Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time and send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. KENNEDY. Regular order. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Regular order.

Mr. KENNEDY. Regular order.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the other side wants to yield back their time, I am prepared to yield time and move ahead to a rollcall vote on this. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. Otherwise we will have a long quorum call, Mr. President.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I believe one of my amendments on the educational opportunity zones is before the Senate. Am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is the last item of President Clinton's education proposal. It basically provides help and assistance to communities for these educational opportunity grants for those communities in this country, both in rural and urban areas, that are showing a special kind of designation in reforming and rehabilitating their total educational package. This is one of the areas that has been recommended by most of the educational groups. It has been tried and tested in the past year and a half with very small, modest programs, with very substantial improvement in academic achievement and accomplishment. It does provide $1.5 billion over 5 years, and it is paid for with an across-the-board cut in nondefense by less than two-tenths of 1 percent of the budget program. I hope the Senate will adopt the amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the time has come for action to protect families and curb the insurance company abuses. This amendment gives the Senate a chance to go on record as saying it is time for Congress to decide that profits should not take priority over patients. I just ask our colleagues to read page 3 of this sense of the Senate. It ensures coverage of emergency services, and allows women direct access for obstetrical and gynecological care. It ensures women will not be subject to drive-through mastectomies. It meets the special needs of children and the special needs of individuals with disabilities. It provides for the protection of the relationship between the doctor and the patient, and the elimination of the gag clauses. And it provides greater information about health care plans to the patients. Our opponents will argue that these rights will raise premiums. But it will not cost an additional cent for any of the good plans. It may cost more for those plans who do not currently do these things. We all know that the easiest way to save money is to deny care. Let us stand for the patients and the medical profession. They have basically endorsed these rights, as has the President's commission. This amendment says that we are going to pass legislation which will protect them. That is what this sense of the Senate guarantees. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I had understood, there had been representations that were made that the Senator from Oklahoma would be able to get a vote on his amendment and then we would go ahead with a vote on my amendment, the Kennedy-Durbin-Boxer amendment. That is my understanding. If my understanding is correct, I have no objection. Is that the----

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the equal employment amendment calls for a 15% increase in the budget for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for the coming year. Under this amendment the EEOC's budget will increase from $242 million to $279 million next year. One of the most basic civil rights protected by current law is the right to equal opportunity in employment, your right to be free from job discrimination because of your race, your sex, your age, your ethnic background, your religion, or any disability you may have. This country has made significant progress against job discrimination, but we still have a long way to go to guarantee that you are hired or paid or promoted on the basis of your abilities. Too often, the right that you have on paper is not a right in reality, because your remedy is inadequate or non-existent. The EEOC has the principal responsibility to combat discrimination in the workplace and that responsibility has grown significantly in recent years. The passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the growing awareness of the problem of sexual harassment in the workplace, and the effect of downsizing on older workers have all added greatly to the responsibilities of the EEOC, but there has not been a commensurate increase in the agency's resources. The Commission's workload is growing and its budget must keep up, or vast numbers of Americans will have a meaningless right--a right without a remedy. In fact, EEOC funding has increased only by 5.2% over the last four years. That is not enough to keep up with inflation--let alone keep up with the agency's increased responsibilities. Without substantial new funding, the EEOC will fall farther and farther behind in its vital work. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. The numbers tell the story. In 1990, 62,000 charges of discrimination were filed by employees in the private sector. That number increased to 81,000 in 1997, an increase of almost 30%. Ninety percent of the Commission's budget is allocated for fixed costs, with the vast majority--75%--going to salary and benefits. When its budget doesn't keep pace with inflation, the Commission must get along with fewer investigators and attorneys. As a result, although the workload has increased, the size of the staff has fallen. The number of employees declined from 2800 employees in 1993 to 2600 employees in 1997. Since 1980, the number of employees has dropped by 23%. Think about that-- mushrooming responsibilities, declining resources. That's an invitation to employers to think they can get away with discrimination in the workplace. The agency has tried to hold the line, but there is a limit to doing more with less. The Commission urgently needs this budget increase, and I want the Senate to approve it.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the next amendment is a sense of the Senate.

Mr. KENNEDY. I have no objection, Mr. President.

