Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. That is exactly what I am requesting.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague, the Senator from West Virginia, for his analysis of this issue. He is one of the real experts on Medicare and Medicaid and is very much involved in the subcommittee of the Finance Committee dealing with all of these issues. He brings a very sound perspective to this issue. His comments identified the weaknesses of the Kyl proposal and also what are the dangers for so many of our senior citizens. I hope that our colleagues pay close attention to his words. I join in urging the Senate to oppose the Kyl amendment and defeat this attempt to undermine Medicare by eliminating the protections in current law that prevent doctors from overcharging senior citizens. This is not a ``freedom of choice'' amendment for patients; it is a ``freedom to price gouge'' amendment for physicians, and it deserves to be rejected by the Senate. Medicare patients already have freedom of choice. In fact, because Medicare is one of the only insurance programs that still offers a true fee-for-service option, senior citizens generally have more choices in health care than other citizens, including those of us in the Senate. According to a February 23 report from the General Accounting Office, the information available to us indicates that Medicare beneficiaries have ready access to physicians. The report emphasizes the high participation rate in Medicare by physicians. Ninety-six percent of all the doctors accept and treat Medicare patients. The report also emphasizes that few Medicare patients have problems in obtaining health care. Only 4 percent report difficulty in finding a physician. This does not appear to be due to the reimbursement levels. The GAO found reimbursement levels for physicians under Medicare are adequate and do not jeopardize access to health care for senior citizens. The Kyl amendment is no answer to the problems of Medicare. It will only make those problems worse. The freedom it proposes is the freedom to exploit senior citizens and the freedom to dismantle the fundamental guarantee of affordable health care for the elderly that has served American senior citizens well for so many years. Senior citizens deserve affordable health care provided by Medicare, and that they have earned through a lifetime of hard work and service to this country. The Kyl amendment takes the choice out of the hands of the vast majority of senior citizens and puts it in the hands of the doctors. That is the key flaw in the Kyl amendment. Who is going to be making the decision? Is it going to be the patient, or is it going to be the provider? The patient already has that kind of freedom today. If they want to indicate that they do not want their doctor to bill the Medicare system, then they can go ahead and pay if they want to. They have that opportunity to do so. That is not what the Kyl amendment is about. The Kyl amendment puts the power in the hands of the doctors. If such legislation were to pass, doctors would be free to charge unlimited fees and patients would be free to pay them. Some freedom. Some choice. Medicare works well for patients and physicians alike. Senior citizens are free to chose their doctor and are free to self-pay if they desire. Physicians must abide by limits on what they can charge for services covered by Medicare, which means that senior citizens know they cannot be overcharged. In addition, because Medicare covers the basic services, but not all services, the elderly are free to pay out of pocket for services not covered by Medicare. If they are able to afford it and they want to pay privately for Medicare-covered service, they can do that too by asking the doctor not to submit a claim. If the patient wants to pay the doctor, and pay the doctor more, and pay the doctor an exorbitant amount, the patient is free to do so now at the present time and not have them submit the claim to Medicare. This was the case before the Balanced Budget Act was enacted last year, and it is the case today. The current system works and works well. This aspect of Medicare is not broken, and it does not need to be fixed. The only fix the Kyl amendment provides is the authority for doctors to fix the higher prices than Medicare allows. Current law favors the patient by guaranteeing that it is the patient who initiates actions to pay outside of Medicare. Medicare's balanced billing limits continue to apply. The patients have the choice. They are the ones who can initiate or end the private transaction. The power is in the hands of the patient. That is where it should be. The Kyl amendment gives that choice to the physician. That is the serious mistake that would jeopardize Medicare coverage for large numbers of senior citizens. The reality is that in a number of instances the patient will ask the doctor not to submit the claim or the bill under Medicare. These are primarily in the cases of mental health and substance abuse where the individual, for any number of reasons, fears what might happen to them in the job market or because it might make it more difficult or complex in terms of other different personal reasons and chooses to pay themselves and tells the doctor, ``Look, don't bill Medicare. I'll pay you. I'll pay you.'' That happens today. It is not widely advertised, not widely proclaimed, but it happens today. That goes on, and the Medicare system respects that. But that isn't what this is about. This is about where the doctor says to the patient who is in that doctor's office and needs help and assistance, ``Look, you're not going to effectively get it''--it might be a little smoother than this, but the message is going to be clear-- ``unless you're going to pay me whatever I say.'' Now, that is the beginning of the end. That is something that we have guarded against over a long period of time, and we should not open up those gates today. Congress should not imperil the financial security of 38 million senior citizens. Congress should not take the money out of the pockets of the elderly and put it in the bank accounts of wealthy physicians. That is what this issue is really about. Simply put, who is going to be the one who is going to make the decision? Is it going to be the patient, which I think all of us feel is the way that it should go, and it is that way at the present time, or is it going to be the physician who is going to be making that judgment, looking into the eyes of a sick patient, virtually at the will of the physician, when they have that illness and sickness and are told, ``Look, if you want my treatment, if you want to be treated by me, it's going to cost you a bundle.'' That we have guarded against over a long period of time. It is a key element in terms of the whole guarantee of quality, good care for our senior citizens, and we should not alter and change that particular protection now. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I urge the Majority Leader to schedule a vote on the nomination of James Hormel as U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg. Jim Hormel is a man of outstanding qualifications with a clear and deep commitment to public service, the promotion of human rights, and the national interests of the United States. America would be well served to have a leader of his high caliber representing this country in Luxembourg. On the international level, he has recently completed his term as Alternate Representative of the U.S. Delegation to the 51st Session of the United Nations General Assembly. He was confirmed by the Senate for that position in 1997. He was also a member of the U.S. Delegation to the United Nations Human Rights Commission. In 1995 he participated in President Clinton's Conference on the Pacific Rim. Jim Hormel is a talented lawyer who has shown his commitment to public service by establishing the James C. Hormel Public Service Program at the University of Chicago. This program is designed to encourage law students to enter careers in public service. Jim Hormel is also a dedicated and energetic community activist. He was instrumental in developing resources for organizations serving people affected by HIV and AIDS, and he serves on the board of directors of the American Foundation for AIDS Research. Recently, he was honored by Breast Cancer Action for his leadership of the Men's Campaign Against Breast Cancer. He has also been a leader for human rights in his capacity as a director of the Human Rights Campaign Foundation. Jim Hormel is also a renowned philanthropist, and he has supported an impressively diverse array of causes, including the American Indian College Fund, the United Negro College Fund, Jewish Family and Children's Services, the Catholic Youth Organization, the NAACP, the San Francisco Symphony, the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, the San Francisco Public Library, the San Francisco Ballet, and the Virginia Institute of Autism. It was entirely fitting that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee overwhelmingly approved his nomination last November. At the time, no Senator spoke in opposition. Only after the meeting did two Senators ask to be recorded against the nomination. I share the concern expressed by other strong supporters of this nomination that action on Jim Hormel's confirmation is being delayed because he is gay. Delay on that basis would be irresponsible and unacceptable. Prejudice based on sexual orientation should have no place in this debate, no place in the Senate, and no place in America. It is long past time for the Senate to vote on this nomination. Jim Hormel will be an excellent ambassador for the United States, and deserves to be confirmed as soon as possible.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the time for action to protect patients and curb insurance company abuse has come. We face a crisis of confidence in health care. A recent survey found that an astonishing 80 percent of Americans now believe that their quality of care is often compromised by their insurance plan to save money. One reason for this concern is the explosive growth in managed care. In 1987, only 13 percent of privately insured Americans were enrolled in HMOs. Today 75 percent are in some form of managed care. At its best, managed care offers the opportunity to achieve both greater efficiency and higher quality in health care. In too many cases, however, the priority has become higher profits, not better health. Conventional insurance companies, too, have abused the system by denying coverage for treatments that their customers need and that their faithful payment of premiums should have guaranteed. And the issue is not just confidence. It goes to the heart of the issue of quality care and to the fundamental doctor-patient relationship. In California, a Kaiser Foundation study found that almost half of all consumers reported a problem with their health plan--and substantial proportions reported that the plan's misbehavior caused unnecessary pain and suffering, delayed their recovery, or even resulted in permanent disabilities. Projected to the national level, these results indicate that 30 million Americans actually developed additional health problems because of their plan's treatment of them, and a shocking 11 million developed permanent disabilities. The list of those victimized by insurance company abuse grows every day. A baby loses his hands and feet because his parents believe they have to take him to a distant emergency room rather than the one close to their home. A Senate aide suffers a devastating stroke which might have been far milder if her HMO had not refused to send her to an emergency room--the HMO now refuses to pay for her wheelchair. A doctor is denied future referrals because he tells a patient about an expensive treatment that could save her life. A child suffering from a rare cancer is told that life-saving surgery should be performed by an unqualified doctor who happens to be on the plan's list, rather than by the nearby cancer specialty center equipped to provide quality care. A San Diego paraplegic asks for referral to a rehabilitation specialist. Her HMO refuses, and she develops a severe pressure wound that a rehabilitation specialist would have routinely checked and treated. She is forced to undergo surgery, and has to be hospitalized for a year with round-the-clock nursing care. A woman is forced to undergo a ``drive-by'' mastectomy and is sent home in pain, with tubes still dangling from her body. The list goes on and on. The opponents of action are already waging a calculated and well- financed campaign of disinformation arguing that protecting patient's rights is the same as massive government mandates and vastly increased costs. But the American people know better. Opponents of the legislation try to create a false dichotomy between relying on competitive market forces and relying on regulatory standards. In fact, this amendment helps competition by establishing a level playing field between those who compete by providing quality care at a reasonable cost and those who try to compete by attracting only healthy enrollees and denying those who fall ill the care they have promised. This legislation guarantees people the rights that every scrupulous insurance