Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. KENNEDY pertaining to the introduction of S. 1789 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on the issue that is before us, which is basically the Coverdell education proposal, I will take a few moments of the Senate's time to express my strong reservations in opposition to the proposal, and I will outline the reasons why. Public schools need help--and this ``do-nothing'' bill doesn't even get us to the front door. In fact, it goes in the opposite direction, by earmarking most of its aid to go to private schools. 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 twelfth graders rank among the lowest of the 22 nations participating in this international survey of math and science. The nation's schools are facing enormous problems of physical decay. 14 million children in a third of the schools are learning in substandard school buildings. Half the schools have at least one unsatisfactory environmental condition. Massachusetts is no exception. Mr. President, 41% of Massachusetts schools report that at least one building needs extensive repair or should be replaced; 75% report serious problems in their buildings, such as plumbing or heating defects; 80% have at least one unsatisfactory environmental factor. The challenge is clear. We must do all we can to improve teaching and learning for all students across the nation. That means: We must continue to support efforts to raise academic standards; 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 and we must provide after-school programs to make constructive alternatives available to students and keep them off the streets, away from drugs, and out of trouble. We must provide greater resources to repay or modernize the Nation's school buildings in order to meet the urgent needs of schools for up-to-date facilities. I oppose the Coverdell bill because it does nothing to improve the public schools. Instead, it uses regressive tax policy to subsidize vouchers for private schools. It does not give any real financial help to low-income working and middle-class families, and it does not help children in the Nation's classrooms. What it does is provide an unjustified tax giveaway to the wealthy and to private schools. Public education is one of the great success stories of American democracy. It makes no sense for Congress to undermine it. This bill turns its back on the Nation's longstanding support of public schools and earmarks tax dollars for private schools. It is an unwarranted step in the wrong direction for education, for public schools, and for the Nation's children. Senator Coverdell's proposal would spend $1.6 billion over the next 10 years on subsidies to help wealthy people pay the private school expenses they already pay and do nothing to help children in public schools get a better education. This chart I have is based on the Joint Tax Committee memo, which is the committee designated by the Congress to review tax bills and provide analysis of various tax changes. The Joint Tax Committee memo demonstrates the distorted priorities of the Coverdell bill. The bill has a $1.6 billion price tax over the next ten years--and half the benefits--$800 million--go to the 7 percent of families with children in private schools. That's an eight hundred million dollar tax bread for the tiny fraction of parents with children in private schools. That's unacceptable, when public schools are desperate for additional help. We have nothing against the private schools. They are superb in many circumstances. But, scarce tax dollars should go to the public schools that have great needs. We should invest scarce resources in ways that will help children raise academic performance and enhance their abilities? That is my test and the Coverdell bill fails it. The Joint Tax Committee memo also estimates that while 83 percent of private school families will use this tax break, only 30 percent of public school families will use it. The majority of the tax benefits will go to families in high income brackets, who can already afford to send their children to private school. But working families and low-income families do not have enough assets and savings to participate in this IRA scheme. This regressive bill does not help working families struggling to pay day-to-day expenses during their children's school years. The Joint Tax Committee memo says that the few public school families that do use the provision will get an average tax benefit of $7--$7! That means that a working family has to find $2,000 in extra resources in order to get back $7. This education bill does nothing for education. It simply provides a tax shelter for the rich. The majority of families will get almost no tax break from this legislation. 70 percent of the benefit goes to families in the top 20 percent of the income bracket. Families earning less than $50,000 a year will get a tax cut of $2.50 from this legislation--$2.50! You can't even buy a good box of crayons for that amount. Families in the lowest income brackets--those making less than $17,000 a year--will get a tax cut of all of $1--$1! But, a family earning over $93,000 will get $97. Even families who can save enough to be able to participate in this IRA scheme will receive little benefit. IRAs work best when the investment is long-term. But in this scheme, money will be taken out each year of a child's education. Only the wealthiest families will be able to take advantage of this tax-free savings account. Proponents of this bill argue that assistance is available for families to send their children to any school, public or private. But that argument is false. The fact is, the public schools do not charge tuition. Therefore, the 90 percent of the children who attend the public schools do not need help in paying tuition. What they do need is the best possible education. We should be doing much more to support efforts to improve local schools. We should oppose any plan that would undermine those efforts. On this next chart, it is clear that this bill disproportionately benefits families with children already in private school. Of the 35 million public school families, 30 percent could use the Coverdell IRA. But 83 percent of the 2.9 million private school families could use the IRA. Again, the issue of fairness. The issue of the test should be what is going to benefit children and enhance their academic achievement. This particular proposal does not meet this test. The Coverdell bill is a back-door attack on public education, and it should be defeated. Scarce tax dollars should be targeted to public schools. They don't have the luxury of closing their doors to students who pose special challenges, such as children with disabilities, limited-English- proficient children, or homeless students. This bill will not help children who need help the most. Proponents say it will increase choice for parents, but the parental choice is a mirage. Private schools apply different rules than public schools. Public schools must accept all children. Private schools can decide whether to accept a child or not. The real choice goes to the schools, not the parents. The better the private school, the more parents and students are turned away. Public schools must accept all children and build programs to meet their needs. Private schools only accept children who fit the guidelines of their existing policy. We should not use public tax dollars to support schools that select some children and reject others. This bill is bad tax policy, bad education policy. It does not improve public education for the 90 percent of the children who go to public schools. Therefore, it is not an appropriate allocation of tax dollars. This bill is simply private school vouchers under another name. It is wrong for Congress to subsidize private schools. Our goal is to improve public schools, not abandon them. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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. President Clinton announced today that he has called for vigorous enforcement against companies that are violating the law. But it is abundantly clear that additional action by Congress is needed to end the worst abuse--price-gouging by the insurance industry. I intend to introduce legislation this week to block that irresponsible practice. Individuals who lose their group coverage and attempt to obtain individual coverage are being charged exorbitant premiums by insurance companies. We recognized that potential problem in 1996, but Republican opposition blocked any Federal role in preventing such abuse, on the ground that state regulation would be an adequate remedy. As the GAO report makes clear, state regulation is no match for insurance industry price-gouging. 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 which 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 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. When the 1996 act was moving through Congress, Democrats sought to place clear federal limits on these premiums for individual coverage. The Republican majority in Congress and the insurance companies refused to compromise on this issue--and restrictions on price-gouging were largely left to state law. Many States have put limits on such premiums, or enacted special group coverage for high-risk persons. But too many states have failed to act effectively to prevent abuse. In addition to price-gouging, some companies have encouraged insurance agents to refuse to sell policies to individuals and imposed long waiting periods for coverage of particular illnesses and other unacceptable practices. The verdict of experience is in. The GAO report makes clear that insurance companies are guilty of abuse beyond a reasonable doubt, and Congress has to act.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Friends of Ireland is a bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives opposed to violence and terrorism in Northern Ireland and dedicated to maintaining a United States policy that promotes a just, lasting, and peaceful settlement of the conflict. On behalf of Senator Moynihan, Senator Dodd and myself, we would like to welcome our colleague Senator Mack as a new Member of the Friends of Ireland Senate Executive Committee. Each year, the Friends of Ireland issues an annual statement of the current situation in Northern Ireland. We believe our colleagues in Congress will find this year's statement of particular interest because of the events of the past year and potential for progress this year. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, 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. 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. The legislation we are introducing today is a lifeline for millions of these 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. I commend Senator Moynihan and Senator Daschle and our other co- sponsors for their leadership on this issue. I especially commend the President for his initiation of this national debate by including this proposal in his budget. When this legislation becomes law, millions of older families will have him to thank. The opponents of this constructive step are already waging a campaign of disinformation against the program. They claim that it will somehow harm Medicare--even though that is not true. They say we should wait for the Medicare Advisory Commission to report--but older uninsured Americans have waited too long for the help they need. They say that this is just another entitlement program--ignoring the fact that it will be paid for in full--and primarily by the participants themselves. They say it is another attempt to inject government into the health care system--even though it simply gives uninsured older Americans better access to the health care they need through the most successful health program ever enacted. The opponents of this proposal will do everything they can to keep the program from coming to the floor of the House and Senate for a full and fair debate. They have a lot of power in Congress. But they don't have the President on their side. They don't have the vast majority of Democrats in Congress on their side. And most of all, they do not have the American people on their side. We intend to do all we can to bring this issue to the floor of the Senate early this year. There will be a vote, and, if necessary, there will be many votes. Despite the opposition of the Republican Leadership, this Congress has already taken a major step to expand health insurance coverage for American children. This can also be the Congress that extends help to older Americans who need health care. The American people want us to act, and I am confident that Congress will respond.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, 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. 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. The legislation we are introducing today is a lifeline for millions of these 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. I commend Senator Moynihan and Senator Daschle and our other co- sponsors for their leadership on this issue. I especially commend the President for his initiation of this national debate by including this proposal in his budget. When this legislation becomes law, millions of older families will have him to thank. The opponents of this constructive step are already waging a campaign of disinformation against the program. They claim that it will somehow harm Medicare--even though that is not true. They say we should wait for the Medicare Advisory Commission to report--but older uninsured Americans have waited too long for the help they need. They say that this is just another entitlement program--ignoring the fact that it will be paid for in full--and primarily by the participants themselves. They say it is another attempt to inject government into the health care system--even though it simply gives uninsured older Americans better access to the health care they need through the most successful health program ever enacted. The opponents of this proposal will do everything they can to keep the program from coming to the floor of the House and Senate for a full and fair debate. They have a lot of power in Congress. But they don't have the President on their side. They don't have the vast majority of Democrats in Congress on their side. And most of all, they do not have the American people on their side. We intend to do all we can to bring this issue to the floor of the Senate early this year. There will be a vote, and, if necessary, there will be many votes. Despite the opposition of the Republican Leadership, this Congress has already taken a major step to expand health insurance coverage for American children. This can also be the Congress that extends help to older Americans who need health care. The American people want us to act, and I am confident that Congress will respond.