Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, later today, we are voting on a motion by Senator Gramm to recommit the conference report on the Agricultural Research bill. I strongly oppose Senator Gramm's motion. The 1996 welfare law allows refugees to receive federal benefits, including SSI, Medicaid and food stamps, for their first five years in the United States. It made this exception because refugees and asylum- seekers generally come to the United States with little more than the shirts on their backs after escaping persecution abroad. They have no sponsors. The may have disabilities which make it difficult to work. They need time to get on their feet, and begin to recover from the persecution they fled in their former country. After five years in the United States, refugees can apply for citizenship. Unfortunately, there are serious backlogs of naturalization applications at INS. In many parts of the country, it takes two years to complete the naturalization process and obtain citizenship--and these backlogs are not expected to go down in the near future. Often, the earliest a refugee will gain citizenship is after seven years in the United States. As we did last year with SSI and Medicaid, the Agricultural Research bill extends the time that a refugee can receive food stamps from five to seven years. Senator Gramm wants to deny this extension to refugees who entered the United States after the welfare law was enacted. If we do not extend this time limit from five to seven years, thousands of refugees who have applied for citizenship could lose food stamps as they wait in the naturalization backlog for their applications to be processed. This group includes refugees like Dien Nwin, who fled Vietnam in 1992 with his wife and children. Dien fought on the side of the United States during the Vietnam War and was imprisoned in a Communist re- education camp for 9 and-a-half years. He was worked hard and supported his family for over five years. He applied for citizenship, but he's stuck in the backlog. Now, Dien and his family have fallen on hard times. In the past two years, Dien has developed nasal cancer and lung cancer. He has been unable to work since then, and his family has had to use food stamps to survive. Dien is lucky. He entered the United States before the passage of the welfare bill. Under Senator Gramm's motion to recommit, Dien would be cut off from receiving food stamps after his initial five years in the United States. Last year, over 25,000 refugees came to the United States fleeing religious persecution in the Former Soviet Union. These refugees included Jews, Evangelical Christians, Mormons and other religious minorities fleeing the restriction of their religious liberties. Under Senator Gramm's amendment, these refugees will only be eligible for food stamps for their first five years in the United States. Since refugees cannot apply for naturalization until they have lived in the United States for five years, there will be a gap in their food stamp eligibility, depending on how long the naturalization backlog is at the time they apply. The naturalization backlog is expected to increase without an increase in INS funding. Record numbers of legal immigrants are applying for citzenship--more than a million per year. This number is not expected to decrease. Few actions are a more important part of our time-honored commitment to freedom around the world than opening America's doors to those who are denied freedom and face persecution in their own lands. Whether it is Vietnamese fleeing communism, Bosnians exiled by ethnic cleansing, Jews from the former Soviet Union fleeing anti-semitism, Burmese seeking safe haven from oppression, or Africans escaping political retribution and genocide, our refugee program stands ready to aid, protect, and resettle those who need our help. Part of such help is ensuring that these refugees' needs are met in their new home in this country. Those needs will not be met if their eligibility for food stamps is not extended to seven years. I urge my colleagues to oppose Senator Gramm's motion. Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support passage of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act. It is a privilege to join Senator Jeffords, Senator McCain, and Senator Hollings in sponsoring this bipartisan legislation, which looks to the future by strengthening our national commitment to research and development. It also ensures the continued success of the teacher training and professional development programs of the NSF. In addition, it will improve science and math education from kindergarten to graduate school, and help maintain America's competitive edge into the 21st century. Few federal agencies deliver as much ``bang for the buck'' as the National Science Foundation. It is now funding 20,000 peer-reviewed science and education projects at more than 2,000 colleges, universities, schools, businesses and research facilities in all parts of the United States. Last year, these projects involved 27,000 senior scientists, 21,000 graduate students, 28,000 undergraduates, 110,000 precollege teachers, and 14,000 students from kindergarten through the twelfth grade. Almost 15 million people are affected by NSF activities through museums, television programs, videos, journals, and outreach activities. NSF accounts for 4 percent of total federal research and development funding. But it provides 25 percent of basic research support at academic institutions. It provides as much as half of all federal funding for research in fields such as mathematics, computer science, environmental science, and the social sciences. NSF also plays an important role in training teachers and developing math and science curricula to prepare students for tomorrow's challenges. It promotes innovative education programs in partnerships with colleges, universities, elementary and secondary schools, science museums, and state and local governments. These programs encourage the discovery of new knowledge and its application to real-world problems. NSF support for basic research and science education has also had an important role in encouraging economic growth over the last fifty years. According to a recent study, each dollar that the federal government spends on basic research contributes 50 cents or more to the national output each year. In other words, investing in NSF pays for itself in two years. These benefits are spread throughout the economy, enhancing the productivity of the nation's workforce and improving the quality of life for all Americans. At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for example, NSF funds have enabled scientists to explore the commercial applications of their research. Technology developed at MIT had a role in the launching of 13 companies in 1995. They manufacture products ranging from computer chips to communication networks. These enterprises have bolstered the state and local economies, and provided jobs and opportunities for many citizens. In fact, a 1997 report by BankBoston found that research and development at MIT has created 125,000 jobs in Massachusetts. In our state, NSF is funding a wide range of other projects on the cutting edge of research. NSF grants have been instrumental in building the state's biotechnology industry, mapping the oceans at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, developing new superconductors at the Material Research Science and Education Center at Harvard, and creating cooperative partnerships with schools, parents, businesses, and community organizations to strengthen math and science education. Nationwide, NSF grants cover a broad range of projects from providing health care to fighting crime to protecting the environment. Specific grants are improving the treatment of arrhythmia, facilitating more accurate identification of crime suspects, developing new biotechnology techniques to cleanup hazardous waste sites, enhancing the speed of semiconductors in processing information, and even analyzing the Antarctic meteorite to determine whether life existed on Mars. NSF funds benefit the humanities as well. The Next Generation Internet Project will give researchers access to information from the world's libraries and museums at rates that are 100 to 1,000 times faster than today's Internet. This authorization Act will put research and development on a more secure footing over the next two years. It will increase NSF funding by 10 percent in FY1999 and 3 percent in FY2000, which are consistent with the levels recommended in President Clinton's FY1999 budget. The increased funding will provide larger award amounts, so that scientists can undertake longer-range projects. The legislation also strengthens efforts to improve science, mathematics, engineering, and technology training for teachers and students. In addition, it authorizes the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the White House to prepare a report analyzing indirect costs, which play a vital but little understood role in federal R&D spending. The National Science Foundation is doing an outstanding job in fulfilling its missions. Passage of this bill will strengthen America's leadership in science and technology, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation. I congratulate our chairman for bringing us to this point in the legislative process.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, at long last, we are about to pass the Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform Act conference report. I support all its provisions, but I want to speak briefly about one of the most important--the restoration of food stamps for legal immigrants whose benefits were unfairly eliminated by the harsh 1996 welfare law. Although the amount in this conference report is less than half of the $2 billion proposed in the President's budget, it is at least a down-payment toward restoring food stamps to the nation's neediest legal immigrants. The food stamp program was cut by $25 billion over 5 years in the 1996 law. That reduction was clearly unfair. According to the Department of Agriculture, at least 935,000 low-income legal immigrants lost their federal food stamps as a result of the 1996 welfare law. Nearly two-thirds are families with children. Two years later, we are finally remedying a significant part of this injustice. This bill restores food stamps only to the most needy legal immigrants--refugees, the disabled, and some poor children. It helps only 250,000 out of the 935,000 immigrants cut off from the food stamp rolls. No one should think our work is done with the passage of this bill. The effect of the food stamp terminations is not limited to immigrants. Their children born here are American citizens, but they too are facing sharp reductions in their food stamps. These children remain eligible for food stamps themselves, but the removal of their parents from the program means that, as a practical matter, the food stamp benefits for their families have been cut by 50 to 70 percent in many cases. 600,000 poor children who are American citizens live in families where food stamp benefits have been unfairly lost. These children will not be helped by this bill. Many elderly immigrants will also receive no assistance from this bill. We cannot forget about their plight. We can and must do more in the future. It is unconscionable that their benefits continue to be denied. So I regard this legislation as an important step, but only a first step.