company already provides. These rights are common-sense statement of components of quality care that every family believes they have been promised when they signed up for coverage and faithfully paid their premiums. Let me cite a few of these common-sense rights specified in our legislation. They include access to an appropriate specialist when your condition requires specialty care. They allow people with chronic illnesses or disabilities to have standing referrals to the specialists they need to see on a regular basis. They assure that patients who need a prescription drug to save their life or their health can have access to it even if it is not included in their plan's formulary. They assure that a person suffering from serious symptoms can go to the nearest emergency room without worrying that their plan will deny coverage. No patient with the symptoms of a heart attack should be forced to put their life at risk by driving past the emergency room down the street to the network provider an hour or more away. No patient with symptoms of stroke should be forced to delay the treatment to the point where paralysis and disability is permanent, because a clerk two thousand miles away does not respond promptly and appropriately. And no patient who goes to an emergency room with symptoms of a heart attack that proves to be a false alarm should suffer a real heart attack when a bill for thousands of dollars arrives that the health insurer has refused to pay. This amendment also says that any reform worthy of the name must guarantee that insurance plans meet the special needs of women and children. Women should have access to gynecologists for needed services. No women with breast cancer should be forced to endure a ``drive-by'' mastectomy against the advice of her doctor. No child with a rare childhood cancer should be told that the urologist who happens to be in the plan's network will treat him--even if that urologist has no experience or expertise with children or with that rare cancer. Too many desperate patients--especially cancer patients--know that their only hope for survival is participation in a clinical trial. Such trials not only offer hope to patients, they also advance our knowledge and lead to better treatments for dread diseases. Many insurers have routinely paid for the medical costs associated with clinical trials, because they knew they offered benefits for patients and because the patients would incur medical costs in any event, even if they were not part of the trial. But today, many insurers are backing away from that constructive policy. Managed care plans, in particular, have often denied their patients the ability to participate in such trials. Our legislation provides patients a right to participate in such trials if stringent conditions are met. There must be no standard treatment that is effective for the patient, and the patient must be suffering from a serious or life-threatening illness. The trial must be funded by the NIH or another government agency meeting NIH standards. And the trial must offer the patient a realistic hope for clinical benefit. Patients need the right to appeal decisions on their plans to independent third parties. Today, if a health plan breaks its promise, the only recourse for most patients is to go to court--a time-consuming and costly process that may not provide relief in time to save a life or prevent a disability. Independent review was recommended unanimously by the President's Commission. It has worked successfully in Medicare for four decades. Working families deserve the basic fairness that only an impartial appeal can provide. Without such a mechanism, any ``rights'' guaranteed to patients exist on paper only--and they are scarcely worth the paper on which they are written. When the issues are sickness and health--and often as serious as life and death--no health insurance company should be allowed to be both judge and jury. When health plan misconduct results in serious injury or death, patients and their families should be able to obtain accountability. Every other industry in America can be held responsible for its actions. Why should health plans, whose decisions truly can mean life or death, enjoy this unique immunity? Reforms must protect the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship. ``Gag clauses'' and improper incentive arrangements should have no place in American medicine. And finally, everyone should agree that noncontroversial steps to improve quality and provide greater patient information should be part of reform. This amendment should not be controversial for any member of the Senate who is serious about protecting patients from insurance company abuse. Its basic provisions were included in legislation introduced by Democrats in the House and Senate. That legislation is supported by the American Medical Association, the Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the National Partnership for Women and Families, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, the AFL-CIO, and many other groups representing physicians and other health care providers, children, women, families, consumers, persons with disabilities, Americans with serious illnesses, and working families. It is rare for such a broad and diverse coalition to be assembled in support of any legislation. But ending these flagrant abuses will help every American family. The choice is clear. The Senate should stand with patients, families, and physicians. We must not stand with the well-heeled special interests that put profits ahead of patients.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the time for action to protect patients and curb insurance company abuse has come. We face a crisis of confidence in health care. A recent survey found that an astonishing 80 percent of Americans now believe that their quality of care is often compromised by their insurance plan to save money. One reason for this concern is the explosive growth in managed care. In 1987, only 13 percent of privately insured Americans were enrolled in HMOs. Today 75 percent are in some form of managed care. At its best, managed care offers the opportunity to achieve both greater efficiency and higher quality in health care. In too many cases, however, the priority has become higher profits, not better health. Conventional insurance companies, too, have abused the system by denying coverage for treatments that their customers need and that their faithful payment of premiums should have guaranteed. And the issue is not just confidence. It goes to the heart of the issue of quality care and to the fundamental doctor-patient relationship. In California, a Kaiser Foundation study found that almost half of all consumers reported a problem with their health plan--and substantial proportions reported that the plan's misbehavior caused unnecessary pain and suffering, delayed their recovery, or even resulted in permanent disabilities. Projected to the national level, these results indicate that 30 million Americans actually developed additional health problems because of their plan's treatment of them, and a shocking 11 million developed permanent disabilities. The list of those victimized by insurance company abuse grows every day. A baby loses his hands and feet because his parents believe they have to take him to a distant emergency room rather than the one close to their home. A Senate aide suffers a devastating stroke which might have been far milder if her HMO had not refused to send her to an emergency room--the HMO now refuses to pay for her wheelchair. A doctor is denied future referrals because he tells a patient about an expensive treatment that could save her life. A child suffering from a rare cancer is told that life-saving surgery should be performed by an unqualified doctor who happens to be on the plan's list, rather than by the nearby cancer specialty center equipped to provide quality care. A San Diego paraplegic asks for referral to a rehabilitation specialist. Her HMO refuses, and she develops a severe pressure wound that a rehabilitation specialist would have routinely checked and treated. She is forced to undergo surgery, and has to be hospitalized for a year with round-the-clock nursing care. A woman is forced to undergo a ``drive-by'' mastectomy and is sent home in pain, with tubes still dangling from her body. The list goes on and on. The opponents of action are already waging a calculated and well- financed campaign of disinformation arguing that protecting patient's rights is the same as massive government mandates and vastly increased costs. But the American people know better. Opponents of the legislation try to create a false dichotomy between relying on competitive market forces and relying on regulatory standards. In fact, this amendment helps competition by establishing a level playing field between those who compete by providing quality care at a reasonable cost and those who try to compete by attracting only healthy enrollees and denying those who fall ill the care they have promised. This legislation guarantees people the rights that every scrupulous insurance company already provides. These rights are common-sense statement of components of quality care that every family believes they have been promised when they signed up for coverage and faithfully paid their premiums. Let me cite a few of these common-sense rights specified in our legislation. They include access to an appropriate specialist when your condition requires specialty care. They allow people with chronic illnesses or disabilities to have standing referrals to the specialists they need to see on a regular basis. They assure that patients who need a prescription drug to save their life or their health can have access to it even if it is not included in their plan's formulary. They assure that a person suffering from serious symptoms can go to the nearest emergency room without worrying that their plan will deny coverage. No patient with the symptoms of a heart attack should be forced to put their life at risk by driving past the emergency room down the street to the network provider an hour or more away. No patient with symptoms of stroke should be forced to delay the treatment to the point where paralysis and disability is permanent, because a clerk two thousand miles away does not respond promptly and appropriately. And no patient who goes to an emergency room with symptoms of a heart attack that proves to be a false alarm should suffer a real heart attack when a bill for thousands of dollars arrives that the health insurer has refused to pay. This amendment also says that any reform worthy of the name must guarantee that insurance plans meet the special needs of women and children. Women should have access to gynecologists for needed services. No women with breast cancer should be forced to endure a ``drive-by'' mastectomy against the advice of her doctor. No child with a rare childhood cancer should be told that the urologist who happens to be in the plan's network will treat him--even if that urologist has no experience or expertise with children or with that rare cancer. Too many desperate patients--especially cancer patients--know that their only hope for survival is participation in a clinical trial. Such trials not only offer hope to patients, they also advance our knowledge and lead to better treatments for dread diseases. Many insurers have routinely paid for the medical costs associated with clinical trials, because they knew they offered benefits for patients and because the patients would incur medical costs in any event, even if they were not part of the trial. But today, many insurers are backing away from that constructive policy. Managed care plans, in particular, have often denied their patients the ability to participate in such trials. Our legislation provides patients a right to participate in such trials if stringent conditions are met. There must be no standard treatment that is effective for the patient, and the patient must be suffering from a serious or life-threatening illness. The trial must be funded by the NIH or another government agency meeting NIH standards. And the trial must offer the patient a realistic hope for clinical benefit. Patients need the right to appeal decisions on their plans to independent third parties. Today, if a health plan breaks its promise, the only recourse for most patients is to go to court--a time-consuming and costly process that may not provide relief in time to save a life or prevent a disability. Independent review was recommended unanimously by the President's Commission. It has worked successfully in Medicare for four decades. Working families deserve the basic fairness that only an impartial appeal can provide. Without such a mechanism, any ``rights'' guaranteed to patients exist on paper only--and they are scarcely worth the paper on which they are written. When the issues are sickness and health--and often as serious as life and death--no health insurance company should be allowed to be both judge and jury. When health plan misconduct results in serious injury or death, patients and their families should be able to obtain accountability. Every other industry in America can be held responsible for its actions. Why should health plans, whose decisions truly can mean life or death, enjoy this unique immunity? Reforms must protect the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship. ``Gag clauses'' and improper incentive arrangements should have no place in American medicine. And finally, everyone should agree that noncontroversial steps to improve quality and provide greater patient information should be part of reform. This amendment should not be controversial for any member of the Senate who is serious about protecting patients from insurance company abuse. Its basic provisions were included in legislation introduced by Democrats in the House and Senate. That legislation is supported by the American Medical Association, the Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the National Partnership for Women and Families, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, the AFL-CIO, and many other groups representing physicians and other health care providers, children, women, families, consumers, persons with disabilities, Americans with serious illnesses, and working families. It is rare for such a broad and diverse coalition to be assembled in support of any legislation. But ending these flagrant abuses will help every American family. The choice is clear. The Senate should stand with patients, families, and physicians. We must not stand with the well-heeled special interests that put profits ahead of patients.