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, yesterday, unfortunately, Judge Massiah-Jackson asked President Clinton to withdraw her nomination to serve as a federal judge in the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia. I know that this was a difficult decision for Judge Massiah-Jackson and her family. She is a distinguished state court judge with a distinguished record. She has the strong support of the people of Philadelphia. She earned the President's nomination to this distinguished office, and she should have been confirmed by the United States Senate. Instead, she was subjected to numerous unfair attacks and gross distortions of her record. The attacks on Judge Frederica Massiah-Jackson by her opponents are full of half- truths, and misinformation. In fact, she is a remarkable lawyer and judge with a long history of service to the people of Philadelphia, and she deserved to be confirmed to serve as a federal judge on Pennsylvania's Eastern District Court. Judge Massiah-Jackson has worked long and hard and well to get where she is today. She is the daughter of immigrants. Her father came to the United States from Barbados, and her mother came from Haiti. They taught her the value of hard work, commitment to family, and giving back to the community. Judge Massiah-Jackson's entire life and career are testimony that she lives by these virtues. She was born and raised in Philadelphia. She graduated from the University of Pennsylvania Law School, one of the nation's most prestigious law schools. She could have made a career in private practice and been a great financial success. But instead, she has devoted her life to public service. Upon graduating from law school, she served as a law clerk, then as chief counsel to the Business Committee of the Pennsylvania State Senate. In 1984, she was elected to the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia, and re-elected to that position in 1993. Most nominees for the federal court have a background in either civil law or criminal law. But Judge Massiah-Jackson has a background in both. In her first years on the Court of Common Pleas, she handled criminal cases. In recent years, she has handled the court's docket of complex civil cases. So this eminently qualified judge will bring a wealth of experience to the federal district court. Her opponents unfairly ignored this impressive record. Instead, they latched onto a few isolated cases, mischaracterized them, and then used them to defame the reputation of this distinguished judge. When she answered their questions, they invented still more reasons to object to her nomination. This process is unfair. It is unfair to Judge Massiah-Jackson and her family. It is unfair to the people of Philadelphia. It is unfair to the nation's system of justice. And it is a disgrace to the United States Senate. Even if the cases that her critics cite were wrongly decided, they represent less than one percent of the 4,000 cases over which she has presided in her long career. How many United States Senators can say that they have been right over 99 percent of the time? Look at the process that led to her nomination. She passed the bipartisan judicial selection committee established by Senator Specter and Senator Santorum with flying colors. She was screened by the Justice Department to ensure her qualifications. The FBI conducted a thorough background investigation of her character. The American Bar Association reviewed her professional qualifications for the job. Senator Specter, Senator Santorum, and Senator Biden conducted their own hearing in Philadelphia to review Judge Massiah-Jackson's qualifications even further. Finally, she appeared before the Judiciary Committee not once, but twice. And yesterday, she patiently and professionally answered each and every question that Senators put to her. But perhaps most significant, Judge Massiah-Jackson had the most important endorsement that any nominee before this committee could have--the respect and admiration of the people who know her best--the people she has served for 14 years--the people of her hometown of Philadelphia. Her opponents have distorted her record by mischaracterizing isolated cases from among the thousands she has handled over the past decade and a half. But the citizens of Philadelphia know better. Listen to what the people who really know her have to say. The Philadelphia Bar Association says, ``We know Judge Massiah- Jackson to be an outstanding jurist--fair, patient, and thorough.'' This is what her fellow lawyers in Philadelphia have to say about her. And they know her better than anyone in the United States Senate. Mayor Ed Rendell of Philadelphia strongly supported her nomination. He says, ``It is clear that she should be confirmed.'' As the Pennsylvania Legislative Black Caucus wrote to the Judiciary Committee, ``Judge Jackson is an outstanding and able jurist. She has labored long and hard in the trenches of the judiciary and is a demonstrated supporter of fair and even justice.'' The organization ``Philadelphians Against Crime'' ran an ad in the Philadelphia Daily News on February 25, saying, ``We support Judge Massiah-Jackson for the federal judgeship.'' Barbara Burgos DiTullio, President of the Pennsylvania Chapter of the National Organization for Women, writes, Judge Massiah-Jackson ``is highly qualified to hold this position, and anyone looking at her record instead of listening to those who have personal vendettas would know this.'' The Philadelphia Tribune endorsed her, saying ``[Judge Massiah- Jackson] is eminently qualified for the federal bench.'' Here is the Philadelphia Daily News: ``Frederica Massiah-Jackson's record demonstrates her suitability for the federal bench.'' In addition, Judge Massiah-Jackson received the support of lawyers who have appeared before her in court. In a survey conducted by the Philadelphia Bar Association, the vast majority of the lawyers who appeared before her expressed their confidence in her integrity and judicial temperament, and found her to be industrious and efficient. Judge Massiah-Jackson earned these endorsements because she has established herself as a tough-minded, no-nonsense jurist throughout the more than 4,000 cases she has handled in her 14 years on the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. She is tough on crime, and tough on criminals. According to the Philadelphia Bar Association's independent review committee, Judge Massiah-Jackson is more likely, not less likely than her colleagues on the court to convict defendants. For serious crimes, such as robbery, rape, and burglary, her conviction rate is nearly 50 percent higher than the conviction rate of her colleagues. Her record on sentencing is right down the middle when compared with other judges on the court. Her rate of departure from Pennsylvania's sentencing guidelines is not measurably different from her colleagues. In fact, her record shows that she is more likely than her colleagues to depart upward from the guidelines, imposing stiffer sentences than the guidelines call for. When Judge Massiah-Jackson's full record is considered, it is clear that she is fully qualified to serve on the Federal District Court. She eminently deserved her nomination to the federal court, because of her strong commitment to justice, and her profound knowledge of the law. I am confident that Judge Massiah-Jackson will continue to serve the people of Philadelphia well on the Court of Common Pleas.