters degree in computer science, lives in California. Employers won't hire him either. The list goes on and on. Many of the Nation's high-tech firms are blatantly turning away qualified U.S. workers while appealing to Congress for more foreign workers. Not all but some. And those are the ones that need the attention. It is that kind of injustice these amendments which I will be introducing focus on. So this, too, must change. Employers should be required to state that they have made an effort to recruit in this country first. Some argue that if we impose these new requirements, the program will bog down in redtape. They say employers will have to wait too long to get their workers from abroad. Our solution, as I mentioned, is very simple. Employers must simply state on one sheet of paper they have laid someone off and that they have been unable to locate workers in this country. That is all. If you are concerned about redtape, then look at what the bill does. It transfers the program to the most overwhelmed and most backlogged agency in the Federal Government, the Immigration and Naturalization Service. It takes a year for American citizens to bring spouses or children here. That is supposedly our highest immigration priority, uniting citizens with their families, but it takes years just to process the paperwork to bring these families together. After individuals actually qualify for citizenship, it takes 2 years or even longer for them to have the forms completed. So we have an opportunity today to pass legislation that responds to the needs of the high-growth high-tech industry and our workers. We should increase the quota temporarily. We must provide our workers with the training they need to assure them that our immigration programs do not unfairly disadvantage them as they compete for the new jobs. Now, Mr. President, I will make some comments with regard to both of these amendments and then we can have some discussion. I will offer them with the understanding of the chairman so that we can move this process. Before going further, Mr. President, on the recruitment amendment, I know that Senator Abraham has announced the endorsement of this bill by certain groups. I have here in my hand 150 letters from American workers who are opposed to the bill. They are computer programmers and computer engineers who want a shot at these jobs. These are American workers. We believe they ought to be listened to. I might just selectively insert some of these letters, not to unduly burden the Congressional Record, but we have more than 150 and scores more back at the office. I will introduce a select group to be able to reflect the concern that these American workers have about this particular bill. It is interesting, Mr. President, when we were looking at what the needs were and we heard a good deal of testimony from different groups that one of the things that was pointed out by the General Accounting Office was the salaries in these particular areas have not increased effectively over time. At least some of the economists in the General Accounting Office found that sort of interesting because, generally speaking, when there is a greater demand for these kinds of skills, the salaries all go up. If you want to recruit people, with supply and demand, the salaries are going to increase, but they did not find that increase in the salaries. They sort of stayed standard in terms of other skilled occupations. That is where they had drawn some concerns about the legislation. Now, Mr. President, I would I ask unanimous consent that the time I now use be allocated to the recruitment amendment, if there is no objection.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know we have the time allocation. Could the Chair tell me how much remains on our side?