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. On the bill, on our time.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask that that request be withheld.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, over the next few days, we will cast important votes on the budget resolution, including some of the most important votes this year on education priorities. We will also address issues affecting children, health care, enforcement of our antidiscriminatory laws, and on the proposed tobacco legislation. I look forward to those debates. We will be having virtually all of them within a relatively short period of time. We will be debating many public policy questions. I want to take a few moments this afternoon to address some of those issues that I believe deserve the attention and support of the Members of the Senate. We will consider a very important amendment by the Senator from the State of Washington, Senator Murray, on reducing class size. The President proposed to help ensure high academic achievement by all students by reducing the ratio of the number of teachers per student. It would help increase effective communication between the teacher and the students, and give students more individual attention. The President's proposal will help reduce class size by increasing the total number of teachers for students in K through 12. We are going to have to actually increase the number of teachers by 50,000 a year just to maintain the current ratio of teachers to students, and this doesn't take into consideration the fact that in many parts of the country, we have an aging teaching population, as well as current shortages of teachers. There was a request by the President of the United States to recognize that need and to also commit resources to that effort, and that was turned down by the Republican Budget Committee. The Budget Committee did not address the need to modernize our schools, even though a General Accounting Office study showed that we need over $110 billion to ensure that students in our schools are safe and secure, free from environmental hazards, and in an atmosphere and climate where students can grow and learn. That effort, led by Senator Carol Moseley- Braun, would provide $22 billion in bonding authority to States and communities--and they would get the bonds interest-free. The President has also advanced a concept called education opportunity zones. We should help school districts and communities address the challenges that they are facing, whether it is academic failure or significant problems in school dropouts or other kinds of difficulties giving them needed resources to implement creative and innovative reforms that work for their communities. Chicago, for example, seems to be having success with its reforms. This city is tackling school reform head on, and it's working. We should help more communities that are attempting to do that. But the Republican budget ignores those needs, and turned down the Education Opportunity Zones proposal as well. The Republican Budget ignores the fact that 5 million children were going home to empty homes or empty apartments, unattended, unsupervised, after school. Their only friend was a television set-- with all of the problems and challenges that exist out there for young students, creating temptations for misbehaving. After-school programs have been so successful in this country, and they have had a dramatic impact in reducing violent crimes, reducing teenage pregnancy, and increasing academic achievement. Some of the programs I have seen in Boston help students develop skills that might eventually develop into job skills in photography or in cooking. Parents and students alike support after-school programs. Parents know their children are safe and engaging in productive activities, and when they get home, the children have done their homework and are able to spend quality time with their parents. It is clear that the Republicans do not want to address these issues. Perhaps we will have a chance later on in the Congress to resurrect these measures. But the way that the procedures work here, they will need what we call a supermajority, not just a bare majority, to get approval--we will need more than 60 in order to be successful. So these debates will be very, very important in these next few days. We also should support efforts to increase funding for the IDEA program, for children with disabilities. There was some increase in those funds, but not nearly to the degree that they should be. We ought to at least have an opportunity to debate those issues and make a judgment on them. We are effectively cut into a short period of time as a result of the Budget Act. And then when we return after the Easter break, we are restricted further on debate on the Coverdell bill. So it is obviously frustrating, when we know that the American people put the question about education front and foremost, but we are not being able to give the kind of full attention and support that we think these issues require. Nonetheless, I wanted to say why I support the proposal that Senator Murray will be advancing and we will have an opportunity to debate on tomorrow, on the question of reducing the class size in grades K through 3 across the country. And I say, Mr. President, I hope that all of our Members will pay special attention to Senator Murray as a former schoolteacher, former member of a school board, someone who has been active in the local life of a community, in the school policy issues. She brings enormous, refreshing insight and awareness and understanding of what really works in local communities, and I congratulate her on her leadership on this particular issue. I think all of us who listen to her benefit immensely from her range of knowledge, her understanding, and her real insight into education issues, and particularly when she speaks to the importance of reducing class size in grades K through 3 across the country. A necessary foundation for success in school is a qualified teacher in every classroom to make sure that young children receive individual attention. That is why it is so important we help bring the 100,000 new qualified teachers into the public schools and reduce class size in the elementary schools. Research has shown that students attending small classes in the early grades make more rapid progress than students in larger classes. The benefits are greatest for low-achieving, minority, and low-income children. Smaller classes also enable teachers to identify and work effectively with students who have learning disabilities and reduce the need for special education in later grades. A national study of 10,000 fourth-graders in 203 school districts across the country and 10,000 eighth-graders in 182 school districts across the country found that students in small classes perform better than students in large classes for both grade levels. Gains were larger for fourth-graders than eighth-graders. Gains were largest of all for inner-city students in small classes. They were likely to advance 75 percent more quickly than students in large classes. Another significant analysis, called Project STAR, studied 7,000 students in grades K through 3 in 80 schools in Tennessee. Again, students in small classes performed better than students in large classes in each grade from kindergarten through third grade. The gains were larger for minority students. We also know that overcrowded classrooms undermine discipline and decrease student morale. Many States and communities are considering proposals to reduce class size, but you cannot reduce class size without the ability to hire additional qualified teachers to fill the additional classrooms. And the Federal Government should lend a helping hand. This year, California Governor Wilson proposed to spend $1.5 billion to reduce fourth-grade classes to 20 students or less, after having reduced class sizes for students in grades K through 3 last year. In Pennsylvania, a recent report by the bipartisan legislative commission on urban school restructuring recommended capping class sizes in kindergarten through grade 3 in urban districts at 20 students per teacher. In Wisconsin, the Student Achievement Guarantee In Education Program is helping to reduce class size in grades K through 3 in low-income communities. In Flint, MI, efforts over the last 3 years to reduce class size in grades K through 3 have led to a 44 percent increase in reading scores and an 18 percent increase in math scores. Congress can do more to encourage all of these State and local efforts. We've tested the effects of reducing class sizes, and we are seeing positive results. But it is only taking place in a handful of places across the country. The Murray amendment will take the success of those particular impressive outcomes and make them available to other communities across the country so that when the demonstrated success is out there, it will be replicated and duplicated all across the Nation. This is a concept whose time is overdue. We have an excellent opportunity to make a very, very important contribution to helping local communities. This is a partnership between the local, State, and the Federal Government. We have all acknowledged that our participation at the Federal level is extremely small, about 7 cents out of every dollar. This is a modest program but one that can demonstrate very, very significant. We can help lead the way in reducing class size. I certainly urge my colleagues to support Senator Murray's amendment and to increase our investment in education. The Nation deserves our support. Tobacco Legislation Mr. President, on another subject, while I have great respect for the time and the effort which the chairman of the Commerce Committee has devoted to tobacco legislation in recent weeks, the proposal he announced over the weekend is inadequate to address the public health crisis of youth smoking. The seriousness of the threat to our children requires a much stronger response. The chairman's mark does too little to protect children from smoking, and it does far too much to protect the tobacco industry from its victims. On each of the key issues, this proposal falls short of what comprehensive tobacco control legislation should be. First, the significant price increase of $1.10 per pack over 5 years, which the Commerce bill proposes, is not substantial enough to produce the dramatic reduction in youth smoking which all of us desire. Public health experts have concluded that an increase of $1.50 per pack swiftly instituted and indexed for inflation is necessary to achieve our youth-smoking-reduction goals. Dr. Koop and Dr. Kessler, the National Academy of Sciences, the ENACT Coalition, and the Save Lives, the Not Tobacco Coalition have all stressed the importance of a price increase of at least $1.50 per pack. Nearly half the Members of the Senate have already cosponsored bills proposing a $1.50 per pack increase within 3 years. The Budget Committee also endorsed a $1.50 increase on a bipartisan vote of 14-8. According to Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, every 10 cents in price will reduce youth smoking by 270,000 children over 5 years. Thus, the difference between $1.10 and $1.50 will be more then one million additional kids smoking in the year 2003. Only an increase of at least $1.50 a pack can reduce youth smoking to the targets outlined in the June 20 settlement, which is 60 percent in 10 years, and prevent these additional children from a lifetime of nicotine addiction and tobacco-induced diseases. One million young people between the ages of 12 and 17 take up this deadly habit every year--3,000 smokers a day. In fact, the average smoker begins smoking at the age of 13 and becomes a daily smoker before the age of 15. These facts are bad enough, but the problem is growing worse. According to a spring 1996 survey conducted by