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to pay tribute today to our outstanding colleague from Kentucky, Wendell Ford, as he reaches an historic milestone and becomes the longest serving Senator in the history of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Our colleague's service to Kentucky, to the Senate, and to the nation has been outstanding through all these years, and it continues to be outstanding today. As our Whip since 1990, he is an essential part of the Senate's leadership team and deserves a great deal of the credit for the legislative achievements of our Party and of the Senate as a whole. As a legislator, our colleague has consistently earned high marks for his brilliant service to Kentucky and the country. He has earned the respect of all of us on both sides of the aisle for his skill and warm sense of humor in debate, and for his leadership on a wide range of issues, especially in areas such as aviation, education, telecommunications, the environment, election reform, and the many issues of vital importance to Kentucky and to all of rural America. I recall that a Ford Fellow Scholarship Fund was established last year in Kentucky in his honor, and I am sure that in the years ahead, the Ford Fellows will carry on the high standards that our colleague has so consistently set for excellence in education. All of us regret that our highly regarded colleague has chosen not to seek re-election to the Senate this fall. It is no accident that he is the longest-serving Senator in the history of his state. The stratospheric victory margins he has compiled in his many election successes during his brilliant career show that his seat in the Senate is secure against any challenge, and are the highest possible tribute to the respect and affection in which he is held in his state. That long-standing success is no easy achievement. I'm reminded of the famous lines by Kentucky's Irish poet, James Mulligan: The moonlight falls the softest in Kentucky; The bluegrass waves the bluest; The songbirds are the sweetest; The thoroughbreds are the finest; The landscape is the grandest-- And politics the damnedest in Kentucky. I know that the people of Kentucky will miss Senator Ford in the Senate, and so will all of us in this body. We're proud of his leadership and honored by his statesmanship, but most of all, we're grateful for his friendship.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to pay tribute today to our outstanding colleague from Kentucky, Wendell Ford, as he reaches an historic milestone and becomes the longest serving Senator in the history of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Our colleague's service to Kentucky, to the Senate, and to the nation has been outstanding through all these years, and it continues to be outstanding today. As our Whip since 1990, he is an essential part of the Senate's leadership team and deserves a great deal of the credit for the legislative achievements of our Party and of the Senate as a whole. As a legislator, our colleague has consistently earned high marks for his brilliant service to Kentucky and the country. He has earned the respect of all of us on both sides of the aisle for his skill and warm sense of humor in debate, and for his leadership on a wide range of issues, especially in areas such as aviation, education, telecommunications, the environment, election reform, and the many issues of vital importance to Kentucky and to all of rural America. I recall that a Ford Fellow Scholarship Fund was established last year in Kentucky in his honor, and I am sure that in the years ahead, the Ford Fellows will carry on the high standards that our colleague has so consistently set for excellence in education. All of us regret that our highly regarded colleague has chosen not to seek re-election to the Senate this fall. It is no accident that he is the longest-serving Senator in the history of his state. The stratospheric victory margins he has compiled in his many election successes during his brilliant career show that his seat in the Senate is secure against any challenge, and are the highest possible tribute to the respect and affection in which he is held in his state. That long-standing success is no easy achievement. I'm reminded of the famous lines by Kentucky's Irish poet, James Mulligan: The moonlight falls the softest in Kentucky; The bluegrass waves the bluest; The songbirds are the sweetest; The thoroughbreds are the finest; The landscape is the grandest-- And politics the damnedest in Kentucky. I know that the people of Kentucky will miss Senator Ford in the Senate, and so will all of us in this body. We're proud of his leadership and honored by his statesmanship, but most of all, we're grateful for his friendship.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Frist, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Jeffords for their leadership on the bill we are introducing today to reauthorize the health professions and nursing training and education programs--Titles VII and VIII of the Public Health Service Act. This bill is a bipartisan effort to revise and strengthen these education and training programs and achieve a more effective workforce to meet the health needs of the nation. The ongoing national debate on health care has focused largely on the problems of access, cost and quality. These issues, however, cannot be addressed without also dealing with the need to train qualified health providers. No insurance policy can assure good health care without good doctors, nurses and other health professionals. No system of quality improvement, no matter how sophisticated, can assure good care for hospital patients if there are not good doctors and nurses at the bedside. Too often, inadequate priority is given to the workforce which staffs our health care system. As we know, that system is undergoing rapid and dramatic change. Today, nearly 60 percent of Americans receive their care through managed care arrangements. More and more, health care is moving out of hospitals and into out-patient or community-based settings. Fewer people are being admitted to hospitals and hospital stays are becoming shorter. It is essential for the health workforce to adapt to these changes. New graduates of health professions schools and practicing health providers need the right skills to provide effective patient care. In addition to these issues, the health care system continues to face by nationwide shortages of certain health personnel, serious georgraphical imbalances in the types of health professionals, and under-representation of providers from minority and disadvantaged backgrounds. Many types of health professionals are in short supply, including geriatricians, pediatric dentists, and allied health, public health, and behavioral and mental health professionals. Shortages of physicians persist in inner-city and rural areas, leaving many Americans unserved or underserved. Since 1986, the number of federally designated shortage areas for primary care health professionals has climbed by 40 percent--from 1,944 to 2,597. The Health Resources and Services Administration estimates that over 26 million underserved persons live in these areas and that, at a minimum, 5,200 additional general practitioners are needed to eliminate these shortage areas. In addition, most experts agree that there is an imbalance between primary care physicians and specialists. In 1931, about 87 percent of U.S. physicians were practicing primary care, compared to 33 percent in 1996. The Council on Graduate Medical Education recommends that the physician workforce should consist of 50 percent generalists and 50 percent specialists. The persistent current imbalance contributes to problems of access and cost in our health care system. Primary care practitioners are more likely to locate in underserved areas and help underserved populations, and they tend to provide care in a more comprehensive, appropriate, and cost-effective manner than specialists. Across the nation, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Native Americans are seriously underrepresented in the health professions workforce. Their underrepresentation has reduced access to care among many of the nation's neediest citizens. African Americans represent approximately 12 percent of the U.S. population, but only 2-3 