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I oppose this legislation and I urge the Senate not to invoke cloture. Star Wars was a bad idea in the 1980s, and it is a bad idea today. Developing and deploying a national missile defense system has an enormous cost--billions of dollars a year to develop the system, and billions more to deploy it. In addition, it ignores more likely threats to our security, especially the danger of terrorist attacks on our territory and our citizens. Intelligence estimates suggest that there will not be a new, intercontinental ballistic missile threat from any rogue nation until at least 2010. At a time when we are trying to balance the budget and meet the essential readiness and modernization needs of our armed forces, it would be a mistake to spend additional billions of dollars on the proposed missile defense system. Throughout the Cold War, when the Soviet Union had a far larger nuclear arsenal than today, we decided not to deploy missile defenses because the cost did not justify the protection provided. Now, the Cold War is over. We have far more cooperative relations with Russia and other nations of the former Soviet Union, and they have a much smaller nuclear arsenal. The Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff tell us that now is not the time to deploy a national missile defense. It makes no sense to reject that advice and push ahead on this costly system. Declaring our intention to deploy a missile defense system now will also put U.S. policy on a collision course with the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Such a step would send a strong signal to Russia that cooperation on nuclear arms reductions is not a U.S. priority. In fact, members of the Russian Parliament have stated that they will oppose ratification of the START II Treaty if the United States begins to develop or deploy ballistic missile defenses in violation of the ABM Treaty. By endangering the prospects for START II ratification by Russia, this bill will ensure that we will face many thousands more Russian nuclear weapons in the near future than we will face if arms reductions are implemented. This bill also fails to address the most pressing threats to American security. As the World Trade Center bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing make clear, we do face a serious threat of terrorist attacks. But, it is far more likely, for example, that a terrorist will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons on American soil than that we will be the target of an ICBM attack from a foreign nation. Loose controls on nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union raise the serious threat that such materials can find their way into the hands of extremists bent on using them. This bill fails to address these far more likely threats. We should continue to do all we can to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons materials. The Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program has removed thousands of nuclear warheads from former Soviet arsenals, destroyed hundreds of missile launchers, and has safeguarded vulnerable stockpiles of nuclear materials. The nuclear tests conducted by India earlier this week are a wake-up call to the United States and all nations that our efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation are inadequate. We should do nothing to undermine that high priority even further. This body has also rightly funded systems to protect our troops from ballistic missile threats and cruise missile threats. To deal with the possibility of future ballistic missile threats to U.S. territory, we have worked with the Administration to prepare a plan that will give us ample time to deploy a missile defense system if the need is clear. Our military leaders continue to agree that this plan is the most sensible way to protect the nation against potential future missile threats. We need a strong defense, but we must give the highest priority to meeting the most serious threats. Failure to do so will waste billions of taxpayer dollars, and leave the nation less secure. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, President Clinton and Democrats in Congress strongly support a fair increase in the minimum wage. The economy is in a period of record growth. The stock markets are at an all time high. Unemployment continues to fall to its lowest level in a quarter century. Yet, too many workers on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder are not receiving their fare share of this prosperity. Most Americans recognize that the minimum wage is not yet a living wage. According to an April NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll, 79 percent of those questioned support an increase. Time and again, opponents state that increases in the minimum wage are harmful to the economy, and especially harmful to minority communities. But such statements have no basis in fact, as the current evidence makes clear. In his recent ``To Be Equal'' column published in over 300 African- American newspapers across the country, Hugh Price, President of the National Urban League, strongly endorses the increase in the minimum wage that many of us have proposed, from its current level of $5.15 an hour to $5.65 an hour on January 1, 1999 and to $6.15 an hour on January 1, 2000. The National Urban League has played a prominent role in the civil rights community for over 80 years. Its 114 affiliates in 34 states and the District of Columbia are at the forefront of the battle for economic and social justice for all Americans. Raising the minimum wage is a central part of the civil rights agenda to improve the economic condition of the working poor. I am proud that our legislation has the strong support of this renowned organization, and I ask unanimous consent that Hugh Price's column be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. For 2 minutes?

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving right to object, I don't want to object. I would like to have a very brief time to be able to respond. I think, as I understand it, at 11 o'clock under the consent agreement we are going to the agricultural matter.

Mr. KENNEDY. I would like to see if we could have, say, 15 minutes to be able to respond to that time.