the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, the prevalence of teenage smoking in America has been on the increase over the last 5 years. It rose by nearly one-half among 8th graders and 10th graders, and nearly a fifth among high school seniors between 1991 and 1996. I point out on the floor that we have seen a dramatic difference in our own State of Massachusetts where we have reduced the consumption by a third of the national average. It is very interesting. We had a very modest increase in the cost of tobacco in my State, but we also had a counteradvertising campaign. And lo and behold, the tobacco industry reduced the prices to absorb all of the increase that had been required by the State. But with the tobacco education campaign, we saw a reduction of a third as measured to other kinds of nationwide figures. So the point that we are making here is that with the additional $1.50 to $2, which virtually every one of the public health authorities have mentioned to be essential within the short period of time of 3 years, and the attendant kind of counteradvertising campaign and the cessation programs to help to assist kids to stop smoking and the support for antismoking campaign efforts by nonprofit and community- based organizations--all of those programs can have a dramatic impact. Now we know that there will be those who say--$1.12 at least is where the President's request would have been in terms of his budget submission. But the fact is the President and the Vice President, the administration, have basically supported the $1.50 in the shorter period of time. I hope that we are not looking for what is the least we can do for the young people of this country. I hope what we would be saying as a test is that we are looking for what is in the best interest of the young people of this country. How are we going to set that standard? Rather than what is the least we can penalize the tobacco companies in order to please them, we ought to be looking for what is in the best interest of these young people in order to meet that particular responsibility. Mr. President, I hope we will have an opportunity to vote on that during the course of the consideration of the budget. I know we have inclusion in the budget of $1.50 per pack, but I hope that we will, or I expect we will, have a chance to vote on $1.50 as well and put the Members on record on this particular issue, and I welcome the chance to support that if our leaders, Senator Conrad and Senator Daschle, offer that. We have a very simple way of doing this, making sure the FDA is going to have the kind of legislative authority to be able to deal with the problems of addiction. And it is very clear what words have to be added to the authority of the FDA to be able to do that. We know the FDA will have the authority and the power to do so. However, the Commerce Committee refused to accept this regulatory approach, and they have other language in there which I am very much concerned may create endless litigation opportunities for America's most litigious industry, big tobacco. We will look forward to seeing the details of the language. Again, I wonder why we don't try and do it right, do what is in the public health's interest, but that is the standard rather than what is more acceptable to the tobacco industry. I know our friend and colleague, Senator Conrad from North Dakota, will go into considerable detail. The fact is that these look-back provisions in the Commerce Committee draft are fundamentally flawed, and I think all of us in this body understand if we don't have adequate penalties, then we really don't have adequate protections. Penalties have to be effective, at least have an effective action in discouraging youth from smoking. As designed in the Commerce Committee proposals, I believe they are woefully lacking. Once children are hooked into cigarette smoking at a young age, it becomes increasingly hard for them to quit. Ninety percent of current adult smokers began to smoke before they reached the age of 18. Ninety- five percent of teenage smokers say they intend to quit in the near future--but only a quarter of them will actually do so within the first eight years of lighting up. If nothing is done to reverse this trend in adolescent smoking, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that five million of today's children will die prematurely from smoking-caused illnesses. Increasing cigarette prices is one of the most effective ways to stem this tide. Study after study has shown that it is the most powerful weapon in reducing cigarette use among children, since they have less income to spend on tobacco and many are not already addicted. An increase of $1.50 per pack in cigarette prices is also realistic. It will not bankrupt the industry, which will pass it on in the form of higher prices. If we increase the pack by $1.50, the total cost will be $3.45 a pack--still lower than the cost in many European countries -- $3.47 in France, $4.94 in Ireland, and $5.27 in England. Secondly, I am concerned about the FDA provision in the Commerce Committee draft. It will not allow FDA to regulate nicotine as a ``drug'' and cigarettes as ``drug delivery devices.'' Public health experts strongly believe that this is the most effective way to regulate tobacco products. When the Commerce Committee refused to accept this regulatory approach, compromise language was drafted to create a new FDA chapter for tobacco products. I am concerned that this approach will create endless litigation opportunities for America's most litigious industry--Big Tobacco. Why not provide the public health advocates with the legal tools which they believe will be the most effective in regulating tobacco products? Why place unnecessary hurdles in their path? Third, the lookback provisions in the Commerce Committee draft are fundamentally flawed. The penalties for the tobacco industry's failure to meet the youth smoking reduction targets are arbitrarily capped at $3.5 billion, which is the equivalent of only 15 cents a pack. An increase this small will hardly give tobacco companies a strong economic incentive to stop marketing its products to children. It will just become a cost of doing business. This proposed cap will destroy the effectiveness of the lookback penalties as a meaningful deterrent. In addition, the penalties are imposed on an industry-wide basis, which removes the incentive for an individual company to stop marketing its products to children. In fact, the Commerce Committee draft will create a perverse incentive for a company to increase its marketing to children. Each company knows that if it captures a greater youth market share, its own costs will rise by no greater an amount than its competitors, while its future profits will be increased and its competitors will bear a portion of the cost associated with gaining that long-term competitive advantage. It is critically important that the penalties are assigned on a company-specific basis to give each individual company a strong economic incentive to discourage children from beginning to smoke. The targets for the reduction in smokeless tobacco use among children are also not in parity with the targets for cigarette use reduction. The use of oral snuff and chewing tobacco is a serious public health problem. It causes cancer, gum disease, tooth loss, as well as nicotine addiction and death. The Committee should not let smokeless tobacco products become a cheaper substitute for children if the price of cigarettes increases due to the lookback penalties. In Massachusetts, once the price of oral snuff and chewing tobacco was brought into parity with cigarettes, its use among adolescents fell by over two-thirds between 1993 and 1996. Smokeless tobacco deserves equal attention, and we should expect similar reductions in use among children. Fourth, the environmental tobacco smoke provisions are clearly unacceptable. States will be allowed to opt out of providing protections from exposure to secondhand smoke to workers and their families. This means there will be no national minimum standard to protect non-smokers, particularly children, from exposure. The Commerce Committee draft also exempts restaurants from smoke-free requirements, despite the fact that the Journal of the American Medical Association has reported that environmental tobacco smoke exposure for restaurant workers are estimated to be two times higher than for office workers, and at least 1.5 times higher than for persons who live with a smoker. Fifth, the provisions on document disclosure in the Commerce mark are grossly inadequate. It would not require disclosure of many of the most significant documents. It would allow the industry to hide behind a ``trade secret" privilege no matter how significant the information concealed was to advancing the public health. Sixth, while the Chairman has not yet publicly disclosed the full extent of the litigation protection he intends to offer the industry, the proposals being promoted in private discussions are truly draconian. They would prohibit all class actions for past misconduct, prohibit punitive damages for past misconduct, prohibit all third party claims and impose other serious restrictions on aggregation of claims. Collectively, these restrictions would make it practically impossible for the victims of smoking induced illness to recover from the industry whose product is killing them. We must not bar the courthouse doors to the victims of the tobacco industry. I hope these extreme and grossly unfair proposals are never put before the Commerce Committee. One litigation protection for the tobacco industry is already in the Commerce Chairman's mark. It is really the ultimate protection any industry could be given. On page 96 of the draft, tobacco companies are granted an 80 percent tax credit for money paid in judgments or settlements for lawsuits. In plain language, this means that the American taxpayers will pay 80 cents of every dollar the industry is ever required to pay to its victims. Instead of using the money raised by the $1.10 per pack cigarette price increase to deter youth smoking, to conduct anti-smoking education and counter-advertising campaigns, to assist smokers who want to quit, and to conduct medical research into smoking related diseases, this legislation proposes to give it back to the tobacco industry to cover its litigation losses. This outrageous idea should be rejected by all one hundred Senators. Congress was embarrassed last summer by the $50 billion tobacco industry tax credit snuck into the Balanced Budget Act. Enactment of the tobacco company tax credit in the Chairman's mark would be an even greater embarrassment. The legislation which the Commerce Committee is scheduled to consider this week is seriously flawed. It should be sent back to the drawing board for a major redesign. Congress has an extraordinary opportunity this year to protect generations of children from a lifetime of addiction and premature death. To accomplish that great goal will require a much stronger bill than the one currently before the Commerce Committee. I want to next address the child care challenges that we are facing in the budget. President Clinton is right in giving it a high priority. Cutting-edge research is giving us a greater understanding of the great significance of the early childhood years and development. Obviously, the best possible care should be available and affordable, and it should be quality. That is central to what this issue is really all about. We know we need more child care and child development programs. We know we need money to pay for those programs. The Senate Democrats have proposed increasing our commitment to child care improvements by at least $14 billion in mandatory spending over the next 5 years. This was immediately attacked as ``big government spending'' on new programs. Why is it only when the investment is in our children that it is considered ``big government spending''? The Republican budget would preclude the possibility of child care legislation beyond their proposed increase of $5 billion in discretionary authority for the Child Care and Development Block Grant and $9 billion in tax cuts. Both of these approaches are problematic. We know we will never see discretionary money for child care, given the discretionary spending squeeze. Obviously, these child care dollars would only become available if offsets were made in other discretionary programs, and programs for low-income children and families are always most vulnerable. In addition, the proposed tax cuts are unlikely to help the very families who most need assistance in paying for child care--low-income working families. As long as the dependent child care tax credit remains nonrefundable, expanding it does nothing to assist low-income working families, who have no tax liability. In effect, the child care proposals in the Republican budget are empty promises that simply give Republicans a chance to say that they have done something for child care. Our children and families need guarantees. We must have real, mandatory money for children and their families. On another issue, employment discrimination takes many forms, whether based on gender, age, race, or national origin. Bigotry in the workplace undermines the fabric of our country and