Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Will anything help provide 100,000 new teachers as proposed by the President?

Mr. KENNEDY. Finally, because I see other Senators on the floor, will anything in the Coverdell bill result in a reduction of class size?

Mr. KENNEDY. Is it not true that the cuts in education funding by the Budget Committee provide no increase in Pell grants?

Mr. KENNEDY. Is there anything in the Coverdell bill that will help provide after-school programs that are so important for the 13 million young people that the Senator from Connecticut, who is a champion for children in this country, speaks about? Is there anything in the Coverdell bill that will help expand and improve those after-school programs?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I want to just commend our leader and friend for his response to the proposal. As I understand his position, it is that we would like at least an opportunity to offer and vote on amendments on the important issues that have been introduced by the President of the United States such as increased support for early childhood education, smaller class size, more teachers, after-school programs, and education opportunity zones. Would he think it is appropriate, if we are dealing with an education proposal, that at least he be given, or those ideas be given, an opportunity for debate and discussion here on the floor of the U.S. Senate? Would I be correct in thinking that at least those proposals ought to be among the ones being advanced by our Republican friends, which targets public tax dollars to private schools rather than, as the President's does, to the public schools? Am I right?

Mr. KENNEDY. Does the Senator, finally, really understand what our Republican leadership or Republican friends are really afraid of? Are they afraid to debate these issues? Is it just a question of working out a time agreement to discuss these matters fully and openly, or they afraid that their proposal won't measure up?

Mr. KENNEDY

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I must say that the Senator makes a powerful case. We urge those who are watching to write to their Members of the Senate. The vote is on Tuesday. Get busy and let them know that they shouldn't be voting to cut off this debate on how to support public education. We are just trying to have this debate and offer amendments on our own ideas. I firmly believe that we should be building schools and not be building new tax shelters for the wealthy. We should be reducing the class size and not reducing aid to public schools. But I will ask the Senator one final question on this: Does the Senator also find it extraordinary that just this past week the Budget Committee--on a party line vote--have passed a Republican budget that will cut $1.6 billion in education funding below the President's budget, to cut $1 billion below current services for education and Head Start, and to provide no funds for new teachers, smaller classrooms, or for safer, more modern school buildings? Does the Senator agree with me that last week our Republican friends cut $1.6 billion from education programs that are tried and tested and proven to be effective and helpful, and then came to the floor of U.S. Senate and said that they are really the friends of public education because the Coverdell bill to provide tax breaks to the wealthy will solve the problems in public education? Is he troubled by this juxtaposition where one day they are cutting the heart out of the public school budget and then coming onto the floor and emphasizing that their goal is to help public schools? The problem is that they can't answer the question that the money is going to private schools. And the bottom line is that if they get cloture, does the Senator agree with me that we would be seeing a significant reduction in our national commitment to the public schools of this country, if we continue to support the Coverdell bill and permit these cuts to go ahead?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's Friday noontime, and I want to make clear that the eyes of the Nation are going to be on the Senate of the United States next Tuesday when we will vote on a proposal that will provide a $1.6 billion tax cut that will mostly benefit the wealthy individuals who send their children to private school. That is $1.6 billion that could be used to support our public school system. I think it's important for the Nation that parents review what has happened in the U.S. Senate over the last few days. Some very important decisions have been made by the Budget Committee. They have decided how to allocate the nation's scarce federal resources--and education doesn't get its fair share. And, next week, we will be voting on this $1.6 billion tax break that will primarily benefit the private schools. I take issue with those who believe we ought to support the Budget Committee's decision to cut $1.6 billion from education. We should not abandon the public schools in this country. No challenge we face as a Nation is more important than strengthening the academic achievement and accomplishment of the young people in this country--the 48 million young people who attend the public schools in this country every single day. On the one hand, Republicans want to use $1.6 billion to support for tax breaks to help private schools. And, at the same time, our Republican friends on the Budget Committee cut federal education funding by $400 million from last year, and $1.6 billion below the President's level. Those who are making the speeches about the importance of public schools, if they stand behind the public school