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know we are in morning business with a time limitation of 10 minutes. I ask unanimous consent to be able to proceed for 15 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in the United States we have the best doctors and hospitals in the world, and the investments we have made in research pay off each day in the form of new therapies and procedures that save lives or dramatically improve the quality of life for countless patients. Yet, too many people are being denied access to medically necessary care by cost-driven insurance companies that are bent on putting profits before patients. People across the country are concerned. In a recent survey by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, 80 percent of the respondents said passing a bill of rights, a health care bill of rights, a Patients' Bill of Rights, is very important--including 33 percent who said it was vital. So, what is wrong with today's health insurance system? We could ask Glenn Nealy's young widow. But before we go through that rather tragic story, I will just review very quickly the essential elements in our Patients' Bill of Rights. It guarantees the access to specialists and emergency rooms and other needed care. It expands the choices, which enable patients to select doctors and plans, and it removes the gag law which, in too many instances, denies doctors the ability to tell their patients about the best medical procedures to take care of their particular needs. It ensures independent appeals. If individuals find they are denied access to certain types of procedures, there will be an opportunity for an independent appeal--to make sure the kind of care that those individuals are receiving is really the best. It holds plans accountable for medical decisions. That is extremely important. We should not be excluding these health plans from accountability for the decisions that they make. I am confident that the good plans have nothing to fear from this proposal. They make medical decisions that are carefully considered and justified. But there are increasingly too many plans in this country that are putting the bottom line first and are not living up to their responsibilities. And there is no reason in the world that those plans should not be accountable, consistent with what the State laws provide. It restores the doctor-patient relationship. All patients who are being treated need to know they are receiving the treatment that is necessary from the medical point of view, rather than from the insurance company's point of view, or some accountant's point of view, back in an office that may be practicing almost cookbook medicine. That is, obviously, not in the interest of the patient and doctor. This is a proposal that allows doctors--who have dedicated themselves to good patient care and then find themselves restricted by the various HMOs and insurance plans--the opportunity to practice the best in medicine. And it establishes quality and information standards so patients have information available to them and are able to make informed and good judgments. As one who was the principal sponsor for HMO legislation in the 1970s, I am a great believer in using the concept of preventive medicine in the treatment of patients and in trying to build into our health care system the concept that the system should generate income for those who are going to keep the patients healthy, rather than reward a system that treats patients only when they are sick. That was a very basic and fundamental concept. The good HMOs, and we have many of them in my own State of Massachusetts, have done this. They have invested a great deal in preventing illness and disease. That is not a general feature of our health delivery system today. But some HMOs have done that and have been very aggressive in doing it, in keeping people healthy. In those areas where they have been very successful in keeping people healthy and then providing quality care for those who are sick, they are an extraordinary example for good health care delivery in this country today, and we salute them. We salute them. But, what we are finding is that these excellent groups are, too often and increasingly, put at a disadvantage by those who are going to represent that they are going to provide those kinds of services to the patients and then, when the time comes, cut back on those services because they are being driven by the economics of treatment of the patients and are making decisions that are based on interest in the bottom line of these HMOs, rather than what is in the interest of the patients. So we have developed legislation here in the Congress for the Patients' Bill of Rights. It is legislation that also has strong support over in the House of Representatives. There is a broad group of Members of this body who have supported this legislation. There is a very considerable number of our Republican colleagues and friends who have supported this and similar legislation--Congressman Norwood, Congressman Ganske and others in the House of Representatives. There are some differences in the proposals, but there is a general recognition of the need for action in this Congress. That is what we are hopeful of, at least having some action in this Congress. This past week, we attended to the abuses in the IRS and its reform. It seems to me that we ought to now turn to the abuses that exist out there in the delivery of health care systems which, in many, many instances, mean the difference between life and death. All of us were shocked and horrified after learning of the abuses of bureaucrats in the IRS and how they treated individuals. That was shocking for, I think, all Americans. We passed legislation responding to that. We acted quickly. We have even more egregious challenges that are facing patients across this country, and this issue demands action as well. It is really going to be a question of whether we are going to have the opportunity to debate these issues and come to a resolution on those items and do it in the next several days, because we do not have a great deal of time in this session. The time is moving on. We are now into May. Only about 75 legislative days remain before we move towards adjournment. I cannot think of many measures that are more important than having legislative action to debate and pass this, and to send it to the President. The President of the United States supports it. There is strong indication by the vote that we had during the budget consideration that almost half of the Members of this body support these concepts. And I believe if we have a full opportunity to debate and discuss these issues, we can certainly develop broad support for this type of legislation. There is strong support by the American Medical Association. There is strong support because doctors know what is at risk. There is strong support from consumers. We have the support of more than 100 organizations across the country, representing all different factions of the health care system. That is an extraordinary--extraordinary-- group of representatives who have strong interests in different aspects of our health care system. But I daresay, I rarely see that kind of a coalition support legislation. When they do, we ought to at least have an opportunity to address it on the floor of the U.S. Senate. We should not be effectively denied that opportunity, and we won't be denied that opportunity. We will not be denied that opportunity, Mr. President, because the great majority of American people believe that we should address this issue. And those of us who are in strong support of the bill that has been introduced by Senator Daschle, and of which many of us are cosponsors, know where there are areas of this bill that can be altered or changed. But we ought to have that opportunity on the floor of the U.S. Senate to do so. What is not right is telling the American patients in this country, telling the doctors in this country, telling the families in this country who have suffered abuses of the managed care system that, ``You are going to be denied any kind of redress.'' That is effectively what we will be saying if we do not have the opportunity to debate this issue. Mr. President, let me give you an example. We have been listening to these examples over the past several days. They go on and on. People may say, ``Well, you can always find one or two instances out there, and that is not a sufficient reason that we ought to provide a patients' bill of rights.'' Of course, that is hogwash, Mr. President, when you look at the range of challenges and problems we are facing in local communities across the country. The type of situation that I will mention in a moment is being replicated every single day in communities all across this Nation and cries out for action, and action we will have, Mr. President. Let me assure you: There is no shortage of tragic stories about families who have been hurt by the current system. And we will continue to raise these examples until this body passes legislation to address the abuses. I mention this morning a story about a young man, Mr. President, a gentleman called Glenn Nealy. Glenn had a heart condition and was under the care of a cardiologist. In March of 1992, his employer switched health plans, and Glenn chose a new plan after gaining assurances from the plan's agent that he would be allowed to continue seeing his cardiologist from the old plan. He was told that he simply had to choose a plan doctor as his primary care physician and that the plan doctor would then refer him to his current cardiologist for continued treatment. We are talking about access to a specialist for care that is clearly needed by the patient. Here is a young person, a worker, who changes health plans. He is concerned about changing health plans, but it is represented to him that he can change and continue to use his cardiologist who has been treating him for many months. He goes ahead and signs up with this new program, but he has to follow the procedures to go to a primary care doctor before he can see his cardiologist. On April 9, 1992, Glenn went to see his new primary care doctor to obtain the referral to his cardiologist, but the new doctor refused to see Glenn because he was not yet issued his new HMO card. It was represented to him, if he switched, there would be a continuity of care, better services. He believed that he would be treated in this manner. He was given assurances of continued care under his cardiologist, and all he would have to do is effectively get the signoff from his new primary care doctor. So he went ahead. As I mentioned, he went this primary care doctor, and he was told that his new HMO card had not been prepared. For 3 weeks, Glenn contacted the plan's offices to get the necessary paperwork and was twice issued incorrect cards. When Glenn finally was able to see his new primary care physician, his request for a referral to his cardiologist was refused. The family had indicated that they never would have signed up for this plan if they were going to be denied access to that doctor. They were given the assurances that they were going to be able to have a continuity of care, but the primary care doctor said no. The doctor professed not to know the HMO rules governing referrals. In addition, Glenn's prescriptions to treat his heart condition went unfilled because the HMO provided incorrect information to the local pharmacy. Yet another instance of ineptitude that contributed to the tragic result. On April 29, the HMO formally denied Glenn's request because they had another so-called participating provider in the area. That means they have another provider. It was not the cardiologist that he wanted. He had no idea whether that cardiologist had the training, had the background, or experience of his old cardiologist. He was just told that there was a participating provider for the kind of services that he needed related to his heart. He was assigned, by the plan, a new doctor. The promises they made while recruiting Glenn to join their plan were meaningless. For 2 weeks, Glenn fought with the plan to continue care with his old doctor, but when faced with no care at all, he agreed to see the HMO's cardiologist. An appointment was made for May 19. But Glenn never saw the plan's cardiologist. Tragically, he suffered a massive heart attack on May 18, the day before his appointment. He left behind a wife and two children. Glenn was only 35 years old. This should not happen in America. Health plans must be held responsible for the information they give patients, and patients must have the right to access the care that they bought with their premiums. It is fundamentally unfair to provide HMOs with immunity from bureaucratic decisions that mean the difference between life and death. Mr. President, we must take up and pass meaningful patient protections this year in the Congress. The legislation, as I mentioned, is supported by more than 100 groups representing millions of patients, health care professionals, and working families. We have the bill, the Patients' Bill of Rights, to prevent tragedies like this from occurring. Our bill would protect and restore the doctor-patient relationship. Our bill would guarantee that a change in plans does not mean an abrupt change in providers. Our bill would allow the Glenn family to hold their plan accountable for their negligence. The Senate must show the American people whether they stand with the patients or with the greedy guardians of the status quo. So next week the Senate may turn to a bill targeted only to breast cancer issues, but the women's community and the breast cancer community and the broader coalition of patients and professionals support comprehensive managed care reform legislation. They want the Patients' Bill of Rights. They understand the need for the Patients' Bill of Rights because this legislation will provide access to important clinical trials. Clinical trials are critical to promoting the discovery of new life- saving treatments and therapies. They offer hope and opportunity for patients who have nowhere else to turn. This will be the new century of life sciences. No one can help but pick up the newspaper every single day and find these extraordinary-- extraordinary--changes that are taking place, to the benefit of all mankind. Whether we are discussing pharmaceutical breakthroughs, various kinds of surgical procedures, or other treatments--these discoveries are all taking place at this time. Those that have been afflicted with the terrible tragedy of breast cancer want to be able to participate in clinical trials. And they will be guaranteed that under the Patients' Bill of Rights. But they will not be guaranteed it under the legislation that has been referenced briefly here on the floor this last week. These women need access to the right specialists. They will