society. When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed over 30 years ago, Congress intended that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission serve as a national watchdog against workplace discrimination. The Agency's mission is laudable. It has been an important force in curbing real and widespread problems of work force bias. For example, the EEOC was able to reach a settlement with Del Laboratories after 15 women brought charges alleging several decades of egregious sexual harassment. The Agency was also able to end 15 years of discrimination against African Americans and women at Estwing Manufacturing Company. Estwing had a policy of race-coding applications to prevent the hiring of African Americans and refusing to hire women to perform certain jobs. Who can forget the outrageous incidents of gender discrimination taking place at Mitsubishi Motor Company. The EEOC is currently representing over 300 women in that Mitsubishi legislation. In recent years, the Agency has ``reinvented'' itself, and, without additional resources, managed to decrease the number of cases waiting for investigation and resolution. There is a limit, however, to what the EEOC can do without a budget that reflects its responsibilities. I urge my colleagues to support the President's request for $279 million for the EEOC. The Senate must earmark these funds for the Agency. It is the right thing to do and this is the time to do it. Medicare Too many Americans nearing age 65 face a crisis in health care. They are too young for Medicare, but too old for affordable private coverage. Many of them face serious health problems that threaten to destroy the savings of a lifetime and prevent them from finding or keeping a job. Many are victims of corporate down-sizing or a company's decision to cancel the health insurance protection they relied on. Three million Americans aged 55 to 64 are uninsured today, but no American nearing retirement can be confident that the health insurance they have today will protect them until they are 65 and are eligible for Medicare. The consequences of being uninsured at this age are often tragic. As a group, they are in relatively poor health, and their condition is more likely to worsen the longer they remain uninsured. They have little or no savings to protect against the cost of serious illness. Often, they are unable to afford even the routine care that can prevent minor health problems from turning into serious disabilities or even life-threatening illness. If we do not act to stem this trend, the problem will only get worse. Between 1991 and 1995, the number of workers whose employers promise them benefits if they retire early dropped twelve percent. Barely a third of all workers now have such a promise. In recent years, many others who have counted on an employer's commitment found themselves with only a broken promise. Their coverage was canceled after they retired. For these older Americans left out and left behind through no fault of their own after decades of hard work, it is time to provide a helping hand. Democrats have already introduced legislation to address these issues--and the budget must provide for its enactment. The legislation allows uninsured Americans age 62-64 to buy in to Medicare coverage and spread part of the cost throughout their years of eligibility through the regular Medicare program. It allows displaced workers aged 55-62 to buy into Medicare to help them bridge the period until they can find a new job with health insurance or until they qualify for Medicare. It requires companies that drop retirement coverage to allow their retirees to extend their coverage through COBRA until they qualify for Medicare. This legislation is a lifeline for millions of older Americans. It provides a bridge to help them through the years before they qualify for full Medicare eligibility. It is a constructive next step toward the day when every American will be guaranteed the fundamental right to health care. It will impose no additional burden on Medicare, because it is fully paid for by premiums from the beneficiaries themselves. Managed Care A week ago, Helen Hunt received an Oscar for her role as the mother of a severely asthmatic child in the movie ``As Good As It Gets.'' In the movie, she delivers a line of unrepeatable insults aimed at her son's HMO. And audiences across the nation burst into applause and hoots of knowing laughter. In some cases, life imitates art. In this case, however, art imitates life. We face a crisis of confidence in health care. A recent survey found that an astonishing 80 percent of Americans now believe that their quality of care is often compromised by their insurance plan to save money. Another survey found that 90 percent of Americans--men and women, across the political spectrum--say a Patients' Bill of Rights is needed to regulate health insurance plans. And they report that they are willing to pay for it, despite a campaign of disinformation from the business community and insurance industry. One reason for this concern is the explosive growth in managed care. In 1987, only 13 percent of privately insured Americans were enrolled in HMOs. Today 75 percent are in some form of managed care. At its best, managed care offers the opportunity to achieve both greater efficiency and higher quality in health care. In too many cases, however, the priority has become higher profits, not better health. The list of those victimized by insurance company abuse grows every day. These abuses are not typical of most insurance companies. But they are common enough that Congress needs to act to protect the American public. A recent report in California found that 17 percent of managed care enrollees developed permanent disabilities as a result of plan denials. The Clinton Administration is prepared to support legislation to address these issues. Members on both sides of the aisle in both chambers are prepared to act. And the time to act is now. We need to ensure access to appropriate specialty care--care that people pay for through their premiums, deductibles and copayments. We need to ensure that patients have the rights to appeal plan denials, especially those that threaten the life, health or future potential of those in need of services. We need to take action to monitor and improve the quality of care for everyone. We need to make plans accountable for their decisions, and provide all patients, regardless of whether they receive their insurance in the individual market, from a public program or through an employer, with the right for redress when plan denials result in injury or death. We need to simply make sure that people are aware of their rights and able to compare their options--when they are fortunate enough to have a choice of plans. Legislation must be carefully crafted, so that it curbs abuse without stifling innovation and appropriate measures to control costs, but action is essential. The American people know that the current system is out of control, and they want protection. This can be the Congress that finally enacts a health insurance bill of rights to assure that patients receive the protection their insurance company promises but too often fails to deliver. Our national bottom line must be patient needs, not industry profits. Children's Health Last year, we created a new children's health program designed to reach uninsured children in working families whose income is too high for Medicaid but too low to afford private health insurance. We made an unprecedented investment of 24 billion dollars over the next five years. More than 10 million children are uninsured, and approximately one-third of those children are already eligible for, but not participating in, Medicaid. We need to do more to enroll children in the programs for which they qualify. And we need to ensure that the proper resources and options are available to states to encourage enrollment in the new program. The President included proposals in his budget to expand the outreach opportunities available to states. They were paid for by other administrative savings in Medicaid. But they have mysteriously disappeared in this Republican budget. Instead, it appears that the savings extracted from a program that serves primarily low-income women and children are being used to buy bridges and roads. Gone are the provisions, scored by CBO at only $400 million, that would help states fulfill our goal of enrolling every eligible child in the health insurance program for which they qualify. Why? They could have included the outreach provisions and still had a billion dollars to spend on other priorities. Mr. President, these games have to stop. When the Congress acts to provide its citizens with opportunities, we should make every effort to follow-through with policies that address implementation concerns. If we really want children to receive the health insurance we extended to them last year, we need to fully fund outreach activities. This budget fails to deliver the funds necessary to ensure uninsured children receive the care to which they are entitled. disabled persons Mr. President, I want to reinforce an issue of great importance to every American in this country that Senator Jeffords will be speaking about later today--the need for accessible and affordable health care for disabled persons, so they can work and live independently. Disability does not pick its owner--it can happen to any of us here today, and we have seen many of our own colleagues and Members of this Congress struggle with the unexpected consequences of disability in their lives. Yet disability policies in this country continue to impoverish disabled persons and disregard their ability to be productive members of their community. The lack of accessible and affordable health care is the reason that only one half of 1 percent of disabled persons ever go to, or return to work. There are 54 million disabled people in this country who may have the capacity to work but cannot because they are afraid of losing their health care. This Congress needs to put in place health care options that support disabled persons to work, live independently, and be productive and contributing members of their community. I encourage your support in funding these options during this budget process.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to be a sponsor of the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998 with Chairman Jeffords and Senators Coats and Dodd. The reauthorization of this Act is a bipartisan effort of all members of the Labor Committee, and I am pleased that we have achieved a consensus on so many issues. Our goal in this bill is to strengthen federal support for higher education. Our legislation increases the maximum authorization for Pell grants, and expands the formula for need analysis to protect more of the income of working parents and students. The bill also continues the critical investment in graduate education through the institution-based program of Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need, as well as the portable Javits Fellowships, which are vital for talented students in the arts, humanities, and social sciences, where other sources of funding are limited. An additional initiative in the bill will enable institutions to work with faculty and administrators to improve teaching for students with disabilities. Increasing numbers of students with disabilities are participating in higher education, and faculty members often have little experience in adapting their teaching techniques for these students. This initiative will reach out to many different types of institutions, including community colleges, graduate schools, and urban and rural institutions. It also includes graduate teaching assistants-- the faculty of the future. This program was first suggested by the University of Massachusetts, and it is supported by the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities on behalf of 20 disability groups. The bill takes a major step to improve the training of teachers by creating strong programs for training and recruitment. The training program has two parts. Fifty percent goes to local partnerships that include elementary and secondary schools, programs or schools of teacher training, schools of arts and sciences, and other groups, such as teachers unions, businesses, and community organizations. The other 50 percent of the funding goes to competitive grants to state education agencies. This teacher training proposal represents a thoughtful compromise, and I hope it will receive strong support in the Senate. The bill helps teachers in another way, through loan forgiveness. I have long supported more loan forgiveness for teachers, and I am pleased that there is bipartisan support for this proposal. It forgives loans for teachers who teach for at least 3 years in high-need schools. Many college graduates with heavy debt loads cannot afford to go into teaching in schools where we need them most. This loan forgiveness program will make it easier for idealistic young men and women to work with needy children. The bill also calls for the creation of a Performance Based Organization at the Department of Education. Following Vice President Gore's initiative to re-invent government, this organization will streamline and improve the