system, are going to have to answer the questions why they continue to cut crucial support for education. Now, look at what the Budget Committee provided in this past week. We will have the chance to debate the budget when it comes up here in the next several days. But let's look at where our Republican friends place their priorities and what they said about public education. They cut $1.6 billion below President Clinton's budget on public education. Now, money is not always the final indicator about what is a good program or what is a bad program; we recognize that. But it is a pretty good indication about where a nation's priorities are. If we go out and start to cut, as the Budget Committee did this past week, $1.6 billion in discretionary assistance for the public schools, we know that education is not a national priority. That means that they cut education and Head Start funding by $1 billion below the level needed just to maintain the current services. In order for communities to be able to continue to serve the current number of children in Head Start, you would need an additional $1 billion just to meet inflation. Right now, we provide enough funding in Head Start to serve about 40 percent of all the children that are eligible. But now some of those children currently in Head Start programs won't get the help the need. Now, the Head Start Program doesn't solve all of our problems in early education. But what is undeniable is the importance of early intervention with children. What we have seen with the various Carnegie Commission reports, and the other reports, is that the earlier the intervention, the more confidence young children will have. The Head Start Program is a tried and tested program. If a chid gets help in the Head Start Program, they are more likely to succeed in school and as adults. All you have to do is look at the Ypsilanti programs, the Beethoven project, and various other studies that have been done, and they show what the importance is in terms of early intervention. This Republican budget cuts $1 billion out of that Head Start Program and other important education programs. It also cuts funding for the education programs $400 million below even last year. It prohibits funding for any of the new programs. So we are having a reduction of $1.6 billion in discretionary funding for education, which includes cuts in the Head Start Program. That Head Start Program has had bipartisan support. President Bush increased it $300 million or $400 million a year. We ran into problems during that period of time that we weren't giving sufficient support and help for those teachers that were involved in those programs. And some of the quality issues were important to address, but we addressed them in a bipartisan way. We also indicated in the reauthorization of the Head Start Program some special funding for the earliest interventions, going down to 3-year-olds and 2-year-olds. That was very important. But this Budget Committee says no to those programs, no to even those that are in those programs, by cutting back funding. The President of the United States is working hard to address the challenges that we are facing out in our public schools, particularly that we are going to need additional teachers in our schools and we need to rebuild the nation's school buildings. Because of enrollments rising and massive teachers retirements, we are going to need 100,000 new teachers. The President has committed enough funding for 100,000 new teachers in his budget to reduce class sizes in the early grades. The President of the United States said, let's try a smaller class size for the early years, when the children are just beginning their education experience and they need more individual attention. But, the Republican Budget Committee has said no to the 100,000 new teachers and no to smaller class sizes. Then the President of the United States introduced a plan to help disadvantaged communities--urban or rural--improve failing schools. A number of communities across this country, such as Chicago and my own city of Boston, are making dramatic improvements in educational opportunities for children. The President's program for creating educational opportunity zones is one of the most important investments we can make to get quick help for tough reform in these needy communities. The President has proposed help for local communities that are going to take some dramatic steps to try to enhance academic achievement. He calls them ``education opportunity zones.'' We have the record on these, where these are being tried across the country to try to provide additional help and support for those teachers. That program won't be given a chance to get off the ground. There won't be a nickel for that program that was advanced by the President of the United States. Senator Moseley-Braun has introduced a very important program to modernize and rebuild the nation's schools. That is very important in every community in this country--whether you have to address overcrowded or crumbling schools. I believe that my own State has the second oldest schools in this country. We find that on a cold day where the temperature goes down to 20 degrees in Boston that 10 or 15 schools in Boston are effectively closed because of poor heating systems. Those children have to stay home. We are talking about a very modest program that will bring $22 billion in bonding authority to the states interest-free. Senator Carol Moseley-Braun has been fighting for that day in and day out. But, the Republicans refuse to make a strong investment in rebuilding the nation's schools. There is no funding for the High Hopes