be guaranteed that under our bill--but not under the other legislation-- and they need to know that care will not be abruptly interrupted when the plans change. Mr. President, our bill includes the right to an independent and timely appeal, but the other bill does not. If a breast cancer patient or her doctor believe that she is not getting the kinds of treatment, she must have the right to be able to go through her HMO and, if necessary, outside the HMO for a timely appeal. Time is of the essence in these situations. Results are needed quickly-- quickly. Let me be clear. I am strongly opposed to drive-through mastectomies. I cosponsored Senator Daschle's legislation to end that practice. And I believe strongly that insurance companies that cover mastectomies have an obligation to also cover reconstructive surgery and prostheses when a woman has had to have a mastectomy. I have worked closely with National Breast Cancer Coalition and many others to correct these injustices. But these two proposals address only a small portion of the serious problems faced by women with breast cancer. These are both included in our comprehensive bill, but they are augmented by additional matters that are of enormous continued importance to those same patients. We are guaranteeing them in our bill access to the kind of specialty care, the critically important clinical trials, and the ability to hold the plan itself accountable. And when you have a process whereby you can hold a plan accountable, where you have the possibility of enforcement, then you have real rights. When you do not have the ability to enforce something, then that right is not meaningful. That is true across the board. You can pass laws every day about burglary and robbery and other crimes, but unless you are going to have a penalty, those laws are meaningless--they are meaningless. That is what we understand. We want to have those various plans held accountable for the decisions they make. Mr. President, the HMOs that are providing good quality medicine have nothing to fear. It is understandable because they are living up to these kinds of quality challenges. They are at a competitive disadvantage by those plans that are trying to trim and reduce services, and therefore claim that they are providing the same range of services but doing so on the cheap. The obvious result is a diminution in care for those patients, and in a number of instances even the loss of life for those patients. And that is wrong. Mr. President, many Americans have seen that movie, ``As Good As It Gets.'' I think people understand this issue very well. Helen Hunt won an Oscar for her role in this movie. In it, she delivers a sharply worded criticism of her son's managed care plan, and audiences across the country erupt in laughter and applause. These hoots and the hollers make it very clear that the American people understand what is happening in too many of these managed care systems. Everyone loves their managed care system until they get sick. Then we find too many instances where managed care becomes mis-managed care. So, Mr. President, I am very hopeful that we can come to a full debate and discussion on this issue. It is a matter, as I mentioned, of life and death in many circumstances. Our colleagues on the floor of the Senate have given these examples. And these examples are not going to go away. The problem is not diminishing; the problem is increasing. This is an area that cries out for action, and the American people deserve no less. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to introduce President Clinton's Education Opportunity Zones bill to strengthen urban and rural public schools where the need is greatest. Congress needs to do more to improve teaching and learning for all students across the nation, and that means paying close attention to school districts and children with the greatest needs. Too many schools now struggle with low expectations for students, high dropout rates, watered-down curricula, unqualified teachers, and inadequate resources. This legislation will lead to the designation of approximately 50 high-poverty urban and rural school districts as ``Education Opportunity Zones,'' and help them to implement the effective reforms needed to turn themselves around. These school districts will become models of system-wide, standards- based reform for the nation. They must agree to specific benchmarks for improved student achievement, lower dropout rates, and other indicators of success. Schools in these districts will also be eligible for greater flexibility in the use of federal education funds. Our goal is to increase achievement, raise standards, upgrade teacher skills, and strengthen ties between schools, parents, and the community as a whole. Under this proposal, schools can use effective reform measures such as ending social promotion, increasing accountability, improving teacher recruitment and training, and providing students and parents with school report cards. We know that this approach can work. Last fall, I visited the Harriet Tubman Elementary School in New York City, where 95 percent of the pupils are from low-income families. Before 1996, it was one of the lowest achieving schools in the city. In September, 1996, the principal, the superintendent, teachers, and parents worked together to reorganize the school. They put extra resources into training teachers to teach reading. They upgraded the curriculum to reflect high standards. They created a parent resource center to increase family and community involvement. These and other reforms worked. Each day, many parents are at the school too, helping maintain discipline and at the same time expanding their own education. Each morning, teachers stop their regular classwork and teach reading to their students for 90 minutes. Since 1996, scores on statewide reading exams have risen by 20 percent. In Boston, under the leadership of Superintendent Tom Payzant, schools are making significant progress by creating new curriculum standards, setting higher achievement standards, and expanding technology through public and private sector partnerships. They are focusing on literacy, after-school programs, and school-to-career opportunities. These successes are not unusual. Public schools can improve even when facing the toughest odds. We need to do all we can to help such schools get the resources they need, so that they can implement the changes they know will work and help children learn more effectively. Under the Education Opportunity Zone approach, urban and rural school districts can apply for funds to implement a wide range of reforms. School districts will apply to the Secretary of Education for three- year grants. The Secretary will ensure a fair distribution of grants among geographic regions, and among various sizes of urban and rural schools districts. In determining the amount of each grant, the Secretary will consider factors such as the scope of activities in the application, the number of students from poor families in the school district, the number of low-performing schools in the district, and the number of low-achieving children in the district. This legislation proposes funding of $200 million in fiscal year 1999 and $1.5 billion over the next 5 years to support these grants. I commend President Clinton for developing this worthwhile initiative, and I look forward to its enactment. Investing in students, teachers, and schools is one of the best investments America can make. For schools across the nation, help can't come a minute too soon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleagues Senator Kerrey, Senator Bond, Senator Durbin, and Senator DeWine in sponsoring this legislation to assure adequate funding for resident training in independent children's teaching hospitals. These hospitals, such as Children's Hospital in Boston, have 60 pediatric training programs. They represent less than 1 percent of the training programs across the country, yet these hospitals train 5 percent of all physicians, 25 percent of all pediatricians, and the majority of many pediatric subspecialist. Too often today, these hospitals are hard-pressed for financial support. Medicare is the principal source of federal funds that contributes to the costs of graduate medical education for most hospitals, but independent children's hospitals have few Medicare patients, since Medicare coverage for children applies only to end- stage kidney disease. Medicaid support is declining, as the program moves more and more toward managed care. No hospital in the current competitive marketplace can afford to shift these costs to other payers. As a result, many children's hospitals find it very difficult to make ends meet. In 1997, all teaching hospitals relieved a $76,000 in Medicare graduate medical education support for each medical resident they trained, but the average independent children's teaching hospital received only $400. Last year, Children's Hospital in Boston lost over $30 million on its patient operations. Two-thirds of this loss was directly attributable to the direct costs of graduate medical education. Will limited resources and increasing pressure to reduce patient costs, such losses cannot continue. The academic mission of these hospitals is vital. Since its founding as a 20-bed hospital in 1869, Children's Hospital in Boston has become the largest pediatric medical center and research facility in the United States, and an international leader in children's health. It is also the primary teaching hospital for pediatrics for Harvard Medical School. For eight years in a row, it has been named the best pediatric hospital in the country in a nationwide physicians' survey conducted by U.S. News and World Report. Clinicians and investigators work together at the hospital in an environment that fosters new discoveries in research and new treatments for patients. Scientific breakthroughs are rapidly translated into better patient care and enhanced medical education. We must assure that market pressures to not interfere with these advances. Independent children's hospitals deserve the same strong support that other hospitals receive for graduate medical education. The current lack of federal support is jeopardizing the indispensable work of these institutions and jeopardizing the next generation of leaders in pediatrics. Congress needed to do all it can to correct this inequity. This legislation we are introducing will provide stop-gap support stabilize the situation while we develop a fair long-run solution to meet the overall needs of all aspects of graduate medical education. I look forward to early action by the Senate on this important measure.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to introduce President Clinton's Education Opportunity Zones bill to strengthen urban and rural public schools where the need is greatest. Congress needs to do more to improve teaching and learning for all students across the nation, and that means paying close attention to school districts and children with the greatest needs. Too many schools now struggle with low expectations for students, high dropout rates, watered-down curricula, unqualified teachers, and inadequate resources. This legislation will lead to the designation of approximately 50 high-poverty urban and rural school districts as ``Education Opportunity Zones,'' and help them to implement the effective reforms needed to turn themselves around. These school districts will become models of system-wide, standards- based reform for the nation. They must agree to specific benchmarks for improved student achievement, lower dropout rates, and other indicators of success. Schools in these districts will also be eligible for greater flexibility in the use of federal education funds. Our goal is to increase achievement, raise standards, upgrade teacher skills, and strengthen ties between schools, parents, and the community as a whole. Under this proposal, schools can use effective reform measures such as ending social promotion, increasing accountability, improving teacher recruitment and training, and providing students and parents with school report cards. We know that this approach can work. Last fall, I visited the Harriet Tubman Elementary School in New York City, where 95 percent of the pupils are from low-income families. Before 1996, it was one of the lowest achieving schools in the city. In September, 1996, the principal, the superintendent, teachers, and parents worked together to reorganize the school. They put extra resources into training teachers to teach reading. They upgraded the curriculum to reflect high standards. They created a parent resource center to increase family and community involvement. These and other reforms worked. Each day, many parents are at the school too, helping maintain discipline and at the same time expanding their own education. Each morning, teachers stop their regular classwork and teach reading to their students for 90 minutes. Since 1996, scores on statewide reading exams have risen by 20 percent. In Boston, under the leadership of Superintendent Tom Payzant, schools are making significant progress by creating new curriculum standards, setting