Mr. KENNEDY. How much time do I have, Mr. President? Is it 15 minutes on our side?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this amendment sounds innocuous, but it is a direct assault on Social Security, and it deserves resounding rejection by the Senate. Millions of senior citizens depend on Social Security. In fact, Social Security benefits comprise more than 75% of the income of half of the nation's 28 million recipients. It is a sacred compact between citizens and their government that says, ``pay into Social Security during your working years, and we will guarantee you a decent retirement income during your golden years.'' Social Security is one of the most popular programs ever enacted. It is also one of our nation's most successful anti-poverty programs. In 1959, 35% of the nation's elderly lived in poverty. Today, that number has dropped to 9%. We all recognize that legislative action is necessary to assure that Social Security will be solvent throughout the 21st century. There is no crisis--but there is a problem, and the sooner we take action to solve it the better. All of us know that Social Security will run out of money in 2030. All of us know that the single highest priority of the American people is to see Social Security preserved. All of us know that the President has said that none of the budget surplus should be spent until we solve the Social Security problem--and the American people strongly support this approach. But this amendment takes a different approach. It says: ``Let's forget about preserving Social Security. Let's go ahead and spend the surplus on a risky and untried experiment with individual retirement accounts.'' We all know what is going on here. There are a number of members of this body who want to throw Security on the scrap heap of history. They think it ought to be privatized. They think the concept of Social Security is wrong. They think individuals, instead of relying on the tried and true and guaranteed support that Social Security provides, should take their chances by speculating in the stock market. If they do well, they can become rich. If they do poorly and are impoverished in their old age--so be it. I reject that philosophy. The American people, I believe, also reject that philosophy. And the Senate should reject that amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment offered by Senators Conrad and Lautenberg, which will ensure that any revenues generated from an increase in the price of cigarettes is directed first and foremost to protecting the nation's children from nicotine addiction and smoking-induced diseases. The Republican budget creates a number of serious barriers to these efforts by prohibiting tobacco revenues from being used for anti- smoking initiatives. In fact, the budget uses Medicare as a smokescreen to make funding more difficult for important smoking cessation programs, counter- advertising to deglamorize tobacco use among children, biomedical research to cure smoking-caused illnesses, and public education to inform the American people more fully about the dangers of tobacco use. If the current restrictive resolution is adopted, a vote of sixty Senators would be required to waive the restrictions. The result is that millions of Americans who want to quit smoking will have a much more difficult time achieving their goal. Anti-smoking programs are central to any effective measure to reduce tobacco use, and they should be the first priority for the dollars raised by a cigarette price increase. If these anti-tobacco initiatives are not funded, the problem of teenage smoking in the United States will only increase. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a million youngsters start smoking each year--almost 3,000 a day. One third of them will die prematurely from smoking-induced illnesses. The average smoker begins at age 13, and becomes a daily smoker by age 15. These facts are serious enough. But the crisis is growing worse. A Spring 1996 survey by the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research found that teenage smoking has continued to rise since 1991. It climbed by nearly fifty percent among eighth and tenth graders, and by nearly twenty percent among high school seniors between 1991 and 1996. The industry strategy is obvious. The tobacco companies target children, because once children are hooked on cigarette smoking, they become customers for life. Ninety percent of current adult smokers began to smoke before they reached the age of 18. By contrast, if young men and women reach that age without beginning to smoke, they are unlikely to take up the habit in later years. The tobacco companies know these facts. They are fully aware that if they do not persuade children to start smoking, the industry may collapse within a generation. That's why Big Tobacco has targeted children with billions of dollars in advertising and promotional giveaways that promise popularity and success for those who take up smoking. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that the average 14-year-old is exposed to $20 billion in advertising--$20 billion--beginning at age 6. In fact, the name ``Joe Camel'' is as familiar to children as ``Mickey Mouse.'' Two recently disclosed industry documents illustrate the blatant marketing to youths. In a 1981 Philip Morris memo entitled ``Young Smokers--Prevalence, Implications, and Related Demographic Trends,'' the authors wrote that: It is important to know as much as possible about teenage smoking patterns and attitudes. Today's teenager is tomorrow's potential regular customer, and the overwhelming majority of smokers first begin to smoke while still in their teens. . . The smoking patterns of teenagers are particularly important to Philip Morris. . . Furthermore, it is during the teenage years that the initial choice is made. A marketing report by R.J. Reynolds researcher Diane Burrows, written prior to launching the Joe Camel advertising campaign, stated: Younger adult smokers are critical to R.J. Reynolds' long- term profitability. Therefore, RJR must make a substantial long-term commitment of manpower and money dedicated to younger adult smoking programs. A related RJR document states that ``young adult'' refers to the 14-24 age group. It is no coincidence that shortly after R.J. Reynolds launched the Joe Camel campaign in 1988, Camel's share of the youth market soared from 0.5% to 32.8%. Unless Congress takes action to reverse this disturbing trend in adolescent smoking, five million of today's children will die prematurely from smoking-caused illness. That's unacceptable. Although all of us agree that Medicare