School College Partnership Program to help young people from disadvantaged communities reach their dream of going to college. There is no increase in the Title I funding to improve students achievement in math and reading. What has to happen before Republicans will stop the attack on public education? The Third International Math and Science Study was just released that shows our students aren't measuring up. We have had hours and days of discussion, and volumes of reports, that talk about the importance of early intervention programs, and the importance of programs that provide extra help in areas of math reading, and science. The Title I program for needy children has made a tremendous difference in the reading and math skills of young people. We have been reminded as a nation about the importance of furthering our efforts in math and science. And yet, Title I and other important programs will not get an increase. The Republican budget won't even allow for an increase in Pell grants that are so crucial to helping needy college students afford to go to college. About 80 percent of the children in the highest income bracket finish college, but only about 8 percent of students in the lowest 25 percent finish college. Many of those students cannot afford to finish. But the Republicans won't help more needy students get the assistance they need. I can remember not long ago, at the University of Massachusetts in Boston, their tuition used to be $1,100. They raised it to $1,200, and they lost 10 percent of all their applicants--$100. What is the profile of those students? Eighty-five percent of those students' parents never went to college, and 85 percent of them are working 25 hours a week, or more. One hundred dollars makes a major difference. A modest increase in the Pell grants, even an increase of $300, is a lifeline to those young people so that they can finish college and get good jobs. All of these programs that the Republicans have rejected or frozen are paid for in the President's budget. They are paid for. But, nonetheless, we see that the Budget Committee said no --no to each one of the President's programs to try to strengthen education. Then we are faced with billions of dollars of cuts from the President's levels. And at the same time, the Republican program provides a tax break for the wealthiest individuals in this country. And for what? To help improve public education? No! To subsidize the private school tuition they already pay. If that makes sense, then my colleagues should vote for cloture next week. But every parent in this country ought to know what is happening on education, and every parent ought to know that we are being closed down from any opportunity to debate this issue--the most important debate we are going to be facing. It is Friday afternoon. We are going to have a little time to speak here on Friday afternoon, and a only little time before the cloture vote on Tuesday. Education is a key issue and it deserves a long debate. And, it deserves the discussion of other ideas, not just one way. Mr. President, I can't believe that as an institution and as representatives of the people we constantly talk about education but our first order of business in education is to provide a tax break of $1.6 billion that does nothing to improve public schools. This is their education program: nothing to strengthen teachers; nothing to reduce class size; nothing to modernize and rebuild schools; nothing to expand after-school programs; cutting back on the Head Start Program that provides skills for children to go into the public school system. They say that this is their answer to their education. And we are being denied the opportunity to debate it. Mr. President, I think this is really the kind of irresponsible approach on education that really does an enormous disservice to the parents in this country. We should improve our public schools, not abandon them. I see my good friend from Connecticut on the floor who serves on the Labor and Human Resources Committee that governs education issues, and who has been tireless in advancing the cause of education. I am wonder if he is not as perplexed by the allocation of this $1.6 billion. As I understand, the Joint Tax Committee has stated that the bill spends $1.6 billion to allocate to private schools. Of the 35.4 million public school families, only 30 percent would be able to use this IRA. And those public school families would only get an average benefit of $7-- $7 per family. Of the 2.9 million who send their children to private schools, 83 percent will be able to use it. And the private school families will get an average benefit of $37. I am just wondering if he is not as perplexed by that whole approach and that whole program--and the allocations of the benefits of this program--and whether he would agree with me that this really is a sham. When we talk about trying to strengthen academic achievement, academic accomplishment, and investment in the young people of this country in our public school system, is this what we should accept?