higher achievement standards, and expanding technology through public and private sector partnerships. They are focusing on literacy, after-school programs, and school-to-career opportunities. These successes are not unusual. Public schools can improve even when facing the toughest odds. We need to do all we can to help such schools get the resources they need, so that they can implement the changes they know will work and help children learn more effectively. Under the Education Opportunity Zone approach, urban and rural school districts can apply for funds to implement a wide range of reforms. School districts will apply to the Secretary of Education for three- year grants. The Secretary will ensure a fair distribution of grants among geographic regions, and among various sizes of urban and rural schools districts. In determining the amount of each grant, the Secretary will consider factors such as the scope of activities in the application, the number of students from poor families in the school district, the number of low-performing schools in the district, and the number of low-achieving children in the district. This legislation proposes funding of $200 million in fiscal year 1999 and $1.5 billion over the next 5 years to support these grants. I commend President Clinton for developing this worthwhile initiative, and I look forward to its enactment. Investing in students, teachers, and schools is one of the best investments America can make. For schools across the nation, help can't come a minute too soon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleagues Senator Kerrey, Senator Bond, Senator Durbin, and Senator DeWine in sponsoring this legislation to assure adequate funding for resident training in independent children's teaching hospitals. These hospitals, such as Children's Hospital in Boston, have 60 pediatric training programs. They represent less than 1 percent of the training programs across the country, yet these hospitals train 5 percent of all physicians, 25 percent of all pediatricians, and the majority of many pediatric subspecialist. Too often today, these hospitals are hard-pressed for financial support. Medicare is the principal source of federal funds that contributes to the costs of graduate medical education for most hospitals, but independent children's hospitals have few Medicare patients, since Medicare coverage for children applies only to end- stage kidney disease. Medicaid support is declining, as the program moves more and more toward managed care. No hospital in the current competitive marketplace can afford to shift these costs to other payers. As a result, many children's hospitals find it very difficult to make ends meet. In 1997, all teaching hospitals relieved a $76,000 in Medicare graduate medical education support for each medical resident they trained, but the average independent children's teaching hospital received only $400. Last year, Children's Hospital in Boston lost over $30 million on its patient operations. Two-thirds of this loss was directly attributable to the direct costs of graduate medical education. Will limited resources and increasing pressure to reduce patient costs, such losses cannot continue. The academic mission of these hospitals is vital. Since its founding as a 20-bed hospital in 1869, Children's Hospital in Boston has become the largest pediatric medical center and research facility in the United States, and an international leader in children's health. It is also the primary teaching hospital for pediatrics for Harvard Medical School. For eight years in a row, it has been named the best pediatric hospital in the country in a nationwide physicians' survey conducted by U.S. News and World Report. Clinicians and investigators work together at the hospital in an environment that fosters new discoveries in research and new treatments for patients. Scientific breakthroughs are rapidly translated into better patient care and enhanced medical education. We must assure that market pressures to not interfere with these advances. Independent children's hospitals deserve the same strong support that other hospitals receive for graduate medical education. The current lack of federal support is jeopardizing the indispensable work of these institutions and jeopardizing the next generation of leaders in pediatrics. Congress needed to do all it can to correct this inequity. This legislation we are introducing will provide stop-gap support stabilize the situation while we develop a fair long-run solution to meet the overall needs of all aspects of graduate medical education. I look forward to early action by the Senate on this important measure.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would be glad to yield 15 seconds to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Hawaii.

Mr. KENNEDY. How much time do I have?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support efforts to improve training opportunities for incumbent workers, but would emphasize that it must not be done at the expense of individuals who have already been displaced from their jobs. Therefore, I look forward to working with the Senator from Maine on this issue.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in recognizing the need for increased access to training for incumbent workers, and appreciate the efforts of my colleague, Senator Snowe, for heightening awareness on this issue.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would be glad to yield 3 minutes of our time to the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 7\1/2\ minutes. Mr. President, as was stated by the Senators from Ohio, Vermont, and Minnesota, in just a few moments we are going to vote on this legislation, which will make such a very, very important difference for millions of Americans. I want to express my very deep sense of appreciation for the really excellent work that has been done by the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator DeWine, and our friend and colleague, Senator Wellstone, and the chairman of the full committee, Senator Jeffords. These are complex issues and involve a variety of different interests and various constituency groups. But we all have a common purpose and a common goal; that is, to try to make sure that America has the best trained workforce we could possibly have as we move into the 21st century. The process has not been easy. It has been an issue which our committee has over a very considerable period of time wrestled with. In 1970s, we attempted improving the CETA job training program. There were many, many problems in that program. In the early 1980s, we moved in a different direction. That direction was the Job Training Partnership Act, which attempted to refashion and shape our job programs with greater emphasis on private sector employment. It was the only domestic program that passed between 1980 and 1984. In many respects, it has worked well. But, the enormous technological changes we have seen in the workplace require new training initiatives. Since the early 1990s, we have been working to develop the most effective approach. Now I am very, very hopeful that those hours and days of hearings, and the very solid work that has been done by the Committee will result in passage of this landmark legislation. I hope it will now not only receive the overwhelming support of the Members of this body, but also that we can move ahead into the conference and reach an agreement worthy of all our support. 1998 should be the year that workforce legislation is enacted into law. It would mean so much for millions of Americans in need of educational and career training opportunities. We have had a fairly contentious Congress so far. But this, I think, has been an extraordinary example of the legislative process working. I think it is a real tribute overall to our chairman, Senator Jeffords, with his leadership. We are designing legislation for a workforce that will have probably seven or eight different jobs during their careers. Thirty years ago, if a person worked in the Fall River Shipyard in Massachusetts, his father worked there and his grandfather worked there before him, and he spent his entire career there. But now we know that for new entries into that workforce, they are going to have seven different jobs. With the global economy, we are going to find there are going to be new industries that are highly successful. There will be other industries that will be facing consolidation. We will have downsizing. We will have expansion. New skills that will be necessary. Individual workers will need access to training to update their skills throughout their working lives. This legislation will provide the opportunity to get that training. It is really a very, very important new concept and new idea, and one that I think can really ensure that our workforce is going to be the best in the world. We are talking about included in this legislation programs for individuals who are dislocated workers and others who are disadvantaged adults and youth. We are talking about individuals with disabilities who want to be able to work and pull their fair share. We are talking about at-risk youth. We are also dealing with adult literacy, and vocational education programs. Together, these programs will prepare the workforce of tomorrow. Mr. President, this is really, I think, a major achievement. I am enormously grateful to my staff: to Jeffrey Teitz, who has done an outstanding job on the workforce and education issues; and to Connie Gardner, who has done an extraordinary job on vocational rehabilitation. Jeffrey Teitz, along with Sherry Kaiman of Senator Jeffords' staff, Dwayne Sattler of Senator DeWine's staff, and Brian Ahlberg of Senator Wellstone's staff, worked for over a year to fashion the consensus legislation which we are considering today. I am proud of their work. I also want to recognize Patricia Morrissey of Senator Jeffords' staff on vocational rehabilitation. All of us who are in support of this legislation believe it will make America have the best educated and the best trained workforce in the world; and that those families who participate in these programs will have the great opportunities open to them. It will enable them to realize their own American dreams. I hope my colleagues will support it overwhelmingly. Mr. President, while employment training legislation has not received the same level of public attention as some other issues on this year's agenda, very few bills will have a greater impact on more Americans than the Workforce Investment Partnership Act. The importance of highly developed employment skills has never been greater. The gap in earnings between skilled and unskilled workers is steadily widening. For those who enter the workforce with good academic training and well-developed career skills, this new economy offers almost unlimited potential. However, for those who lack basic proficiency in language, math and science and who have no career skills, the new economy presents an increasingly hostile environment. An educated workforce has become the most valuable resource in the modern economy. Our nation's long term economic vitality depends on the creation of an effective, accessible, and accountable system of job training and career development which is open to all our citizens. Schools must assume more responsibility for preparing their students to meet the challenges of the 21st century workplace. Disadvantaged adults and out of school youth need the opportunity to develop job skills which will make them productive members of the community. Dislocated workers who have been displaced by the rapid pace of technological change deserve the chance to pursue new careers. Individuals with disabilities need the opportunity to fully develop their career potential. The way in which we respond to these challenges today will determine how prosperous a nation we are in the next century. The Workforce Investment Partnership Act, unanimously approved by the Labor and Human Resources Committee will provide employment training opportunities for millions of Americans. It responds to the challenge of the changing workplace by enabling men and women to acquire the skills required to enter the workforce and to upgrade their skills throughout their careers. It will provide them with access to the educational tools that will enable them not only to keep up, but to get ahead. The legislation is the product of a true bipartisan collaboration. I want to publicly commend Senators Jeffords and DeWine for the genuine spirit of bipartisanship which has made this effort possible. Senator Wellstone and I appreciate it. The resulting legislation will, I believe, truly expand career options, encourage greater program innovation, and facilitate cooperative efforts amongst business, labor, education and state and local government. The Workforce Investment Partnership Act is designed to provide easy access to state of the art employment training programs which are geared to real job opportunities in the community through a single, customer-friendly system of One Stop Career Centers. The cornerstones of this new system are individual choice and quality labor market