Mr. KENNEDY. That would be very generous.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 7 minutes. Mr. President, let me be clear: I am all in favor of Senator D'Amato's bill. Its provisions are included in the Patients' Bill of Rights. I was an original cosponsor of Senator Daschle's legislation, which preceded the legislation authored by my colleague from New York, that guaranteed breast cancer patients a minimum length of stay in the hospital following a mastectomy. And I worked with the breast cancer community--patients and providers--to write and introduce a bill that would require plans that cover mastectomies to also cover reconstructive surgery, prostheses and treatment for lymphedema, a complication of the surgery. In fact, Senator D'Amato modified his original bill, which covered only reconstructive surgery, to conform it more closely to mine. We share a commitment to this legislation. But his proposal does not include other provisions that are in our bill and which are equally important to breast cancer patients, their families and their doctors. The following protections, all of which are in the Patients' Bill of Rights remain unaddressed in the legislation proposed by Senator D'Amato: It does not guarantee access to specialists--provisions that would allow an oncologist to act as a cancer patient's care coordinator, or would allow a patient to see an oncologist directly, without first making an unnecessary visit to a so-called ``gatekeeper.'' It does not ensure for a smooth transition between new and existing doctors for breast cancer patients and survivors whose employers change plans or whose plans change providers in the network. It does not include access to and coverage of participation in clinical trials, which can so often mean the difference between life and death for patients with nowhere else to turn. It does not establish the right to an independent and timely appeal-- a critical feature for those times when coverage decisions fall into a grey area. It does not create access to prescription drugs that are not on the formulary, if they are medically indicated in the case at hand. It does not guarantee that emergency care will be covered, provided a layperson believed they were in an emergency. With the limited exception for post-mastectomy length-of-stay determinations, it does not fully restore the doctor-patient relationship by returning treatment decisions to the attending physician. Finally, it does not allow patients to hold health plans accountable for their medical decision-making. Clearly, the problems are not with what is in the bill, but with what is not in the bill. We are effectively precluded from including these particular provisions in the D'Amato proposal. And that is why these matters are linked, Mr. President. The items contained in our Patient Protection Act are critically important to breast cancer patients and survivors. Our bill has the broad support from virtually all the various cancer groups and breast cancer groups. But, if we move forward on only those included in the D'Amato proposal, we effectively preclude movement on the rest of the provisions. One can say, ``Well, we are still making some progress.'' I understand, but there is no reason in the world--none, no reason--that we cannot include these particular provisions for women today--none, make no mistake about it. We have had eight hearings on the issues relating to the Patients' Bill of Rights. I introduced the original legislation on this issue more than a year ago--over a year ago. The President's advisory commission, which included among its members representation from the business community and insurance industry, reported unanimously last November about what ought to be included in a patients' bill of rights. We have incorporated their recommendations in our bill. They are needed today by women across this country. All we are asking is for the opportunity to have the Senate debate and go on record with regard to these kinds of protections. But we are foreclosed from acting today. We are denied doing it. We cannot even get a reasonable period of time. The Republican leadership is sitting somewhere in this building. They could have listened to the exchange that was done by the Democratic leader and the Senator from New York. They know what is going on on the floor of the U.S. Senate. They can just come out here and say, ``All right, you got it, you are going to have an opportunity to debate this issue; we won't have a time limitation, call the roll and let's have a debate on what is the No. 1 issue before American families.'' But, no, we are precluded from that. You don't have to be around here a great deal of time to understand what is going on. We are effectively excluded because of the power of the insurance industry. Do you hear that? We are excluded from having an opportunity to debate this because of the power of the insurance industry. That is what is going on here. That is the issue this morning on the floor of the U.S. Senate. The industry does not want to provide patients with the protections to which they are entitled and have paid for, and their allies in the Senate are holding this up, Mr. President, by using parliamentary techniques to deny us the chance to consider this legislation. We cannot get a report out of our Labor and Human Resources Committee. We cannot take it up on the floor of the U.S. Senate. It is time for action, and we are denied an opportunity, not just today, not just tomorrow, not just June, but anytime whatsoever--whatsoever. We are asking the Republican leadership to give us a time. Call the Democratic leader. Bring it up in 2 days. Bring it up in 2 weeks. Bring it up in a month. But give us a time to bring this up. That is what this issue is all about, and that is where we are going, Mr. President. We will bring this issue up time in and time out, again and again. We may be foreclosed now, but the American people are going to demand it. Those women who have or have had breast cancer are going to understand it and demand it as well. I yield the remaining time to the Senator from California. I thank the Senator from New York for granting the time.

Mr. KENNEDY. No.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. Is it the position of the Senator that this really is the most important health issue that is before the families of America today? Is it understood that we have been unable to consider this legislation in the Labor and Human Resources Committee, and so this is the only way and only means by which we can have the kind of debate that families across this country want? Is it the opinion of the Senator from South Dakota that this really is a compelling issue, perhaps the most important health care issue that families in South Dakota and across this Nation care most deeply about--to make sure that doctors and not insurance agents are going to be making decisions on health care?