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join with Senator Daschle and other Democratic Senators to introduce the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 1998. This proposal is strongly supported by President Clinton, and is also being introduced today in the House of Representatives by Congressman David Bonior, Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt, and many of their colleagues. The federal minimum wage is now $5.15 an hour. Our bill will raise it by $1.00 over the next two years--a 50 cent increase on January 1, 1999, and another 50 cent increase on January 1, 2000, so that the minimum wage will reach the level of $6.15 at the turn of the century. These modest increases will help 20 million workers and their families. Twelve million Americans earning less than $6.15 an hour today will see a direct increase in their pay, and another 8 million Americans earning between $6.15 and $7.15 an hour are also likely to benefit from the increase. The nation's economy is the best it has been in decades. Under the leadership of President Clinton, the country as a whole is enjoying a remarkable period of growth and prosperity. Enterprise and entrepreneurship are flourishing--generating an extraordinary expansion, with remarkable efficiencies and job creation. The stock market is soaring. Inflation is low, unemployment is low, and interest rates are low. In the past 30 years, the stock market, adjusted for inflation, has gone up by 115%. In 1997, the average compensation of a Wall Street executive was $280,000--a stunning $120,000 increase over 1996. These lavish salaries contrast starkly with the 30% decline in the value of the minimum wage over the past three decades. To have the purchasing power it had in 1968, the minimum wage would have to be $7.38 an hour today, instead of $5.15. But the benefits of this prosperity have not flowed fairly to minimum wage earners. Working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, they earn $10,712 a year--$2,600 below the poverty line for a family of three. According to the Department of Labor, 60% of minimum wage earners are women. Nearly three-fourths are adults. Three-fifths are the sole breadwinners in their families. More than half work full time. These families need help, and they deserve this increase in the minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage can make all the difference to these workers and their families. They will be able to survive without food stamps or other social services to supplement their incomes. They can fix up their homes and invest in their neighborhoods. They can spend more at the local grocery store. They can work two jobs rather than three, and spend more time with their families. Their utilities won't be cut off. They can pay the medical bills they accumulated from not having health benefits at their jobs. As one minimum wage earner told me earlier this year, ``The best welfare reform is an increase in the minimum wage.'' Opponents typically claim that, if the minimum wage goes up, the sky will fall--small businesses will collapse and jobs will be lost. This hasn't happened in the past, and it won't happen in the future. In fact, in the time that has passed since the most recent increases in the federal minimum wage--a 50-cent increase on October 1, 1996 and a 40-cent increase on September 1, 1997--employment has increased in all sectors of the population. Since September 1996, 700,000 new retail jobs have been added in the economy, including 200,000 new restaurant jobs. Overall employment is at an all-time high. Overall unemployment is at an historically low rate--4.6 %. The teenage unemployment rate has declined by 1.3 percentage points. The unemployment rate for African-Americans has declined by 1 percentage point over the same period. Seventeen renowned economists--including Nobel Prize winner Lawrence R. Klein and former Secretary of Labor Ray Marshall--recently wrote to President Clinton, supporting an increase in the minimum wage. According to these experts, ``the 1996 and 1997 increases had a beneficial effect, not only on those whose earnings were increased by 90 cents an hour, but also on the economy as a whole. Billions in added consumer demand helped fuel our expanding economy in those years. . . . Given the nation's low unemployment rate and strong economy without inflation, now is the time to deepen our public commitment to a decent minimum wage.'' The American people understand that you can't raise a family on $5.15 an hour. We intend to do all we can to see that the minimum wage is increased this year. No one who works for a living should have to live in poverty. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I just want to, first of all, commend my friend, the Senator from Connecticut, for his understanding of Cardinal Law's statement and for the constructive nature in which the Senator has referred to it. I do think that it is an enormously serious document. I agree with the Senator that it deserves a great deal of study. I had had the opportunity to talk to him prior to the time of delivery. He is motivated by a very deep and continuing humanitarian concern from his frequent visits there and from the study of the people on the island. I just want to commend the Senator, who is a real leader in the issues of the hemisphere, and to thank him for an excellent statement, and to say that I think it has been an enormously constructive and positive statement and I hope our colleagues will pay attention to it. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes of the opposition time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to reject cloture on this bill. Improving education can and must be a top priority for Congress and the nation. But this Republican bill flunks the test. They call it their ``A+'' bill, but it's anti-education. It deserves an ``F.'' It is the nation's public schools that need help. So what do our Republican friends do? They propose legislation to aid private schools. That makes no sense at all. Our goal is to strengthen public schools, not abandon them. Incredibly, the Republican strategy on the Budget Committee is more of the same. The Republican plan does not provide for key investments to improve public education. It does not provide help to reduce class size. In fact, the Republican plan proposes a cut of $400 million--$400 million--in the budget category for education next year. If that anti- education plan is passed, schools and students will get even less help next year than they are getting this year, just when they need help the most. It is clear that our Republican friends are no friends of public schools. They have an anti-education agenda. They want tax breaks for the wealthy who send their children to private schools. They want to cut the budget for public schools. The Republicans have put their cards on the table--and it's a losing hand for education. If they really wanted to improve the nation's schools, they wouldn't propose a $30 billion tax break, while cutting funds for education. Now, with this cloture vote, they are trying to gag Democrats to prevent us from offering proposals that will genuinely help education. They are trying to force the Senate to pass their private school bill or no bill. The use of tax breaks to subsidize parents who send their children to private schools is a serious mistake. This chart indicates who the winners and losers are. Ninety-three percent of the children in this country go to public schools; 7 percent go to the private schools. Yet when you look at the money, where the money goes, 48 percent to the public schools, and 52 percent to the private schools. This bill does nothing to address the serious need of public schools to build new facilities and repair their crumbling existing facilities. It does nothing to reduce class size in school. It does nothing to provide qualified teachers in more classrooms across the Nation. It does nothing to help children reach high academic standards. It does nothing to provide after-school activities to keep kids off the street and away from drugs and out of trouble. It does nothing to improve the quality of education for children in public schools. Working families do not have enough assets in savings to participate in this scheme. This regressive bill does not help families struggling to pay day-to-day expenses during their children's school years. This so-called education bill does nothing for education. It simply provides a tax shelter for the rich. Congress should be building new schools, not building new tax shelters for the wealthy. Congress should be reducing class size, not reducing aid to public schools. We know what it takes to achieve genuine education reform. The place to start is by resoundingly rejecting cloture on this defective bill and then amending it in the ways that would genuinely help the Nation's schools. How much time does the Senator from Nebraska desire?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, a recent GAO report makes clear that significant insurance company abuses are undercutting the effectiveness of one of the key parts of the Kassebaum-Kennedy health insurance reforms enacted in 1996. The legislation that I am introducing today will stop these unconscionable practices. The 1996 legislation was enacted in response to several serious problems. Large numbers of Americans felt locked into their jobs because of pre-existing health conditions that would have subjected them to exclusions coverage if they changed jobs. Many more who did change jobs found themselves and members of their families exposed to devastating financial risks because of exclusions for such conditions. Other families faced the same problems if their employers changed insurance plans. Still others were unable to buy individual coverage because of health problems if they left their job or lost their job and did not have access to employer-based coverage. The legislation addressed each of these problems. It banned exclusions for pre-existing conditions for people who maintained coverage, even if they changed jobs or changed insurers. It required insurance companies to sell insurance policies to small businesses and individuals losing group coverage, regardless of their health status. It banned higher charges for those in poor health in employment-based groups. A GAO study in 1995 had found that 25 million Americans faced one or more of these problems and would be helped by the Kassebaum-Kennedy proposal. For the vast majority of these Americans, the legislation is working well. They can change jobs without fear of new exclusions for pre-existing conditions, denial of coverage, or insurance company gouging. But as the GAO study released last week makes clear, many of the two million people a year who lose employer-based group coverage are vulnerable to flagrant industry price-gouging if they try to purchase individual coverage. Under the Kassebaum-Kennedy legislation, individuals who leave their jobs and want to buy coverage in the individual market are guaranteed access to coverage without regard to their health status and without being subject to pre-existing condition exclusions. But there is no clear limit in the Federal law on how much they can be charged for that coverage--and some unscrupulous companies are taking advantage of that loophole to effectively deny coverage to those in poor health by requiring them to pay exorbitant premiums. We recognized that potential problem in 1996, but Republican opposition blocked clear, strict federal limits to prevent such abuse, on the ground that state regulation would be an adequate remedy. At least in some states, as the GAO report makes clear, state regulation is no match for insurance industry price-gouging. The legislation that I am introducing today is a straightforward response to that problem. It will limit insurance company