percent of the nation's health professions workforce. Hispanics make up nine percent of the population but represent only 5 percent of physicians, and 3 percent of dentists and pharmacists. This underrepresentation is of particular concern because studies show that minority health care providers are more likely to locate in underserved communities and provide health services to needy populations. The health professions and nursing training and education programs we seek to reauthorize in this legislation are designed to respond to each these concerns. The bill reauthorizes programs which provide educational opportunities in the health professions for individuals from minority and disadvantaged backgrounds. This strategy has been effective in increasing the availability and accessibility of health care providers to populations who have difficulty obtaining adeaquate health care, especially those from low-income and minority populations. Historically black colleges and universities have been particularly successful in this effort, training more than 50 percent of the nation's African American physicians, dentists, and pharmacists. Our bill will continue to support these basic efforts. It will also strengthen opportunities for Hispanic-serving institutions and institutions with high rates of enrollment of Native Americans. In addition, the bill will provide continued support for primary care practice through ambulatory care training, curriculum improvement, faculty development, data analysis and quality assurance. Among physicians, this support will address the continued imbalance between primary care physicians and specialists. It recognizes the unique gaps general internists, general pediatricians, and family physicians fill in meeting the needs of the underserved. In other instances, funding will be used to improve the supply of other disciplines suffering shortages, such as pediatric dentists. The bill reauthorizes model community-based, interdisciplinary programs to train individuals for practice in underserved settings, including remote and border areas. These programs encourage active partnerships between community-based programs and medical schools, nursing schools, and other health profession schools in their effort to provide greater educational opportunities to students, faculty, and practitioners in community-based settings to improve the delivery of health care. Doctors, nurses, and other health professionals can be trained together in teams in the community to address the needs of the medically underserved. In this way, their training is more in step with what they will encounter in the practice world while meeting critical needs in the community. These programs include the area health education centers, geriatric education centers, the rural interdisciplinary training, and allied health training. The bill also recognizes the increase in the elderly population and establishes a new junior geriatric faculty fellowship program. This program will help to address the large shortage in geriatric faculty members. Without an appropriate supply of teachers in geriatrics, we cannot seriously address the issue of the geriatrician shortage. I want to commend Senator Frist and the Administration for working closely with us and with the academic community on this issue. Finally, the legislation will provide new flexibility in targeting resources to meet the current and emerging needs of the nursing workforce. The emphasis is on meeting the needs of the underserved. Nurse anesthetists, clinical nurse specialists, nurse practitioners, and certified nurse midwives play a vital role in providing quality care to medically underserved and rural communities, and they deserve our support. As the health care system continues to change, so too must the federal programs intended to assure that America has an appropriate health care workforce to staff the health care delivery system. These programs are overdue for consolidation and better targeting. The bill we are introducing will consolidate more than 40 health professions programs into 7 broader authorities more directly focused on key goals. This greater flexibility will enable programs to respond more quickly to emerging workforce issues in our changing health care system. Specific workforce goals will be established and outcomes measured, in order to achieve accountability for the funds invested in these programs. The health professions and nursing education programs under the Public Health Service Act are the key mechanisms of the federal government has to meet national priorities for the nation's health care workforce. The bipartisan sponsors of this bill have worked closely with the Administration, the health professions education and practice community, and other groups to achieve these goals responsibly and to maintain adequate resources. We have worked to advance the central goal of these two important titles of the Public Health Service Act--to train a health care workforce that can meet the needs of the American people, and I look forward to the enactment of this necessary legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Frist, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Jeffords for their leadership on the bill we are introducing today to reauthorize the health professions and nursing training and education programs--Titles VII and VIII of the Public Health Service Act. This bill is a bipartisan effort to revise and strengthen these education and training programs and achieve a more effective workforce to meet the health needs of the nation. The ongoing national debate on health care has focused largely on the problems of access, cost and quality. These issues, however, cannot be addressed without also dealing with the need to train qualified health providers. No insurance policy can assure good health care without good doctors, nurses and other health professionals. No system of quality improvement, no matter how sophisticated, can assure good care for hospital patients if there are not good doctors and nurses at the bedside. Too often, inadequate priority is given to the workforce which staffs our health care system. As we know, that system is undergoing rapid and dramatic change. Today, nearly 60 percent of Americans receive their care through managed care arrangements. More and more, health care is moving out of hospitals and into out-patient or community-based settings. Fewer people are being admitted to hospitals and hospital stays are becoming shorter. It is essential for the health workforce to adapt to these changes. New graduates of health professions schools and practicing health providers need the right skills to provide effective patient care. In addition to these issues, the health care system continues to face by nationwide shortages of certain health personnel, serious georgraphical imbalances in the types of health professionals, and under-representation of providers from minority and disadvantaged backgrounds. Many types of health professionals are in short supply, including geriatricians, pediatric dentists, and allied health, public health, and behavioral and mental health professionals. Shortages of physicians persist in inner-city and rural areas, leaving many Americans unserved or underserved. Since 1986, the number of federally designated shortage areas for primary care health professionals has climbed by 40 percent--from 1,944 to 2,597. The Health Resources and Services Administration estimates that over 26 million underserved persons live in these areas and that, at a minimum, 5,200 additional general practitioners are needed to eliminate these shortage areas. In addition, most experts agree that there