financial aid functions at the Department. We are working with the Department to make a plan that will work well for it, for students, and for all others involved in student aid. Two provisions of the bill raise significant question. One of those provisions modifies the payment structure for the guaranty agencies that work with banks in the student loan program. But greater reform of these agencies is needed. They are paid too much if students go into default, and they are not paid enough for preventing defaults in the first place. I am pleased, however, that the bill does allow guaranty agencies to enter into voluntary, flexible agreements with the Secretary of Education that will be more business-like and will focus more heavily on preventing defaults. ASA, the guaranty agency in Massachusetts, has been at the forefront of the reform movement, and supports these voluntary agreements. Finally, the bill, like the House bill, reduces the interest rate that students pay on their college loans by almost 1% from the current rate. This reduction will be a substantial benefit for students. The average borrower with a loan of $12,000 will save $650 in interest over the life of the loan, and the average master's degree student with a debt of $20,000 will save more than $1000. For borrowers with larger loans, the savings will be greater. I am pleased that Republicans and Democrats agree that reducing the interest rate on student loans is necessary. But the bill trims the rates paid to banks only slightly. As under the House bill, students will pay less interest to the banks, but the federal government will make an additional payment to the banks, so that bank receipts will go down only slightly from the high rates now in effect. This subsidy is paid by the taxpayers. The cost is at least $1.2 billion over 5 years, and may be as high as $3.9 billion. The banks complain that they cannot live with even this very modest cut. In 1992, they told us that they could not accept any cut in the interest rate on student loans. Congress cut the rate anyway, and the bank loan program continued to thrive. Today, however, at a time when interest rates in the economy are low, the interest rate for government guaranteed student loans is higher than the rate for either car loans or home mortgages. A recent report from the Treasury Department shows that if the interest rate on student loans is cut by almost 1%, the banks can still make a reasonable profit. The interest rate subsidy in this bill is not offset by other revenues. We will have to work with the Budget Committee, with our colleagues in the House, and with the Administration to resolve this problem. We must do all we can to reduce the high cost of borrowing for students, without subsidizing banks at the expense of taxpayers. This legislation is designed to improve higher education in all parts of America. It renews our commitment to needy students, to graduate education, to teacher training, and to improving loan service for students. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important legislation in the weeks to come.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am honored to join Senator Feinstein to introduce legislation to grant a temporary increase in immigration quotas for high tech jobs, while taking additional steps to ensure that more American workers are trained for these jobs. For the next decade, high tech industries will create over a million new jobs in the United States. Some have called for a permanent increase in the quotas, to ensure that companies have the workers they need to survive in this highly competitive market. The problem is obvious. A permanent increase would permanently deny these good jobs to American workers, and that's not acceptable. The labor market will adjust in time, as it always does, as more and more Americans enter this field. It would be a mistake to tilt the balance unfairly against them. Our immigration laws should not undercut the ability of young Americans, downsized defense workers, and others to enter this dynamic field. This week, the General Accounting Office sent a clear warning on this issue, saying that the job market studies used by the industry are flawed, and do not prove that significant worker shortage exists. Our legislation will accomplish three goals: First, it provides a temporary increase in immigration quotas from 65,000 to 90,000 visas a year for the next three years. This increase will enable U.S. companies to hire the workers they need now. Second, we invest in training U.S. workers. Americans want these jobs, and they deserve the training needed to get them. Our bill proposes a modest $250 application fee for each foreign worker sought under the immigration quota. The fee will raise approximately $100 million each year over the next three years to fund training opportunities for Americans. Third, our bill strengthens the enforcement of the immigration laws. It gives the Labor Department greater authority and resources to ensure that employers pay the proper wage and meet other standards in hiring foreign workers. We specifically make it illegal for employers to lay off American workers and hire foreign workers to replace them. In other words, employers should hire at home first in obtaining new workers, before importing them from abroad. We believe these steps meet the immediate needs of this important industry, while preserving the priority we own our own workers, and we urge Congress to enact them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to such time as I might use from the Democratic side on the budget debate.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to take a moment of the Senate's time to talk about another decision and another priority that was made in the Budget Committee in the past 10 days. The Republican budget would also prohibit using the money raised by a cigarette price increase from being directed to programs that prevent children from starting to smoke and help those who are already addicted to quit smoking. These programs are essential to any effective antismoking effort. What you have to have, if you are going to be serious about trying to stop the youth from smoking, is a dramatic increase in costs in a short period of time. That is the record. We have examples of it. We can spend some time in going through those various reports. You need to have that. It also has to be accompanied by an effective counteradvertising campaign. If you only rely on an increase, what happens is the tobacco industry goes out and increases their advertising, and that overwhelms the discouraging aspect of a price increase. That is the record of it. We have seen that, and we will have a chance at another time when we go through the whole debate on tobacco. So you have to find a corresponding action. What the public health community, who studied this for years, says is that you not only have to have counteradvertising of tobacco, which amounts to $5 billion a year--you don't expect to match it with $5 billion a year, but under the Republican proposal it talks about $125 million that they are prepared to authorize but won't even guarantee. Even the last spring settlement, which was deficient in some important areas, provided for the mandatory spending for counteradvertising. But not this Republican budget, not this Republican budget. No. They said, effectively, no, we won't require that moneys that come in as a result of an increase in price--sure there should be some moneys for the Medicare Program, but let me depart for a moment. The best way to help the Medicare Program is to get kids to stop smoking. The costs of the Medicare Program are $9 billion a year, approximately. When you stop kids from smoking, you are going to save Medicare billions of dollars. So we allocate, under the Conrad proposal, some resources on Medicare. But we are talking now about the public health measures that have been turned down by the Budget Committee. These public health measures had been included in the first McCain proposal that was offered last fall. He knew they were important. They were included in the Hatch proposal, which also includes these measures, funds to try to deal with the public health aspects of children. They were included in a bipartisan program on Harkin-Chafee. They included that. But not the Budget Committee, not the Budget Committee, well-known protectors of the public health; not the Budget Committee, no, sir. Zero in terms of counteradvertising; zero in support of local communities for cessation programs to stop kids from smoking in the schools, to try to help local communities, work in local schools, nonprofit agencies, groups that have been working with cessation programs for years, zero for them, no way; zero for studying the problems of addiction to narcotics, and to study the problems with health-related issues that are attached to tobacco, such as lung cancer; effectively zero for any kind of a review, study, or investment in those particular programs; and zero with regard to looking out after farmers who are going to be impacted by this program. I may have my differences on the public policy issue on tobacco, but I am not prepared, like the tobacco industry has done it, to do it on the backs of those tobacco farmers. If you look back over what those tobacco farmers' increase has been over the past 10 years, when you have had record profits by the tobacco industry, it was pittance for those tobacco farmers. The first thing that happens, if the tobacco industry gets in any problem, they rent those big buses and park them on the mall and let them come up here and ask us why we are against those individuals and their families. How many times have we done that, Mr. President? We will have a chance to go on through that. But the point that we are making, Mr. President, is that these programs are essential to any effective antismoking effort and education on the dangers of tobacco use, counteradvertising, deglamorizing smoking among children, smoke cessation programs, and medical research to cure tobacco-induced diseases. They should be the first priority for the dollars produced by a cigarette price increase. All of us agree that Medicare should be protected for future generations. All of us recognize that tobacco imposes a heavy cost exceeding $9 billion a year on Medicare, and that a share of any tobacco revenues should be used for Medicare. But one of the best ways to keep Medicare strong for the future is to invest in important public health and tobacco control programs that prevent children from beginning to smoke and help current smokers to quit smoking. But not this budget. Every public health official that has appeared before Republicans and Democrats alike in the House and in the Senate has said these are essential. But not the Budget Committee. But we will have a chance to address that. That is an important priority. Americans will lead healthier lives, and the burden of tobacco-induced diseases will be greatly reduced. Obviously, it makes good sense to earmark funds for Medicare and smoking cessation programs, for tobacco counter-advertising campaigns, for tobacco-related research and education programs, and for FDA enforcement of provisions to reduce smoking by children. 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. That's unacceptable. Smoking has inflicted great damage on people's health. It makes sense to use tobacco revenues for these important anti-tobacco initiatives too. These programs work. 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. Listen to this. Every $1 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. But there is nothing in this program for that. 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--$5 billion--that the tobacco industry pours into advertising to encourage people to start smoking and keep smoking. 