should be protected for future generations, one of the best ways to keep Medicare strong is to invest in important public health and tobacco control programs that prevent children from beginning to smoke, and that help current smokers to quit smoking. Americans will lead healthier lives, and the burden of tobacco-induced diseases will be greatly reduced. Unfortunately, the Republican budget earmarks all of the tobacco revenues for Medicare. It prohibits using even one dollar of the tobacco revenues to deter youth from smoking. Smoking has inflicted great damage on people's health. It is the leading preventable cause of death and disability in the nation. Tobacco products are responsible for a third of all cancers, and 90% of all lung cancers. Smoking also causes great harm to nonsmokers. A recent study by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research reports that second-hand smoke is responsible for as many as 60% of cases of asthma, bronchitis, and wheezing among young children. It makes sense to use tobacco revenues to discourage children from beginning to smoke. These programs work. Smoking cessation programs are among the most effective means to reduce health care costs. At the same time, they save and improve the lives of millions of Americans. They are also cost-effective. Every dollar invested in a smoking cessation program for a pregnant woman saves $6 in costs for neonatal intensive care and long-term care for low birthweight babies. Dr. Michael Fiore, Director of the Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, noted that: smoking cessation programs are the most cost-effective prevention intervention a physician can engage in. . . It is a paradox in America that virtually every health insurance policy pays for the outcomes of smoking, whether it is a heart attack, stroke, or cancer, but only half of them pay the $100 to $200 it would take to prevent these very expensive illnesses. The Republican budget offers no help in cases like this, and that makes no sense. The Republican budget offers no help to states and communities for public health advertising to counteract the $5 billion a year that the tobacco industry pours into advertising to encourage people to start smoking and keep smoking. Paid counter-advertising is extremely effective in reducing tobacco consumption. Both Massachusetts and California have demonstrated that counter-advertising can discourage children from beginning to smoke and encourage smokers to quit. It helped reduce cigarette use in Massachusetts by 17% between 1992 and 1996, or three times the national average. Smoking by junior high school students dropped 8%, while the rest of the nation has seen an increase. In California, a counter-advertising campaign reduced smoking rates by 15% over the last three years. A soon-to-be-published study by Professor Frank Chaloupka of the University of Illinois found that tobacco counter-advertising can also reduce illegal drugs use among youth. The Republican budget, however, will provide no funding for these important efforts. The Republican budget offers no help to the Food and Drug Administration to enforce the laws against the sale of tobacco products to minors, even though young people spend $1 billion a year to buy tobacco products illegally. Last year, Congress tried to get away with underfunding the FDA's tobacco regulations by providing only $5 million of the $34 million President Clinton requested to begin enforcement of the youth access rule. An amendment by Senator Harkin to the Agriculture Appropriations bill to restore the funding was defeated on the Senate floor. Two months later, as public outrage grew, Congress reversed itself and overwhelmingly approved the full amount. A similar outcry from our constituents and the public health community is likely if we do not provide funding for these important enforcement efforts. Finally, the Republican budget offers no help for medical research on tobacco-related diseases, even though such research can lead to enormous savings for Medicare. Funding for tobacco-related medical research is vital to fulfilling our hopes for healthy lives for all citizens. The promise of new medical research is boundless. As impressive as the progress of the past has been, it pales in comparison to the opportunities of the future. In addition, a recent study by researchers at Duke University indicates that expanded funding for medical research can help keep Medicare and other federal health care programs solvent for the long- term. If the goal of this budget resolution is to protect Medicare, it makes no sense to prevent tobacco revenues from being used to support anti-smoking programs that will reduce future costs for Medicare. Currently, smoking-induced diseases cost the federal government over $20 billion a year. If we invest in medical research to make Americans healthier, we can save enormous sums, protect these programs for future generations, and prevent many of the illnesses caused by smoking. The country supports these fundamental priorities, and the Senate should support them too. They have been endorsed by the public health community, and by Doctor Koop and Doctor Kessler. They are included in virtually all of the tobacco bills introduced in Congress by Republicans as well as Democrats. I urge my colleagues to support the Conrad/Lautenberg amendment. Unanimous-Consent Agreement

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Moseley- Braun's amendment to the budget resolution to help modernize and repair the nation's public school facilities for the 21st century. Schools across the nation face serious problems of overcrowding. Antiquated facilities are suffering from physical decay, and are not equipped to handle the needs of modern education. Across the country, 14 million children in a third of the nation's schools are learning in substandard buildings. Half the schools have at least one unsatisfactory environmental condition. It will take over $110 billion just to repair existing facilities nationwide. Massachusetts is no exception. 41% of our schools across the state report that at least one building needs extensive repair or should be replaced. Three-quarters report serious problems in buildings, such as plumbing or heating defects. 