information. No training system can function effectively without accurate and timely information. The frequent unavailability of quality labor market information is one of the most serious flaws in the current system. This legislation places a strong emphasis on providing accurate and timely information about what area industries are growing, what skills those jobs require, and what earning potential they have. Extensive business community and organized labor participation are encouraged in developing a regional plan based on this information. Once a career choice is made, the individual must still select a training provider. At present, many applicants make that choice with a little or no reliable information. Under this bill, each training provider will have to publicly report graduation rates, job placement and retention rates, and average earnings of graduates. Because of the extensive information which will be available to each applicant, real consumer choice in the selection of a career and of a training provider will be possible. The legislation establishes individual training accounts for financially eligible participants, which they can use to access career education and skill training programs. Men and women seeking training assistance will no longer be limited to a few predetermined options. As long as there are real job opportunities in the field selected and the training provider meets established performance standards, the individual will be free to choose which option best suits his or her needs. There is no challenge facing America today which is tougher or more important than providing at-risk, often out-of-school, youth with meaningful education and employment opportunities. Far too many of our teenagers are being left behind without the skills needed to survive in the 21st century economy. I am particularly pleased with the commitment which the Workforce Investment Partnership Act makes to these young men and women. This legislation authorizes a new initiative focused on teenagers living in poverty in communities offering them few constructive employment opportunities. Each year, the Secretary of Labor will award grants from a $250 million fund to innovative programs designed to provide opportunities to youth living in these areas. The programs will emphasize mentoring, strong links between academic and worksite learning, and job placement and retention. It will encourage broad based community participation from local service agencies and area employers. These model programs will, we believe, identify the techniques which are most effective in reaching those youth at greatest risk. This legislation also provides for the continuation of JobCorps and the Summer Jobs Program as essential elements of a comprehensive effort to help disadvantaged youth gain valuable training and work experience. The Workforce Investment Partnership Act includes titles reauthorizing major vocational education and adult literacy programs. Both programs will continue to be separately funded and independently administered. We have incorporated them in the Workforce Act because they must be integral components of any comprehensive strategy to prepare people to meet the demands of the 21st century workplace. Students who participate in vocational education must be provided with both strong academic preparation and advanced employment skills training. Recognizing this core principle, the legislation supports broad-based career preparation education which meets both high academic standards and teaches state-of-the-art technological skills. Adult literacy programs are essential for the 27% of the adult population who have not earned a high school diploma or its equivalent. Learning to read and communicate effectively are the first steps to career advancement. A leading authority on this issue, Professor Richard Wade of the City University Graduate Center in New York, has called adult literacy ``America's Silent Scandal'', and he's right. This legislation will increase access to educational opportunities for those people most in need of assistance and enhance the quality of services provided. The Workforce Investment Partnership Act will make it possible for millions of Americans to gain the skills needed to compete in a global economy. I urge all of my colleagues to support it. I yield the remainder of the time. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might use. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, at the outset I want to express appreciation on this side, not just for our committee but for all of our Democratic Members, to the chairman of our committee, and also to Senator DeWine, who is the chairman of the subcommittee. I know I speak for Senator Wellstone, who was very much involved in the development of this legislation, in thanking them for their leadership and for their work with all of us in bringing this legislation to the floor of the U.S. Senate. This is a very important piece of legislation. It is going to make a significant difference in the quality of life for millions of Americans. It has been a long, arduous task to bring us to where we are today. Senator Kassebaum had been very interested in initially seeing how we could consolidate and coordinate 126 different programs in six different agencies and try and make some sense with a newer kind of workforce. So many of these various workforce programs have been targeted to particular needs--people who lost work as a result of imports; people who lost work because of environmental considerations; young people who dropped out of school; older workers who have been dislocated. There was a wide range of programs, and there was a solid effort to try to develop and fashion various efforts to make some sense out of these programs and ensure that we were going to invest in our fellow citizens, young and old, and to do it in an effective way. It hasn't been easy. We have tried to address this, and I can remember the times when we were not effective in doing so. I remember the CETA program and all of its difficulties and challenges in later years, under the leadership of Senator Quayle at that time and the members of our committee. I welcomed the opportunity of joining with Senator Quayle as we developed the Job Training Partnership Act to give greater local control and local input in terms of a shifting economy. This has been an evolving process. We have done a constructive review of all of the various job training programs to find out, with the new challenges we are facing, how can we do better in meeting these various needs: what the role of vocational training is; what the role of adult education programs is going to be; how we are tying this into evolving changes in our workforce as a result of technology, as a result of a change in our competitiveness, and as a result of the downsizing we have seen that has impacted a lot of people who have good skills, but in a particular area, that perhaps may not be as necessary today as they were in another period of time. It is only as a result of the hard work of the chairman of our full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee that we have been able to work through the process and make a recommendation that reflects the best judgment of all the members of the committee and the solid judgment of many men and women, and local, State, and national organizations who have given a great deal of time and attention to this issue, and who know the strengths and weaknesses of what is happening out in the local communities and at the State level, that we can present this legislation to the Senate. It is one of the most important pieces of legislation that we will pass. There are various pieces of legislation that are above the radar screen, and there are some that are just below the radar screen. Many of those which come just below the radar screen in so many respects have a dramatic impact, a much more important impact on our fellow citizens than some of those that might be highly visible, highly volatile pieces of legislation. We welcome the chance to be here this morning to make these recommendations and, hopefully, to consider some of the amendments that have been recommended by our colleagues and then move towards passage on Tuesday. We are urging all of our colleagues to support this legislation. We hopefully will then move in a timely way into the conference with the House, moving it along, recognizing that we do have a compressed time period but understanding that on this legislation we are not going to fail. I wanted to at least make those brief observations before commenting on the legislation. An educated workforce has become the most valuable resource in the modern economy. Our Nation's long-term economic vitality depends on the creation of an effective, accessible, and accountable system of job training and career development which is open to all of our citizens. Schools must assume more responsibility for preparing their students to meet the challenges of the 21st century workplace. Disadvantaged adults and out-of-school youth need the opportunity to develop job skills which will make them productive members of the community. Dislocated workers who have been displaced by the rapid pace of technological change deserve the chance to pursue new careers. The way in which we respond to these challenges today will determine how prosperous a nation we are in the next century. The importance of highly developed employment skills has never been greater. The gap in earnings between skilled and unskilled workers is steadily widening. I think all of us are very much proud of the fact that we have a strong economy. The figures, even in today's papers, indicate that is so. Hopefully, as a nation with a common purpose, we want to make sure that all Americans are going to be participating in the strength of our economy and that it isn't going to be just segmented among those who are already in a more favorable economic stance. For that to happen, having good work skills is an absolutely essential element and ingredient in terms of giving individual Americans the opportunities to participate in a more meaningful way in our economic expansion. For those who enter the workforce with good academic training and well-developed career skills, this new economy offers almost unlimited potential. However, for others who lack basic proficiency in language, math, and science, and no new skills, the new economy presents an increasingly hostile environment. Over 3 million young men and women between the ages of 16 and 24 in this country did not complete high school and are not enrolled in school. Many more graduate from high school without the level of knowledge and skill that a high school diploma should represent. They will require more education and job training in order to obtain stable, well-paying employment. Without it, they are in danger of becoming a lost workforce generation. Effective job training is also essential to the success of welfare reform. More than 40 percent of those in the JTPA program for disadvantaged adults have come from welfare rolls. Under the welfare reform legislation, an additional 1.7 million people will be entering the job market. Most of these individuals have little or no work background and very limited employment skills. In many cases, they are also the sole support of young children. They are making urgent, new demands on a job training system that is already burdened beyond its capacity. There is an approximately $3 billion program that has been recommended by the administration in terms of employment. We have tried to work that out to be complementary to what we are doing here so we have a more consolidated effort in terms of trying to meet those particular needs in the welfare-to-work programs. In addition, the combination of rapidly changing technology and the shift of manufacturing jobs overseas is creating an alarming number of dislocated workers. These individuals have extensive work experience but their skills are no longer in demand. We must give them the opportunity for retraining and for the development of new skills to enable them to compete in the 21st century workplace. Even today, we are only, I believe, dealing with about 30 percent of those who would otherwise be eligible for those programs, so we know that the need is out there. We have a better way of addressing that need with this program. The accelerating pace of technological change has made much of the existing job training system obsolete. Broad reforms are needed to meet the demands of the modern workplace. The Workforce Investment Partnership Act, unanimously approved by the Labor and Human Resources Committee, will provide the employment training opportunities for millions of Americans. It responds to the challenge of the changing workplace by enabling men and women to acquire the skills required to enter the workforce and upgrade their skills throughout their careers. It will provide them with access to the educational tools that will enable them not only to keep up but to get ahead. Thirty or 40 years ago, in my own State of Massachusetts, if your grandfather worked in the Four Rivers Shipyard, his son worked in the Four Rivers