is an imbalance between primary care physicians and specialists. In 1931, about 87 percent of U.S. physicians were practicing primary care, compared to 33 percent in 1996. The Council on Graduate Medical Education recommends that the physician workforce should consist of 50 percent generalists and 50 percent specialists. The persistent current imbalance contributes to problems of access and cost in our health care system. Primary care practitioners are more likely to locate in underserved areas and help underserved populations, and they tend to provide care in a more comprehensive, appropriate, and cost-effective manner than specialists. Across the nation, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Native Americans are seriously underrepresented in the health professions workforce. Their underrepresentation has reduced access to care among many of the nation's neediest citizens. African Americans represent approximately 12 percent of the U.S. population, but only 2-3 percent of the nation's health professions workforce. Hispanics make up nine percent of the population but represent only 5 percent of physicians, and 3 percent of dentists and pharmacists. This underrepresentation is of particular concern because studies show that minority health care providers are more likely to locate in underserved communities and provide health services to needy populations. The health professions and nursing training and education programs we seek to reauthorize in this legislation are designed to respond to each these concerns. The bill reauthorizes programs which provide educational opportunities in the health professions for individuals from minority and disadvantaged backgrounds. This strategy has been effective in increasing the availability and accessibility of health care providers to populations who have difficulty obtaining adeaquate health care, especially those from low-income and minority populations. Historically black colleges and universities have been particularly successful in this effort, training more than 50 percent of the nation's African American physicians, dentists, and pharmacists. Our bill will continue to support these basic efforts. It will also strengthen opportunities for Hispanic-serving institutions and institutions with high rates of enrollment of Native Americans. In addition, the bill will provide continued support for primary care practice through ambulatory care training, curriculum improvement, faculty development, data analysis and quality assurance. Among physicians, this support will address the continued imbalance between primary care physicians and specialists. It recognizes the unique gaps general internists, general pediatricians, and family physicians fill in meeting the needs of the underserved. In other instances, funding will be used to improve the supply of other disciplines suffering shortages, such as pediatric dentists. The bill reauthorizes model community-based, interdisciplinary programs to train individuals for practice in underserved settings, including remote and border areas. These programs encourage active partnerships between community-based programs and medical schools, nursing schools, and other health profession schools in their effort to provide greater educational opportunities to students, faculty, and practitioners in community-based settings to improve the delivery of health care. Doctors, nurses, and other health professionals can be trained together in teams in the community to address the needs of the medically underserved. In this way, their training is more in step with what they will encounter in the practice world while meeting critical needs in the community. These programs include the area health education centers, geriatric education centers, the rural interdisciplinary training, and allied health training. The bill also recognizes the increase in the elderly population and establishes a new junior geriatric faculty fellowship program. This program will help to address the large shortage in geriatric faculty members. Without an appropriate supply of teachers in geriatrics, we cannot seriously address the issue of the geriatrician shortage. I want to commend Senator Frist and the Administration for working closely with us and with the academic community on this issue. Finally, the legislation will provide new flexibility in targeting resources to meet the current and emerging needs of the nursing workforce. The emphasis is on meeting the needs of the underserved. Nurse anesthetists, clinical nurse specialists, nurse practitioners, and certified nurse midwives play a vital role in providing quality care to medically underserved and rural communities, and they deserve our support. As the health care system continues to change, so too must the federal programs intended to assure that America has an appropriate health care workforce to staff the health care delivery system. These programs are overdue for consolidation and better targeting. The bill we are introducing will consolidate more than 40 health professions programs into 7 broader authorities more directly focused on key goals. This greater flexibility will enable programs to respond more quickly to emerging workforce issues in our changing health care system. Specific workforce goals will be established and outcomes measured, in order to achieve accountability for the funds invested in these programs. The health professions and nursing education programs under the Public Health Service Act are the key mechanisms of the federal government has to meet national priorities for the nation's health care workforce. The bipartisan sponsors of this bill have worked closely with the Administration, the health professions education and practice community, and other groups to achieve these goals responsibly and to maintain adequate resources. We have worked to advance the central goal of these two important titles of the Public Health Service Act--to train a health care workforce that can meet the needs of the American people, and I look forward to the enactment of this necessary legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the nation's economy is the best it's been in decades. Under the leadership of President Clinton, business productivity has reached historic highs. Enterprise and entrepreneurship are flourishing, generating an extraordinary expansion, with remarkable efficiencies and job creation. Inflation and unemployment are at record lows. In the midst of this extraordinary prosperity, however, millions of Americans go to bed hungry each night. A report yesterday by Second Harvest, the network of food banks, documents that 26 million Americans received food and grocery products through Second Harvest in 1997. The report contains conclusions that should shock the conscience of us all. Children and the elderly are over-represented at emergency food outlets. Over a third of the beneficiaries are children, and 16% are senior citizens age 65 and older. Women make up 62% of those served at soup kitchens and food pantries. 