80% have at least one unsatisfactory environmental factor. In Boston, many schools cannot keep their heating systems functioning properly. On a given day, 15 to 30 schools complain that their heat is not working. Faulty boilers and leaky pipes are responsible for sewage leaks and backups at many schools in Springfield, Massachusetts. The leaking roof at Revere High School is so serious that the new fire system is threatened. School Committee members estimate that fixing the roof will cost an additional $1 million, and they don't know where to get the money. It is difficult enough to teach or learn in dilapidated classrooms. But now, because of escalating enrollments, classrooms are increasingly overcrowded. The nation will need 6,000 new schools in the next few years, just to maintain current class sizes. The student population in Pomona, California has increased 37% in the last ten years, and most students are now forced to study in poorly ventilated and dimly lit portable classrooms. To accommodate the large number of students using the cafeteria, school officials have had to schedule five different lunch periods every day. Malden, Massachusetts is in the process of building five new elementary schools to accommodate increases in student enrollment. The estimated cost for constructing these schools will exceed $100 million. The Senate recently heard testimony from a student in Clifton, Virginia whose high school is so overcrowded that fights often break out in the overflowing halls. The problem is called ``Hall Rage,'' and it's analogous to ``Road Rage'' on crowded highways. The violence in the hallways is bad enough. But it's even worse, because it's difficult for teachers to teach when students are distracted by the chaos in the hallways and outside their classrooms. State governments and local communities are working to meet these challenges. In Massachusetts, under the School Building Assistance Act, the state will pay 50-90% of the most severe needs. 124 schools now have approved projects, and are on a waiting list for funding. The state share should be $91 million this year, but only $35 million is available. More than 50 other projects are awaiting approval. With that kind of deficit at the state and local level, it is clear that the federal government has a responsibility to act. Incredibly, the Republican budget proposal ignores these pressing needs. The Republican plan cuts funding for education. It refuses to provide needed new investments to improve public education, including school modernization and construction. Democrats have made it a top priority to see that America has the best education system in the world. Providing safe and adequate school facilities is an important step towards meeting that goal. I urge the Senate to approve this amendment. Investing in education is one of the best investments America can possibly make. For schools across America, help is truly on the way--and it can't come a minute too soon.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the 1996 welfare law unfairly reduced SSI, Medicaid and food stamp benefits for legal immigrants. Food stamps alone were cut by $25 billion. No other program has been cut as deeply. Last year, recognizing that these cuts were too extreme, Congress restored SSI and Medicaid to many elderly and disabled immigrants. It's time to finish the job and ensure that those whose Medicaid and SSI were restored, do not go hungry. And we should do the same for children of legal immigrants. Last week, the conferees on the Agricultural Research bill made a down payment toward restoring food stamps for the needy legal immigrants. The conference report on the bill includes $818 million for this program. It is far less than the $2 billion proposed in the President's budget, and it covers a much smaller group of immigrants. The conferees' proposal is a bipartisan effort. Both Republicans and Democrats urged them to take this step as soon as possible. Yet, the Republican leadership in the Senate is ignoring the urgent need. The Republican budget does not include a single penny to restore food stamps to immigrant children, refugees, Hmong veterans, or elderly and disabled legal immigrants, and the Republican leadership has declined to allow the Senate to pass on the Agricultural Research bill. According to Department of Agriculture estimates, at least 935,000 low-income legal immigrants lost their federal food stamps in 1997 as a result of the 1996 welfare law. Nearly two-thirds are immigrant families with children. Many legal immigrants live in poverty and have great difficulty feeding their families. In fact, according to the Department of Agriculture, the average legal immigrant denied food stamps has an income equal to just 62 percent of the poverty line, or about $8,000 for a family of three. In addition, 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 if the 5 year limit on food stamps for this group is not extended to 7 years. The effects of these food stamps terminations is not limited to legal immigrants. Their children born here are American citizens but they too are facing sharp reductions in their food stamps. Their children remain eligible for food stamps themselves, but the removal of their parents from the program has meant that 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 reduced for this reason, resulting in less food for all family members, including the children. The food stamp cut-off has hurt immigrant families, and it has also hurt state and local governments, who must fill the gap. As a result, governors and state legislatures have joined Congress to restore these food stamp benefits. As Governor Bush of Texas said, ``Food stamps are a federal program and the federal responsibility, but the federal government is shirking its responsibility. The rules have changed unfairly and retroactively for those least able to help themselves.'' It is time for the Senate to act on the bill. It is unconscionable that these benefits can continue to be denied.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Can I yield myself 8 minutes off the amendment?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be temporarily set aside for up to 1 minute so that I may offer three amendments to be sequenced just as the Senator from Oregon did for his three amendments before the vote.

Mr. KENNEDY. It was to temporarily set aside, for 1 minute, the pending amendment so I may offer three amendments to be sequenced just as the Senator from Oregon did for his three amendments before the vote. I ask that they be sequenced in an order that would be satisfactory to the minority leader.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send three amendments to the desk and ask for their immediate consideration.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask that the three amendments be sequenced after amendments to be offered by Senators Hollings, Lautenberg and Daschle, and that they alternate with Republican amendments, in whatever form----