Shipyard, and his grandson worked in the Four Rivers Shipyard. All got paid pretty good wages, all had pretty good lives, and all were able to provide for their families and be involved in the community. Today, everyone who enters the workforce is going to have seven different jobs--seven different jobs. We know that the private sector provides some training, but it is small and it is primarily among the white collar. Only about 7 or 8 percent of the major companies provide training programs, and that is divided between white and blue collar. So those that are the great workforce, the engine for most of these companies, with the exception of some very important and significant training programs from some excellent companies, do not receive the kind of training that is going to continually equip them to participate in our economy. Broad reforms are needed to meet the demands of a modern workforce. Mr. President, this, as I mentioned, represents the best judgment of the bipartisan efforts in our committee. I want to publicly commend Senators Jeffords and DeWine for the genuine spirit of bipartisanship which has made this effort possible. Senator Wellstone and I appreciate it. The resulting legislation will, I believe, truly expand career options, encourage greater program innovation, and facilitate cooperative efforts amongst business, labor, education, and state and local governments. I also want to recognize the important role that the President has given in bringing about reform in our current job training system. He has consistently emphasized the need for greater individual choice in the selection of career paths and training providers. The philosophy behind his skill grant proposal is reflected in our legislation. The Workforce Investment Partnership Act is designed to provide easy access to the state-of-the-art employment training programs which are geared to real job opportunities in the community through a single, customer-friendly system of One Stop Career Centers. Over 700 such centers are already operating successfully across the country. This legislation will ensure that every individual in need of employment services will have access to such a facility. The cornerstones of the new system are individual choice and quality labor market information. In the past, men and women seeking new careers often did not know what skills were most in demand, which training programs had the best performance. All too often they were forced to make one of the most important decisions of their lives based on anecdotes and late-night advertisements. An individual comes into the One Stop Career Centers and takes the various kinds of tests. If he wants to look at some new career possibilities, find out what his or her aptitude is in the areas of his skills, find out in what particular areas there are available jobs, and take a look at the various training programs for those particular jobs, that center will have access to that information: what jobs are there, whether the training programs really lead to jobs, and how those graduates of that particular training program are doing after 2 or 3 or 4 years. The individual will be able to make a judgment themselves about which training program is best suited for them, and know that they have the excellent opportunity of moving ahead into a training program. That is a concept that has been developed in a number of different areas. My own State of Massachusetts has a very innovative program that was developed initially through Governor Dukakis and has been strongly supported by Governor Weld and our current Lieutenant Governor Cellucci. Lieutenant Governor Cellucci actually came down and testified for us. The One Stop Career Center approach is an area where we have had strong bipartisan support and important involvement by management, as well as labor. No training system can function effectively without accurate and timely information. The frequent unavailability of quality labor market information is one of the most serious flaws in the current system. This legislation places a strong emphasis on providing accurate and timely information about what area industries are growing, what skills those jobs require, and what earning potential they have. Extensive business community and organized labor participation are encouraged in developing a regional plan based on this information. Once a career choice is made, the individuals must select a training provider. At present, many applicants make that choice with little or no reliable information. Under this bill, each training provider will have to publicly report graduation rates, job placement and retention rates, and average earnings of graduates. We have found in my own State of Massachusetts, with these consolidations in what we call the REBs, that we have much greater involvement of community-to-business and worker participation, because these programs have been united, with a common spirit and a common focus. There has been much greater interest, support, and effectiveness because of greater consolidation, as opposed to so much of the scattered programs that have been out there previously. Because of the extensive information that will be available to each applicant, real consumer choice in the selection of a career and training program will be possible. The legislation establishes individual training accounts for financially eligible participants, which they can use to access career education and skill training programs. Men and women seeking training assistance will no longer be limited to a few predetermined options. As long as there are real job opportunities in the field selected and the training provider meets established performance standards, the individual will be free to choose which option best suits his or her needs. An essential element of the new system we have designed is the accountability. The chairman has mentioned this. As we noted earlier, each training provider will have to monitor and report the job placement retention achieved by its graduates and average earnings. Only the programs that meet an acceptable performance will be eligible for receipt of public funds. The same principle of accountability is applied to those agencies administering State and local programs. They have been given wide latitude to innovate under the legislation, but they, too, will be held accountable, if their programs fail to meet the challenging performance targets. The rapid pace of technological training in the workplace has produced an alarming number of workers who have become dislocated in mid-career. The dislocation has been compounded by an increasing number of labor-intensive production employers relocating their businesses abroad. This trend has been particularly acute in the manufacturing sector. We have a special obligation to these dislocated workers who have long and dedicated work histories and now are unemployed through no fault of their own. The Workforce Investment Partnership Act makes a commitment to them by maintaining a special dislocated worker program supported by a separate funding stream geared to their retraining needs. The current dislocated program serves approximately 540,000 dislocated workers nationwide in the most recent year. Of those who completed the program, 71 percent were employed when they left the program, earning, on average, 93 percent of their previous wages. America's dislocated workers have earned the right to assistance in developing new skills which will allow them to be full participants in the 21st century economy. There is no challenge facing America today which is tougher and more important than providing at-risk, often out-of-school youth with meaningful education and employment. I am particularly pleased with the commitment the Workforce Investment Partnership Act makes to these young men and women. This legislation authorizes a new initiative focusing on teenagers living in poverty in communities offering them few employment opportunities. Each year, the Secretary of Labor will award grants from a $250 million fund to innovative programs designed to provide opportunities to youth living in these areas. The programs will emphasize mentoring, strong links between academic and work-site learning, and job placement and retention. It will encourage broad-based community participation from local service agencies and area employers. These model programs will, we believe, identify the techniques which are most effective. That is what we want to try to do. Another important program for young people who face the highest barriers to employment is Job Corps. Most of the participants grow up in extreme poverty with limited opportunities. Job Corps, at its best, moves them from deprivation to opportunity. But, for many of them, it is an extremely difficult transition. Job Corps is a program worth preserving and worth expanding too. Our legislation decisively rejects the view that Job Corps should be dismantled. Instead, it strengthens the program in several ways. It establishes closer ties between individual Job Corps Centers and the community they serve. It ensures that training programs correspond with the area's labor market needs. It extends follow-up counseling for participants up to 12 months and established detailed performance standards to hold programs accountable. The legislation also provides the continuation of some jobs as an essential element of the youth grant. For many youth, summer jobs are the first opportunity to work and their first critical step in learning the work ethic. The summer jobs program also provide many youth with quality learning experiences and follow up during the school year. Studies by the Department of Labor's Office of Inspector General and research by Westat, Inc., have reported positive findings regarding the program, concluding that work sites are well-supervised and disciplined, that jobs provide useful work, that the education component teaches students new skills that they apply in school, and that students learn the value of work. What we have seen in Massachusetts, particularly in Boston, where we have anywhere from 8,000 to 10,000 jobs a year, is that many of the youth go 1, 2, and some even 3 years. The private-sector involvement in these programs works very closely in the supervision and development of programs and then has a very active stream of bringing these young people who are going through high school at this time, and moving them right into jobs at some of our major companies in Boston. It has been very, very successful because they have coordinated the public-private partnership in a very effective way. I believe that the summer jobs program needs to continue to be available on a significant scale with sufficient funding. This bill recognizes the critical importance of the summer youth program by requiring that it be a part of each local area's youth program and allowing local communities to determine the number of summer jobs be created. The Workforce Investment Partnership Act includes titles reauthorizing major vocational education and adult literacy programs. Both programs will continue to be separately funded and independently administered. We have incorporated them in the Workforce Act because they must be integral components of any comprehensive strategy to prepare people to meet the demands of the 21st century workplace. Students who participate in vocational education must be provided with both strong academic preparation and advanced employment skills training. Recognizing this core principle, the legislation supports broad-based career preparation education which meets both high academic standards and teaches state-of-the-art technological skills. Adult literacy programs are essential for the 27 percent of the adult population who have not earned a high school diploma or its equivalent. Learning to read and communicate effectively are the first steps to career advancement. This legislation will increase access to educational opportunities for those most in need of assistance and enhance the quality of services provided. In vocational education and adult literacy, we place the same emphasis on program accountability which we did in job training. The Workforce Investment Partnership Act will make it possible for millions of Americans to gain the skills needed to compete in a global economy. In doing so, we are enabling them to realize their personal dreams. An educated workforce has become the most valuable resource in the modern economy. Our nation's long term economic vitality depends on the creation of an effective, accessible, and accountable system of job training and career development which is open to all our citizens. Schools must assume more responsibility for preparing their students to meet the challenges of the 21st century workplace. Disadvantaged adults and out of school youth need the opportunity to develop job skills which will make them productive members of the community. Dislocated workers who have been displaced by the rapid pace of technological change deserve the chance to pursue new careers. The way in which we respond to these challenges today will determine how prosperous a nation we are in the next century. The importance of highly