charges to eligible individuals, so that they will have to pay no more than 150% of the rate charged to those in good health. That is well within the range that the American Academy of Actuaries said would have negligible impact on the premiums of those who already have coverage, but it will end the worst of the current price-gouging. This approach of limiting premium increases based on health conditions has worked and worked well in the small group market for many years. It should have been included in the 1996 bill, and Congress should act on it promptly this year. The verdict of experience is in. The GAO report makes clear that some insurance firms are guilty of abuse beyond a reasonable doubt, and Congress has to act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join with Senator Daschle and other Democratic Senators to introduce the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 1998. This proposal is strongly supported by President Clinton, and is also being introduced today in the House of Representatives by Congressman David Bonior, Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt, and many of their colleagues. The federal minimum wage is now $5.15 an hour. Our bill will raise it by $1.00 over the next two years--a 50 cent increase on January 1, 1999, and another 50 cent increase on January 1, 2000, so that the minimum wage will reach the level of $6.15 at the turn of the century. These modest increases will help 20 million workers and their families. Twelve million Americans earning less than $6.15 an hour today will see a direct increase in their pay, and another 8 million Americans earning between $6.15 and $7.15 an hour are also likely to benefit from the increase. The nation's economy is the best it has been in decades. Under the leadership of President Clinton, the country as a whole is enjoying a remarkable period of growth and prosperity. Enterprise and entrepreneurship are flourishing--generating an extraordinary expansion, with remarkable efficiencies and job creation. The stock market is soaring. Inflation is low, unemployment is low, and interest rates are low. In the past 30 years, the stock market, adjusted for inflation, has gone up by 115%. In 1997, the average compensation of a Wall Street executive was $280,000--a stunning $120,000 increase over 1996. These lavish salaries contrast starkly with the 30% decline in the value of the minimum wage over the past three decades. To have the purchasing power it had in 1968, the minimum wage would have to be $7.38 an hour today, instead of $5.15. But the benefits of this prosperity have not flowed fairly to minimum wage earners. Working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, they earn $10,712 a year--$2,600 below the poverty line for a family of three. According to the Department of Labor, 60% of minimum wage earners are women. Nearly three-fourths are adults. Three-fifths are the sole breadwinners in their families. More than half work full time. These families need help, and they deserve this increase in the minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage can make all the difference to these workers and their families. They will be able to survive without food stamps or other social services to supplement their incomes. They can fix up their homes and invest in their neighborhoods. They can spend more at the local grocery store. They can work two jobs rather than three, and spend more time with their families. Their utilities won't be cut off. They can pay the medical bills they accumulated from not having health benefits at their jobs. As one minimum wage earner told me earlier this year, ``The best welfare reform is an increase in the minimum wage.'' Opponents typically claim that, if the minimum wage goes up, the sky will fall--small businesses will collapse and jobs will be lost. This hasn't happened in the past, and it won't happen in the future. In fact, in the time that has passed since the most recent increases in the federal minimum wage--a 50-cent increase on October 1, 1996 and a 40-cent increase on September 1, 1997--employment has increased in all sectors of the population. Since September 1996, 700,000 new retail jobs have been added in the economy, including 200,000 new restaurant jobs. Overall employment is at an all-time high. Overall unemployment is at an historically low rate--4.6 %. The teenage unemployment rate has declined by 1.3 percentage points. The unemployment rate for African-Americans has declined by 1 percentage point over the same period. Seventeen renowned economists--including Nobel Prize winner Lawrence R. Klein and former Secretary of Labor Ray Marshall--recently wrote to President Clinton, supporting an increase in the minimum wage. According to these experts, ``the 1996 and 1997 increases had a beneficial effect, not only on those whose earnings were increased by 90 cents an hour, but also on the economy as a whole. Billions in added consumer demand helped fuel our expanding economy in those years. . . . Given the nation's low unemployment rate and strong economy without inflation, now is the time to deepen our public commitment to a decent minimum wage.'' The American people understand that you can't raise a family on $5.15 an hour. We intend to do all we can to see that the minimum wage is increased this year. No one who works for a living should have to live in poverty. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, a recent GAO report makes clear that significant insurance company abuses are undercutting the effectiveness of one of the key parts of the Kassebaum-Kennedy health insurance reforms enacted in 1996. The legislation that I am introducing today will stop these unconscionable practices. The 1996 legislation was enacted in response to several serious problems. Large numbers of Americans felt locked into their jobs because of pre-existing health conditions that would have subjected them to exclusions coverage if they changed jobs. Many more who did change jobs found themselves and members of their families exposed to devastating financial risks because of exclusions for such conditions. Other families faced the same problems if their employers changed insurance plans. Still others were unable to buy individual coverage because of health problems if they left their job or lost their job and did not have access to employer-based coverage. The legislation addressed each of these problems. It banned exclusions for pre-existing conditions for people who maintained coverage, even if they changed jobs or changed insurers. It required insurance companies to sell insurance policies to small businesses and individuals losing group coverage, regardless of their health status. It banned higher charges for those in poor health in employment-based groups. A GAO study in 1995 had found that 25 million Americans faced one or more of these problems and would be helped by the Kassebaum-Kennedy proposal. For the vast majority of these Americans, the legislation is working well. They can change jobs without fear of new exclusions for pre-existing conditions, denial of coverage, or insurance company gouging. But as the GAO study released last week makes clear, many of the two million people a year who lose employer-based group coverage are vulnerable to flagrant industry price-gouging if they try to purchase individual coverage. Under the Kassebaum-Kennedy legislation, individuals who leave their jobs and want to buy coverage in the individual market are guaranteed access to coverage without regard to their health status and without being subject to pre-existing condition exclusions. But there is no clear limit in the Federal law on how much they can be charged for that coverage--and some unscrupulous companies are taking advantage of that loophole to effectively deny coverage to those in poor health by requiring them to pay exorbitant premiums. We recognized that potential problem in 1996, but Republican opposition blocked clear, strict federal limits to prevent such abuse, on the ground that state regulation would be an adequate remedy. At least in some states, as the GAO report makes clear, state regulation is no match for insurance industry price-gouging. The legislation that I am introducing today is a straightforward response to that problem. It will limit insurance company charges to eligible individuals, so that they will have to pay no more than 150% of the rate charged to those in good health. That is well within the range that the American Academy of Actuaries said would have negligible impact on the premiums of those who already have coverage, but it will end the worst of the current price-gouging. This approach of limiting premium increases based on health conditions has worked and worked well in the small group market for many years. It should have been included in the 1996 bill, and Congress should act on it promptly this year. The verdict of experience is in. The GAO report makes clear that some insurance firms are guilty of abuse beyond a reasonable doubt, and Congress has to act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am interested in a brief review of what is in the proposal of the majority leader. I am interested in whether the proposal that is included in the submission that we have now here is the proposal that would provide the funding for projects of private companies for the building and the construction of private schools. The limitation on any State would be approximately $5 million. That is my understanding of at least what would be included in the Republican proposal, which is a pale shadow of what I think most of us understand would be the Moseley-Braun proposal, which would provide much more dramatic health assistance to public schools. I am just interested in that. Is my understanding correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. Privately owned public schools is my question. Is the relevant provisions that are related to school construction and modernization limited to privately owned public schools?

Mr. KENNEDY. Am I also correct that there is a limitation of some $5 million per State?

Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate the leader responding. I just wanted to mention that it is a proposal in support of the Senator from New York, because there are different approaches on the question of the modernization and the reconstruction of the public schools. Senator Graham has a proposal. It has been included in the proposal. Senator Moseley-Braun has a very interesting proposal. But, as I understand it, they will be precluded. Would they be precluded from having that be considered under the cloture motion?

Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate that. Effectively we are being told if we do not accept the way it is being packaged they won't have an opportunity to have a debate on these very important measures in terms of achieving what the majority leader has pointed out. I am wondering, the amendment of our friend, Senator Boxer, on after-school programs, is related to education, as I understand it. Under cloture, that would be precluded as well. Would that amendment be excluded? It has been published. It deals with after-school proposals for children. I am wondering if that would be permitted under the cloture motion.