47% are white, 32% are African- American, 15% are Latino and 3% are Native American. Even more disturbing, the report finds that 39% of all emergency client households have at least one member who is working. Nearly half the employees in those households are working full-time. It is shocking that in America today, so many households with full-time workers are forced to rely on emergency food aid. 86% of households receiving emergency food aid earn less than $15,500 a year. 67% earn less than $10,000 a year. Kim, a single mother who works as a nurse, said ``I never thought I'd be in this situation. People think of the single mother and immediately stereotype her. Requiring emergency food assistance in today's blossoming environment is one thing that the public doesn't understand.'' The reason why so many Americans need emergency food aid is obvious-- the current prosperity has passed them by. Their earnings are too low. Wanda, an emergency food client and mother of two, put it this way: ``My husband works, but at the end of the month we just run out of money. I wouldn't know what to do if it weren't for the food pantry.'' Raising the minimum wage is an important step toward solving this problem. Today, full-time minimum wage workers earn $10,712 a year-- $2,600 below the poverty level for a family of three. According to the Department of Labor, 60% of minimum wage earners are women; nearly three-fourths are adults; over half work full time. Their families need the money, and they deserve an increase in the minimum wage. If we believe in rewarding work, we have to be willing to pay working families more than a sub-poverty minimum wage. The American people understand that you can't raise a family on $5.15 an hour. The 26 million Americans receiving food aid last year understand this fact of life all too well. We must raise the minimum wage, and raise it now. No one who works for a living should have to live in poverty. I ask that the first chapter of the Second Harvest report ``Hunger 1997: The Faces and Facts,'' be printed in the Record. The material follows: The Faces & Facts of the People Who Are Hungry A kaleidoscope of faces that makeup the hungry in America can be found behind the charts and graphs of this report. Young and old. Employed and looking for work. Living in suburbs, cities and rural areas. Many of them never anticipated that they would ever need this type of support. The reasons and circumstances are varied. The hidden face of hunger in America is often missed. To reveal the faces behind the facts, interviews were conducted at food pantries, food shelves, soup kitchens, and emergency shelters--nearly 28,000 clients in all have provided their personal stories to this research study. They have made an invaluable contribution to this research effort. Their plight is the reason for this study. ``Hunger 1997: The Faces & Facts'' describes the health and social consequences of hunger. Second Harvest can use the understanding of their situation to be able to serve them more efficiently and effectively. This first part profiles the recipients of emergency food. According to ``Hunger 1997: The Faces & Facts,'' 26 million people in 1997 received food and grocery products through the Second Harvest network of food banks.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Frist for his leadership on the bill we are introducing today, ``The Women's Health Research and Prevention Amendments of 1998.'' This bill is a bipartisan effort to extend and strengthen several important women's health programs at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In recent years, women's health has begun to receive the high priority it deserves. Five years ago government guidelines were finally eliminated that specifically excluded women from many clinical trials. Increasingly, Congress has given higher priority to funds to address breast cancer and other women's health issues. We also established the Office of Women's Health within the Department of Health and Human Services, in order to develop and implement a national agenda for women's health. These successes, however, have revealed that there is much more to be done. The bill we are introducing today is an attempt to fill some of the gaps in research and prevention that we have identified in women's health. It is time for Congress to acknowledge that women's health involves a wider range of issues, and that the magnitude of these issues varies greatly with age. Car crashes and unintended injuries are the leading killer of women in their teens and twenties. Cancer is the leading killer of women between the ages of 25 and 64. Heart disease is the leading killer among women over 65. The nation's agenda on women's health must also address other key issues that are more common among women but affect men too, such as osteoporosis, depression, and auto-immune diseases, and illnesses that manifest themselves differently in men and women, such as heart disease, substance abuse, AIDS, and violence. Our legislation extends important research and prevention activities now being carried out by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in areas traditionally considered women's health issues, such as breast and ovarian cancer, osteoporosis, and domestic violence. It also calls for greater research efforts on heart attacks, strokes, and other cardiovascular diseases, in recognition of the serious effects of these diseases on women. Our bill also provides continued support for academic health centers to conduct research and demonstration projects related to health promotion and disease prevention to improve quality of life, and to curb premature mortality and illness that contribute to excessive health costs. These academic health centers are effective in informing women and their physicians of steps they can take to prevent serious illness and injury, especially in cases involving chronic and debilitating physical illness, such as arthritis and osteoporosis, which put women at high risk for bone fractures. In order to enable researchers to monitor health trends among women and to help policymakers make informed decisions on the allocation of resources, it is essential for accurate and timely statistical and epidemiological data to be available. Our bill will provide continued support of the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, which provides valuable data related to overall health status, lifestyle, onset and diagnosis of illness and disability, and use of health care and rehabilitation services. It is also important to understand differences between racial and ethnic groups. For example, black women have far higher death rates from heart disease, cancer, stroke and diabetes than white women. Minority women suffer the most from AIDS. More than half of new female cases of AIDS over the past decade were found among blacks. For other chronic diseases, black women have the highest rates of hypertension, while Native American women have higher rates of asthma and chronic bronchitis. This bill will enable the National Center for Health Statistics to continue its important work on the health of ethnic and racial populations, and improve methods to collect data on these subgroups in order to understand and address their various health needs more effectively. Too many health needs of women continue to be neglected by the nation's health care system. The cost of this national neglect, both in dollars and in lives, is staggering. This bill is an excellent starting point for strengthening current programs and pursuing new initiatives to address urgent national priorities in women's health. I look forward to working with my colleagues and with the women's health community to enact the strongest legislation we can to deal with these vital issues.