developed employment skills has never been greater. The gap in earnings between skilled and unskilled workers is steadily widening. For those who enter the workforce with good academic training and well-developed career skills, this new economy offers almost unlimited potential. However, for those who lack basic proficiency in language, math and science and who have no career skills, the new economy presents an increasingly hostile environment. Over three million young men and women between the ages of 16 and 24 in this country did not complete high school and are not enrolled in school. Many more graduate from high school without the level of knowledge and skill that a high school diploma should represent. They will require more education and job training in order to obtain stable, well-paying employment. Without it, they are in danger of becoming a lost workforce generation. Effective job training is also essential to the success of welfare reform. More than 40% of those in the JTPA program for disadvantaged adults have come from the welfare rolls. Under the welfare reform legislation, an additional 1.7 million people will be entering the job market. Most of these individuals have little or no work background and very limited employment skills. In many cases, they are also the sole support of young children. They are making urgent new demands on a job training system that is already burdened beyond its capacity. In addition, the combination of rapidly changing technology and the shift of manufacturing jobs overseas is creating an alarming number of dislocated workers. These individuals have extensive work experience, but their skills are no longer in demand. We must give them the opportunity for retraining, and for the development of new skills to enable them to compete in the 21st century workplace. The accelerating pace of technological change has made much of the existing job training system obsolete. Broad reforms are clearly needed to meet the demands of the modern workplace. The Workforce Investment Partnership Act, unanimously approved by the Labor and Human Resources Committee, will provide employment training opportunities for millions of Americans. It responds to the challenge of the changing workplace by enabling men and women to acquire the skills required to enter the workforce and to upgrade their skills throughout their careers. It will provide them with access to the educational tools that will enable them not only to keep up, but to get ahead. The legislation is the product of a true bipartisan collaboration. I want to publicly commend Senators Jeffords and DeWine for the genuine spirit of bipartisanship which has made this effort possible. Senator Wellstone and I appreciate it. The resulting legislation will, I believe, truly expand career options, encourage greater program innovation, and facilitate cooperative efforts amongst business, labor, education and state and local government. I also want to recognize the important role President Clinton has played in bringing about this dramatic reform of our current job training system. He has consistently emphasized the need for greater individual choice in the selection of career paths and training providers. The philosophy behind his skill grant proposal is reflected in our legislation. The Workforce Investment Partnership Act is designed to provide easy access to state of the art employment training programs which are geared to real job opportunities in the community through a single, customer-friendly system of One Stop Career Centers. Over 700 such Centers are already operating successfully across the country. This legislation will ensure that every individual in need of employment services will have access to such a facility. The cornerstones of this new system are individual choice and quality labor market information. In the past, men and women seeking new careers often did not know what job skills were most in demand and which training programs had the best performance record. All too often, they were forced to make one of the most important decisions of their lives based on anecdotes and late- night advertisements. No training system can function effectively without accurate and timely information. The frequent unavailability of quality labor market information is one of the most serious flaws in the current system. This legislation places a strong emphasis on providing accurate and timely information about what area industries are growing, what skills those jobs require, and what earning potential they have. Extensive business community and organized labor participation are encouraged in developing a regional plan based on this information. Once a career choice is made, the individual must still select a training provider. At present, many applicants make that choice with a little or no reliable information. Under this bill, each training provider will have to publicly report graduation rates, job placement and retention rates, and average earnings of graduates. Because of the extensive information which will be available to each applicant, real consumer choice in the selection of a career and of a training provider will be possible. The legislation establishes individual training accounts for financially eligible participants, which they can use to access career education and skill training programs. Men and women seeking training assistance will no longer be limited to a few predetermined options. As long as there are real job opportunities in the field selected and the training provider meets established performance standards, the individual will be free to choose which option best suits his or her needs. An essential element of the new system we have designed is accountability. As I noted earlier, each training provider will have to monitor and report the job placement and retention achieved by its graduates and their average earnings. Only those training programs that meet an acceptable performance standard will remain eligible for receipt of public funds. The same principle of accountability is applied to those agencies administering state and local programs. They are being given wide latitude to innovate under this legislation. But they too will be held accountable if their programs fail to meet challenging performance targets. The rapid pace of technological change in the workplace has produced an alarming number of workers who have become dislocated in mid-career. The dislocation has been compounded by the increasing number of labor intensive production employers relocating their businesses abroad. This trend has been particularly acute in the manufacturing sector. We have a special obligation to these dislocated workers who have long and dedicated work histories and now are unemployed through no fault of their own. The Workforce Investment Partnership Act makes a commitment to them by maintaining a special dislocated worker program, supported by a separate funding stream, which is geared to their retraining needs. The current dislocated worker program served approximately 540,000 dislocated workers nationwide in the most recent year. Of those who completed the program during that year, 71 percent were employed when they left the program, earning on average 93 percent of their previous wages. America's dislocated workers have earned the right to assistance in developing new skills which will allow them to be full participants in the 21st century economy. There is no challenge facing America today which is tougher or more important than providing at-risk, often out-of-school, youth with meaningful education and employment opportunities. Far too many of our teenagers are being left behind without the skills needed to survive in the 21st century economy. I am particularly pleased with the commitment which the Workforce Investment Partnership Act makes to these young men and women. This legislation authorizes a new initiative focused on teenagers living in poverty in communities offering them few constructive employment opportunities. Each year, the Secretary of Labor will award grants from a $250 million fund to innovative programs designed to provide opportunities to youth living in these areas. The programs will emphasize mentoring, strong links between academic and worksite learning, and job placement and retention. It will encourage broad based community participation from local service agencies and area employers. These model programs will, we believe, identify the techniques which are most effective in reaching those youth at greatest risk. Another important program for young people who face the highest barriers to employment is Job Corps. Most of the participants grow up in extreme poverty. Their educational opportunities are limited. Job Corps, at its best, moves them from deprivation to opportunity. But, for many of them, it is an extremely difficult transition. As a result, critics of the program are always able to point to failures. But for each story of failure, there are many stories of success. Job Corps is a program worth preserving and worth expanding too. Our legislation decisively rejects the view that Job Corps should be dismantled. Instead, it strengthens the program in several ways. It establishes closer ties between individual Job Corps Centers and the communities they serve. It ensures that training programs correspond with the area's labor market needs. It extends follow-up counseling for participants up to 12 months and established detailed performance standards to hold programs accountable. The legislation also provides for the continuation of summer jobs as an essential element of the youth grant. For many youth, summer jobs are their first opportunity to work and their first critical step in learning the work ethic. The summer jobs program also provides many youth with quality learning experiences and follow up during the school year. Studies by the Department of Labor's Office of the Inspector General and research by Westat, Inc. have reported positive findings regarding the program, concluding that work sites are well-supervised and disciplined, that jobs provide useful work, that the education component teaches students new skills that they apply in school, and that students learn the value of work. I believe that the summer jobs program needs to continue to be available on a significant scale with sufficient funding. This bill recognizes the critical importance of the summer youth program by requiring that it be a part of each local area's youth program and allowing local communities to determine the number of summer jobs to be created. The Workforce Investment Partnership Act includes titles reauthorizing major vocational education and adult literacy programs. Both programs will continue to be separately funded and independently administered. We have incorporated them in the Workforce Act because they must be integral components of any comprehensive strategy to prepare people to meet the demands of the 21st century workplace. Students who participate in vocational education must be provided with both strong academic preparation and advanced employment skills training. Recognizing this core principle, the legislation supports broad-based career preparation education which meets both high academic standards and teaches state- of-the-art technological skills. Adult literacy programs are essential for the 27% of the adult population who have not earned a high school diploma or its equivalent. Learning to read and communicate effectively are the first steps to career advancement. This legislation will increase access to educational opportunities for those people most in need of assistance and enhance the quality of services provided. In vocational education and adult literacy, we are placing the same emphasis on program accountability which we did in job training. The Workforce Investment Partnership Act will make it possible for millions of Americans to gain the skills needed to compete in a global economy. In doing so, we are also enabling them to realize their personal American dreams. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement of administrative policy and letters of endorsement.