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. You would think that we would want to try to do something about that as well. Talk to any serious official in the public health community, and they will say that we need a multidisciplined approach if we are going to have an impact in reducing tobacco use among young people. We have to do all of these things. But not the Budget Committee. And the Republican budget offers no help for medical research on tobacco- related diseases, even though such research can lead to enormous savings for Medicare. The country supports, I believe, these fundamental, sound public health proposals, and the Senate should as well. Medicare Buy-In and The Budget Finally, Mr. President, I want to mention just two other areas. One is the area of the Medicare buy-in and the budget. Mr. President, the President has advanced a proposal to permit those near the age of 65 and those 62 years old to be able to buy into Medicare and do it in a fiscally sound way that will not interfere with the financial integrity of Medicare. These individuals in their early sixties are too young for Medicare but too old for affordable private coverage. Many of them face serious health problems that threaten to destroy the savings of a lifetime and prevent them from finding or keeping a job. Many are victims of corporate down-sizing or a company's decision to cancel the health insurance protection they relied on. No American nearing retirement can be confident that the health insurance they have today will protect them until they are 65 and are eligible for Medicare. Three million Americans aged 55 to 64 have no health insurance today. The consequences are often tragic. As a group, they are in relatively poor health, and their condition is more likely to worsen the longer they remain uninsured. They have little or no savings to protect against the cost of serious illness. Often, they are unable to afford the routine care that can prevent minor health problems from turning into serious disabilities or even life-threatening illness. The number of uninsured is growing every day. Between 1991 and 1995, the number of workers whose employers promise them benefits if they retire early dropped twelve percent. Barely a third of all workers now have such a promise. In recent years, many who have counted on an employer's commitment found themselves with only a broken promise. Their coverage was canceled after they retired. The plight of older workers who lose their jobs through layoffs or downsizing is also grim. It is hard to find a new job at age 55 or 60-- and even harder to find a job that provides health insurance. For these older Americans left out and left behind through no fault of their own after decades of hard work, it is time to provide a helping hand. And finally, significant numbers of retired workers and their families have found themselves left high and dry when their employers cut back their coverage or canceled it altogether. Democrats have already addressed legislation to address these issues--and the budget must provide for its enactment. The legislation allows uninsured Americans age 62-64 to buy in to Medicare coverage and spread part of the cost throughout their years of eligibility through the regular Medicare program. It allows displaced workers aged 55-62 to buy into Medicare to help them bridge the period until they can find a new job with health insurance or until they qualify for Medicare. It requires companies that drop retirement coverage to allow their retirees to extend their coverage through COBRA until they qualify for Medicare. This legislation is a lifeline for millions of older Americans. It provides a bridge to help them through the years before they qualify for full Medicare eligibility. It is a constructive next step toward the day when every American will be guaranteed the fundamental right to health care. It will impose no additional burden on Medicare, because it is fully paid for by premiums from the beneficiaries themselves. In the budget there ought be the opportunity for us to debate this issue, and if judgment is made that we are going to move forward on it to ensure that we are going to have the votes and not be blocked from moving forward on it because of the failure of the Budget Act, to at least consider that possibility. Investment in Children Mr. President, everyone knows that investments in children pay off, and focusing the attention of the Nation on a central priority for vast numbers of American parents--the availability and affordability and quality of child care and after-school programs--I believe is essential. There is a shocking lack of child care that meets these three basic tests: Affordability, availability, and quality. It is a dramatic fact of life for millions of families across the Nation. Thirteen million children spend all or part of their day in child care. Five million are left unsupervised after school. Their parents are working parents and deserve to know that their children are not just safe but well cared for. We must make sure that we take care of our children and have child care development programs. We need to expand the child care development block grant and ensure there is mandatory money to invest in our kids. And we have failed to do so in this budget. EEOC Enforcement Mr. President, this year, Congress must commit greater resources to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Although many of my Republican colleagues want to eliminate all forms of affirmative action that have benefited women and minorities, shouldn't everyone-- Republicans and Democrats alike--support strong enforcement of our civil rights laws? To do otherwise undermines the promise of equal justice and equal opportunity for all. The EEOC is the only government agency solely devoted to enforcing our great civil rights laws--the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Equal Pay Act. But, while the agency has received greater enforcement responsibilities, including the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991--its congressionally appropriated resources have decreased. The Republican leadership must support its anti-discrimination rhetoric and support the work of this agency. The EEOC needs the tools necessary to quickly investigate charges of discrimination against individuals, as well as patterns of discrimination found in the workplace. I hope my Republican colleagues agree with the sentiment of our former majority leader, Bob Dole. Senator Dole said, [W]e must conscientiously enforce our antidiscrimination laws. Those who violate the law ought to be punished, and those who are the victims of discrimination must be made whole. Unfortunately, our nation's top civil-rights law enforcer, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is burdened with an unacceptably high . . . case backlog. We must give the EEOC the tools it needs to do its job properly. The budget must include President Clinton's request for $270 million for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. It is the right thing to do for our country. I yield the floor. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Nation's students deserve modern schools with world class teachers, but too many students in too many schools in too many communities across the country fail to achieve that standard. The latest international survey of math and science achievement confirms the urgent need to raise standards of performance for schools, teachers and students alike. It is shameful that America's 12th graders rank among the lowest of the 22 nations participating in this international survey of math and science. 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 $100 billion just to repair the existing facilities nationwide. This chart is a good summation as to what the current conditions are. This year, K-12 enrollment reached an all-time high and will continue to rise over the next 7 years. 6,000 new public schools will be needed by the year 2006 just to maintain current class sizes. We will also need to hire 2 million teachers over the next decade to accommodate rising student enrollments and massive teacher requirements. And because of the overcrowding, schools are using trailers for classrooms and teaching students in former hallways, closets, and bathrooms. Overcrowded classrooms undermine discipline and decrease student morale. This chart reflects, again, the kind of crisis we are facing for our 52 million American students: 14 million children learn in substandard schools; 7 million children attend schools with asbestos, lead paint, or radon in their ceilings or walls; 12 million children go to school under leaky roofs; a third of America's children study in classrooms without enough outlets and electrical wiring to accommodate computers and multimedia equipment. The General Accounting Office has determined that it will take in excess of $100 billion just to repair existing facilities nationwide. We send a very powerful message to the children in this Nation when they are going to substandard schools. The message is this: The parents, or the older generation, don't give education the priority which it deserves. Politicians of both parties are out there talking about our responsibility to education and to our children and our future, but we fail to have decent facilities with enough classrooms and well-trained teachers and fail to care for children both before they get into school and in the after school hours. Putting children first--when we fail to do that, we send a very powerful message to children that it really doesn't make an awful lot of difference how they perform in school and whether they conform to various rules and regulations. We send a message to children every single day that they go to dilapidated schools or overcrowded schools that education for the children of this country is not our first priority. We have to ask ourselves as we begin the budget debate, How does this budget reflect our Nation's priorities? This budget, which we are beginning a debate on today and will continue to debate through the course of next week, how is that really going to reflect our Nation's priorities? What are we prepared to do to try to work with States and local communities to improve the schools in our country? Just throwing money at a problem is not the answer; we have all learned that. But I tell you that the amount of resources you allocate to a particular purpose or policy is a pretty clear reflection about what kind of priority the Nation is going to place on it. If we are not going to provide the resources that are necessary to reduce class size and enhance educational achievement, if we are not going to try to address the problems of dilapidated and decaying schools, not only in urban areas but in rural areas, if we are not prepared to help recruit additional schoolteachers who are well trained and certified to teach the courses which they are instructing, if we are not going to help provide education opportunity zones to assist communities that are trying to innovate and be imaginative and work with teachers and parents to enhance academic achievement--all of which have been proposed by the President--if we are not going to say we care sufficiently about children when they leave school in the afternoon, the 5 million children that go home to empty houses every single day, we don't care about them--if we don't care enough about children before they go to school in Head Start programs, if we are not prepared to invest in children, then we are sending a very powerful message. Those speeches that Members are making in here are empty. We are challenging our Republican leadership and Republican colleagues to invest in children, reject what the Budget Committee has done in turning its back on children--and I say ``turning their back on children.'' We will get into the particular details of the budget resolution later. Now, incredibly, the Republican budget proposal ignores the pressing needs that I have outlined here. The Republican plan cuts funding for education. It refuses to provide key new investments to improve public education. If that anti-education plan is passed, schools and students will get even less help next year than they are getting this year. Let me repeat that: If this budget that is before the Senate now is not altered and changed, then the help and assistance for public schools will be less next year than it was this year. That is the end result, because even if the Appropriations Committee increases funding later on during the course of this Congress, it will violate the budget resolution. This budget resolution is the time to debate the allocations of resources to enhance the public schools in this country. Under the resolution that is before the Senate this afternoon, there is a real cut, a real cut in support for public education. That is what I find so incredibly offensive in terms of the budget proposal that is before the Senate. The Republican anti-education budget cuts discretionary spending by $1.6 billion below the President's budget. It cuts funding for education and Head Start programs by $1 billion below the level needed to maintain current services. The Head Start Program had bipartisan support. We have expanded Head Start programs for Early Start on the basis of the Carnegie Commission Report and the wide range of different testimony that has been before our Education Committees: The earlier the kind of contact, as the child's brain is developing, and building confidence and helping and assisting that child through a nurturing experience and expanding their horizons, has a very, very important impact in the ability of that child to expand their academic achievement in the growing years of education. That has been proven. We saw a small allocation--about 4 percent--in the early education programs in the Head Start Program, and it has been successful. We have been trying to expand it. But all of those resources are being cut back in the Republican budget proposal that is out here before the Senate. As I said, it cuts the Head Start Program. The Republican anti- education budget denies 3.7 million students the opportunity to benefit from smaller class size. It denies 900,000 disadvantaged students the extra help they need to improve their reading and math skills. It denies 400,000 students the opportunity to attend after-school programs, those programs which are so essential. We know that the best teacher that any child has is the parent--the parent; second, it is the schoolteacher. But we also know what children do before they come to school in the morning is important, and we know what happens to children in the afternoon is very important. We won't take the time to elaborate on the after-school programs and what it means in terms of helping and assisting a child, working with that child, to help them with their homework, help them with auxiliary programs as I have seen out in Dorchester, MA, just 3 weeks ago in an excellent program. I saw the liveliness of those children in the after-school programs. You would think a child, after going through a full day of education, would be pretty tired, but the light in those children's eyes as they are involved in doing their homework and involved in artwork, involved in photography, and even in cooking so that they would be of help and assistance in the home--the idea of helping those children get their homework done in the afternoon with help and assistance, so when their parents are at home at nighttime after a full day of work, they can enjoy some common time together and the parents are not going to the child saying, ``You better go off and do your homework.'' These are pretty commonsense recommendations, after school programs. I won't take the time, at least now, to go through the excellent presentations of Paul Evans, our police commissioner in Boston, who talks about the importance of after-school programs in order to reduce crime and violence in a community--eloquent, eloquent testimony. I daresay that we have had a better record in Boston in reducing youth homicide than any city in the country. We went over 2 years without a single youth homicide--over 2 years without a single youth homicide. If you had Paul Evans here on the floor of the U.S. Senate this afternoon, he would say there are three elements. You need to have a tough kind of action in dealing with the violent youth that are involved in gangs, you have to have an effective program to police the proliferation of weapons, and you have to have an effective after- school program. How many times I have listened to his eloquence. Those three elements are the key. But an after-school program is key if we are serious in terms of trying to do something about violence in our society, and that case is so powerful. The President has an after-school program. It has been a modest program for the last year. It has been tried and tested. It recognizes that the increase in crime among juveniles rises about 60 percent between the hours of 3 and 4 every single day, just when kids get out. And 70 percent of the illegitimate births among teenagers are caused during the time of between 3 and 6 in the afternoon. It is a key time, Mr. President, when too many of our young people are cast loose out into society, or just into their own homes with a television set, or if they are older, to a street corner. This is an important ingredient in terms of the education component. Now the President requested that program, and it is effectively zeroed out in the Republican program. So you are going to deny some 400,000 students the opportunity to attend after-school programs. The Republican budget denies 6,500 middle schools, serving 5 million students, extra help to ensure that they are safe and drug free. It denies 1 million students in failing schools the opportunity to benefit from innovative reforms. It denies 3.9 million needy college students an increase in their Pell grants. The President requested a very modest increase in Pell grants, which would have a significant impact on students such as those who attend UMASS-Boston. Their tuition may be up now to $1,350 a year. Eighty-five percent of those kids' parents never went to college. Eighty-five percent of them are working 25 hours a week or more. When the tuition is up $100 at UMASS-Boston, they see a 10 percent decline in admissions requests. That $100 makes a difference to those kids. That $100 is a life-and-death thing to those kids. And the President had recommended some $300 on it. The way it works out, in terms of the formula, it would be a little over $100 per kid in the Pell grant program that was lost dramatically in purchasing power over the past years. That is eliminated, Mr. President. All of these are paid for in the President's program. These aren't add-ons to the budget. They are all paid for under the President's program that moves us to a balanced budget. But no, no, we have to cut those programs investing in kids and provide a $30 billion tax cut for wealthy individuals. Take that money that is going to after school, take that money away from Pell grants, take that money away from children for math and science, take that money away from smaller classrooms and take that money away from strengthening teacher training, and put it where? In a tax break. Now, that is the issue. It is an issue of priorities. It is an issue of priorities. It is who is on whose side? If you want to cut to the meat of it, who is on the side of working families and their kids, and who is on the side of those that need another tax break? It isn't the working families that get a tax break, because the Republicans have opposed any increase in the minimum wage. This isn't even a tax break. These are men and women who are working hard, playing by the rules, and want to provide their kids with food on the table and, after working two jobs, to be able to spend some time with them. You would think they would at least say that if we are not going to give them a tax break--because they don't benefit from a tax break--at least say let's give them an increase in the minimum wage. No, no, no. That is what we heard last year, but we were eventually able to win it. But we haven't got one single Republican cosponsor of an increase in the minimum wage for this year--not one--when we have seen the most expanding, growing economy, with 320,000 jobs added in the job market last month, and 12,000 in the restaurant industry; they are always complaining about any increase and how it is going to be devastating to the restaurant industry, but they grew 12,000 jobs just last month. So, Mr. President, these are some of the issues that are in this budget and what we have to address. We must test students early so that we know where they need help in time to make that help effective. We must provide better training for current and new teachers so that they are well prepared to teach to high standards. We must reduce class size to help students obtain the individual attention they need. We must provide after-school programs to make constructive alternatives available to students. We must provide greater resources to modernize and expand the Nation's school buildings to meet the urgent needs of schools for up-to-date facilities. I hope that during the consideration of the budget resolution next week, we will give education the high priority that it deserves. Cigarette Price Increase

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I was saddened to learn this morning of the death of Dave Powers, who was one of President Kennedy's closest friends and advisors throughout my brother's entire political career. President Kennedy loved Dave Powers like a brother, and so did all of us in the Kennedy family. My brother couldn't have had the New Frontier without him, and we will miss him very much. Dave had a warmth and wit and charm that were impossible to match. His Irish eyes were always smiling, and almost everyone he met became his ``pal.'' His extraordinary common sense and his down-to-earth genius for politics at its best made Dave Powers at home in the White House and in anyone else's house. President Kennedy and Dave discovered each other while climbing the stairs of three-decker houses in Charlestown, MA, in my brother's first campaign for Congress in 1946, and they were inseparable ever after. They both were veterans of World War II, and both were new to politics. The instant bond they formed took them to the House, the Senate, the White House, and around the world, including their most moving and memorable journey of all, to the Ireland of their dreams. Together, they touched and improved and inspired the lives of countless people in this country and many other lands. In happy times and stressful times, Dave had a special human quality that could bring an instant smile from Jack or Jackie, or a hug from John and Caroline. Dave's total recall made him the unofficial historian of the New Frontier. He loved to regale my brother by reciting the earned run average of a Red Sox pitcher, or the name of a State convention delegate from a decade ago. Later, Dave's extraordinary energy and dedication in carrying out his labor of love at the Kennedy Library made it a magnificent tribute to my brother and the years of the New Frontier. In a very real sense, Jack's Library became Dave's Library too. I extend my deepest sympathy to Dave's wife, Jo, his children Mary Jo, Diane, and David John, and all of Dave and Jo's wonderful grandchildren. ``David, we hardly knew ye.''

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am honored to join Senator Feinstein to introduce legislation to grant a temporary increase in immigration quotas for high tech jobs, while taking additional steps to ensure that more American workers are trained for these jobs. For the next decade, high tech industries will create over a million new jobs in the United States. Some have called for a permanent increase in the quotas, to ensure that companies have the workers they need to survive in this highly competitive market. The problem is obvious. A permanent increase would permanently deny these good jobs to American workers, and that's not acceptable. The labor market will adjust in time, as it always does, as more and more Americans enter this field. It would be a mistake to tilt the balance unfairly against them. Our immigration laws should not undercut the ability of young Americans, downsized defense workers, and others to enter this dynamic field. This week, the General Accounting Office sent a clear warning on this issue, saying that the job market studies used by the industry are flawed, and do not prove that significant worker shortage exists. Our legislation will accomplish three goals: First, it provides a temporary increase in immigration quotas from 65,000 to 90,000 visas a year for the next three years. This increase will enable U.S. companies to hire the workers they need now. Second, we invest in training U.S. workers. Americans want these jobs, and they deserve the training needed to get them. Our bill proposes a modest $250 application fee for each foreign worker sought under the immigration quota. The fee will raise approximately $100 million each year over the next three years to fund training opportunities for Americans. Third, our bill strengthens the enforcement of the immigration laws. It gives the Labor Department greater authority and resources to ensure that employers pay the proper wage and meet other standards in hiring foreign workers. We specifically make it illegal for employers to lay off American workers and hire foreign workers to replace them. In other words, employers should hire at home first in obtaining new workers, before importing them from abroad. We believe these steps meet the immediate needs of this important industry, while preserving the priority we own our own workers, and we urge Congress to enact them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Bond and Senator Wellstone, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KENNEDY. It is an amendment to the bill.

Mr. KENNEDY. This is an amendment to the language proposed to be stricken.

Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to vote. I would like to make 4 or 5 minutes of comments, and then I will be prepared to move ahead with the vote. I would like to get the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. As amended, hopefully.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself that time. This does not take one dime out of Medicare--not one dime. The disabled have a greater dependency on Medicare than any other group in our society. They are more dependent upon it than anyone else, and they support our position. That ought to speak to where the priorities are. They understand the importance--the importance--of implementing the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill and providing the protections for families in this country. That is what our amendment will do. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank our leader, Senator Daschle, for the efforts he has made to try to raise the education issue for debate here on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I think that, historically, there have been great debates on education, when we found common ground, and they were basically bipartisan in nature. It has been rare that we have been unable to at least have a good, full debate on the education issue. It is regrettable that our Republican friends are so unsure of their position on education policy that they would deny the opportunity for a debate on upgrading and modernizing our schools, providing for smaller classrooms, improving the teachers in our country and the after-school programs. So I say to our leader that I look forward to the time here on the Senate floor when we can have the kind of debate that I think the country wants. The country recognizes that education is the key issue for the future of our Nation, and we ought to be debating the best ideas of Republicans and Democrats alike.