Mr. KENNEDY. I wanted also to discuss the Rehabilitation Act amendments of 1998. I welcome the opportunity to commend again Senator DeWine and Senator Jeffords for their leadership in making this reauthorization a priority and including this legislation as a part of the larger workforce development systems in the states. I also commend Senator Wellstone, Senator Harkin, Senator Dodd, and the Clinton Administration for their leadership in developing a bipartisan bill. I especially want to commend all of the staff members for their skillful work to make this process successful. For over 20 years, since the Vocational Rehabilitation Act was first enacted in 1973, state vocational rehabilitation systems have brought new hope to individuals with disabilities throughout the country, so they can reach their full potential and actively participate in their communities. Through the vocational rehabilitation, individuals with disabilities have access to training, counseling, support and job opportunities they need in order to become independent and productive, and live fulfilling lives. The Rehabilitation Act Amendments give us an excellent opportunity to do more to keep the promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act--by ensuing that all working-age individuals with disabilities, even those with the most significant disabilities, have realistic opportunities to obtain the support they need to reach their employment goals. With this legislation, we are building on the past gains by strengthening employment possibilities for all individuals with disabilities. The new provisions of this bill streamline the role of government by simplifying access to vocational rehabilitation services. It widens employment opportunities by establishing linkages with the larger statewide workforce systems. It also makes services available to individuals with disabilities who do not require extensive rehabilitation in order to become employed. Those who achieve work outcomes through this assistance will receive at least the minimum wage. This measure also recognizes that individuals receiving disability benefits through Social Security are significantly disabled and should be presumed to be eligible for vocational rehabilitation services. Throughout this process, we have heard from consumers, advocates, and program administrators. The bill strengthens the role of individuals in developing their own employment plans. It makes it easier for agencies to work together, so that individuals with disabilities can obtain the support and services they need. I commend all the consumers, the advocates, the families, and the administrators who have done so much to help us shape the legislation. Their commitment to constructive compromise will improve the lives of all people with disabilities. Our larger goal is to see the talents and strengths of individuals with disabilities are recognized, enhanced, and fairly rewarded in communities and workplaces across the Nation. I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to achieve this great goal. I think this is another very important piece of legislation. I commend our leaders for the way this has been fashioned and shaped. Through vocational rehabilitation, individuals with disabilities have access to the training, counseling, support and job opportunities they need in order to become independent and productive, and live fulfilling lives. For millions of these Americans, vocational rehabilitation can mean the difference between dependence and independence, between lost potential and productive careers. The Rehabilitation Act Amendments give us an excellent opportunity to do more to keep the promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act--- by ensuring that all working-age individuals with disabilities, even those with the most significant disabilities, have realistic opportunities to obtain the support they need to reach their employment goals. With this legislation, we are building on past gains by strengthening the employment possibilities for all individuals with disabilities. The new provisions of this bill streamline the role of government by simplifying access to vocational rehabilitation services. It widens employment opportunities by establishing linkages with the larger statewide workforce systems. It also makes services available to individuals with disabilities who do not require extensive rehabilitation in order to become employed. Those who achieve work outcomes through this assistance will receive at least the minimum wage. This measure also recognizes that individuals receiving disability benefits through Social Security are significantly disabled and should be presumed to be eligible for vocational rehabilitation services. Throughout this process, we have heard from consumers, advocates and program administrators. The bill strengthens the role of individuals in developing their own employment plans. It makes it easier for agencies to work together, so that individuals with disabilities can obtain the support and services they need. I commend all the consumers, advocates, families, and administrators who have done so much to help us shape this legislation. Their commitment to constructive compromise will improve the lives of all people with disabilities. Our larger goal is to see that the talents and strengths of individuals with disabilities are recognized, enhanced, and fairly rewarded in communities and workplaces across the nation. I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to achieve this great goal.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly disagree with the adverse comments of the Senator from Missouri regarding the School-to-Work Opportunities Act. That Act has provided countless young men and women across America with educational and career development opportunities which they would never have otherwise had. It has given those teenagers a greater range of choice in preparing for their future careers. It has opened the doors of prospective employers to these students and afforded them invaluable work opportunities. The evidence is there. I could speak for hours reciting success stories resulting from the School-to-Work program. However, this is not the appropriate time to debate the merits of School-to-Work. The Workforce Investment Partnership Act does not even mention the School-to-Work Opportunities Act once in its 444 pages of text. It does not amend or alter the School-to-Work Act in any way. The concern of all Senators today should be focused on the Workforce Investment Partnership Act which we are now considering. I have been assured by those advocating the Ashcroft amendment that it does not in any way limit the use of funds made available under the Workforce Act for any activity authorized by the Workforce Act. That is the issue which is most important today. Notwithstanding the Ashcroft amendment, funds available under each title of the Workforce Act will be able to be used to support any activity which that title authorizes. Based on that representation regarding the intent of the amendment, I do not request a rollcall vote.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri would require applicants and participants in job training programs to submit to drug testing. I am opposed to the amendment because it represents an unwarranted and unprecedented intrusion into the privacy of the thousands of ordinary Americans who use job training services. In addition, the amendment is a costly and unfunded Federal mandate. One of the innovations of this job training bill is the degree of flexibility it gives States and localities. The Ashcroft amendment is completely out of step with that goal. Drug testing has an important role in certain job training settings, just as it has in certain workplace settings. But the proposal by the Senator from Missouri is overbroad, excessively expensive, and an example of the intrusive Federal policy role that this bill is designed to combat. The vast majority of the people who will use the job training services authorized in this bill are upstanding citizens, not criminals. They are displaced defense workers. They are blue collar workers who have been laid off as a result of a factory closing. They are professionals seeking to improve their skills in specialized fields. They are victims of natural disasters and runaway plants moving overseas. The Ashcroft amendment says to these people: If you want this assistance to try to improve your skills and obtain employment, you have to agree to submit to a Government test for possible drug abuse. I do not believe that the privacy of ordinary citizens hoping to improve their job skills should be routinely invaded in this intrusive manner. The Government uses drug testing today for airline pilots, train conductors, and other employees involved in sensitive public safety tasks. If programs funded by this bill train people in sensitive jobs, there is nothing that would prohibit drug testing. But routinely testing of everyone is too extreme. We do not do it in other programs, and we should not do it in this one. We do not drug-test people seeking Government assistance in financing a mortgage; we do not drug-test flood or earthquake victims applying for disaster relief; we do not drug-test crime victims seeking assistance from the Federal Office of Victim Services; we do not drug- test farmers seeking crop subsidies. We do not drug-test corporate executive seeking overseas marketing assistance from the Commerce Department. Why are job training recipients singled out for this stigma? No case has been made that this population is more susceptible to drug abuse than the population at large. The amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri requires drug testing in two situations. First, every applicant to a job training program is subject to testing on a random basis. Second, participants in training programs are subject to testing based on reasonable suspicion of drug use. Both random basis and reasonable suspicion are undefined concepts. They raise the specter that excessive distinctions will be made based on stereotypes and prejudices. As we have often been told, Washington does not have all the answers. We should not replace one set of Federal mandates with another set of Federal mandates. This bill is designed to maximize local flexibility, but the Ashcroft amendment goes in the opposite direction. Indeed, the Ashcroft amendment would actually preempt some State laws. A number of State legislatures have addressed the circumstances under which drug testing can be utilized, but the Ashcroft amendment would actually override the considered judgments of those legislative bodies and put in place a one-size-fits-all Federal mandate. Drug testing on the scale contemplated by this amendment would be enormously expensive. By some estimates, 1 million Americans use the job training services included in this bill. The Department of Health and Human Services estimates that the average cost of a drug test is about $35. That means it would cost $35 million each year to administer an average of one test to each person. Either this amendment saddles local governments with a huge unfunded mandate, or it eats up a large portion of the Federal funds made available under this bill. It is also important to note that drug testing technology is not infallible. Depending upon the type of testing technology that is used, as many as 4 percent of all drug tests result in false positives. That means that if a million drug tests are administered, some 40,000 Americans might be inaccurately labeled as drug users. Of course there are often opportunities for appeals and confirmation tests and retests. But we should think long and hard before we adopt this amendment and subject tens of thousands of ordinary, law-abiding Americans to the Kafka-esque nightmare of being falsely accused of drug use. The amendment requires those who test positive for drugs to obtain drug treatment. But who will pay for treatment? Right now, only a third of the Americans who need substance abuse treatment receive it because insurance coverage and public funding are inadequate. In light of that fiscal reality, it makes no sense to institute a massive new Government drug testing program. Finally, the amendment is objectionable because it may deter people who need job training services from seeking them. The threat of an intrusive drug test may put off drug users and non-drug users alike. We want to encourage people to improve their skills. We want to encourage the unemployed to become employed. We should not erect barriers to the services authorized in this bill. Job training programs do not need the Federal Government to tell them how to deal with drug abuse. They have the tools they need. Where drug testing is appropriate, it will occur. But a sweeping Federal mandate is completely unnecessary and excessively expensive. I have concerns about the privacy issue, concerns about the cost issue, concerns about preempting State laws, concerns about issues relating to standards and to quality control for random tests. They are all sound reasons to oppose this imprudent amendments.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Hyannis Fire Department recently honored Harold S. Brunelle of Hyannis by appointing him as Fire Chief. This honor is a well-deserved tribute to Chief Brunelle, his 26-year career with the Department, and his commitment to the community of Hyannis. Chief Brunelle was chosen after nation-wide competition for the position of Fire Chief, and he was selected unanimously for the position in a field of 34 applicants. Chief Brunelle joined the Hyannis Department in 1972 as a Junior Firefighter and rose through the ranks because of his great ability and dedication. His selection as Fire Chief demonstrates the town's confidence in Mr. Brunelle and their faith in his able service and leadership to the residents of the community. Hyannis and Massachusetts are proud of Harold Brunelle's appointment as Fire Chief. I congratulate him on this distinction, and I look forward to working closely with him in the years ahead. I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Barnstable Register on Chief Brunelle's selection be printed in the Record.