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program in ISTEA has given numerous women and minority-owned businesses the opportunity they deserve to compete for federal highway construction contracts. Since it began in 1982 and was expanded to include women in 1987, the face of the construction industry has changed dramatically-- we still have far to go, but because of this program, we have come a long way. Today, however, we are faced with a choice. Do we continue to move forward or do we turn back, and return to the virtually all-male, all- white construction industry that we had in the 1970s? Members of the Senate must consider this question carefully, because we know what will happen if the program is eliminated. In 1978--before implementation of the program--women and minorities received less than 2 percent of all federal contracting dollars. In 1979, the figure was 2.22 percent--and no federal dollars went to women-owned firms--zero. Clearly, America had to do better, and the need to give women and minorities a fair opportunity to bid for contracts led to the implementation and expansion of the program in 1982 and 1987, respectively. Because of these state and federal initiatives, women and minority- owned firms made great strides in the construction industry. It wasn't until the Supreme Court's decision in Richmond versus Croson in 1989, that this progress began to slow. The Croson decision required application of the strict scrutiny test to state affirmative action programs, and, as a result, several states eliminated these measures. But, contrary to what some have said, the Croson decision was not the death-knell for these state and local programs. Many of these easily met the strict scrutiny test--in Denver and King County, Washington, for example--and other programs were revised to meet the constitutional requirement. One of the most important lessons in the wake of the Croson case is the evidence of what happens when these programs are eliminated. There has been a shocking disparity in participation levels by minorities and women in states setting goals under ISTEA for federal dollars, but not setting goals for state contracting dollars. In Nebraska, 10.5 percent of federal dollars went to disadvantaged business enterprises because of ISTEA goals--but only 3.6 percent of state dollars went to these firms. In Louisiana, 12.4 percent of federal dollars went to such firms because of ISTEA goals, but only 0.4 percent of state dollars went to the same firms. In Missouri, 15.1 percent of federal dollars went to such firms, but only 1.7 percent of state dollars did. The trend is the same in every other state that does not have such a program. This is not what we want for federal transportation contracts. It makes no sense to destroy women and minority-owned businesses and wipe out the 100,000 jobs that they create. That cannot possibly be the goal of this Republican Senate. The disadvantaged business enterprise program is essential for the survival of these firms. Not because they aren't qualified. Not because they can't compete on merit. But, because too many in the construction industry are not willing to give qualified firms a chance if they are owned by women or minorities. Ask the women and minorities who are certified for this program. Mary Aguillar-Lancome, president of Coast and Harbor Associates in Boston told me, ``If there is a goal, prime contractors will call DBEs; if not, they will not call.'' Other firms have made similar comments. Jack Bryant, President of Jack Bryant Associates in Massachusetts told me, ``Without goals, most in the construction industry would not make a good faith effort to work with women and minority-owned businesses. The elimination of this program would be disastrous.'' Of course, the program doesn't just help women and minorities. It extends a helping hand to firms owned by white males, as well. They can be certified to participation if they prove that they have been disadvantaged. Just ask Randy Pech--the owner of the Adarand Construction Firm--because he is currently seeking certification. It is preposterous to argue that the Sultan of Brunei would be certified, but that an economically disadvantaged white man would not. That cannot happen, and the new regulations clarify the certification requirements. Mr. President, I want to show this chart, which illustrates very clearly what happens when you have the Federal highway program with the DBE Program and no DBE Program for State-funded programs. The red indicates the various States that do not have the DBE Program. And you can see what happens in terms of women and also minority construction firms versus those States that are part of the Federal system. The contrast is so dramatic that I think it makes a powerful case. What we are talking about is quality programs--those programs that are going to meet the price competition and also the other competitive forces. But this illustrates what the principal problem is. I think it is incorporated in this statement by Elaine Martin, president of the MarCon Company in Nampa, ID. Most companies can point to one or two jobs that made it possible for those companies to succeed. My essential job would not have been awarded to me without the DBE program. I was low bidder on a job in 1987 where the owner told the estimator to give the job to a larger male-owned firm that had a higher bid than mine. The estimator told the owner that the job had DBE, and as the low bidder I should be given the opportunity to perform. We have instance after instance. Dorinda Pounds, President of Midwest Contractors, Inc., in Cedar Falls, IA: One of the major reasons that my investors and my banker was willing to take the risk with my new company was that I had the opportunity to become certified as a DBE contractor. Without the DBE program they felt the ``good old boy'' system would lock me out and would keep me from having a chance to become successful. That case has been made hour after hour during the course of this debate. We know what the issue is. We are talking about simple fairness and justice for women and minorities in our country to participate in a program that is being paid for by American taxpayers. The American taxpayers, women and minorities, are contributing the tax dollars that go to this program. All we are saying is they shouldn't be excluded from being able to participate in the program. Those who are trying to strike this program are effectively doing that. They may couch that in different kinds of language, but the record is very clear what the bottom line is going to be and what the results are going to be. The case couldn't be any clearer. I urge my colleagues to support this program. A vote for this program is a vote for fair opportunity for women and minority-owned construction firms, as well as for many other small businesses around the country. All these business owners ask is a fair chance to compete. We cannot and we must not deny them that opportunity. This is one of the most important civil rights votes of this Congress and one of the most important civil rights issues of the 1990s. It is time for the Senate to do the right thing, and stand up for civil rights and equal opportunities for all. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a brief question?

Mr. KENNEDY. Since the Senator has referred to Rhode Island, I am wondering, as the manager of this legislation dealing with the surface transportation, whether you have complaints from the contractors about the inefficiency or the poor quality of work, or the failure of being on time? Or the fact that here in Rhode Island, when they are using the Federal funds, it is 12.1 percent? Generally speaking, I have not, in the course of this debate, heard complaints that the work that is being done with the DBE has been not of first-rate quality, on time, and effective work. I am just wondering if the Senator from Rhode Island is receiving a lot of complaints because the DBE Program is in effect in his State?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. I yield.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Frist for his leadership on the bill we are introducing today, ``The Women's Health Research and Prevention Amendments of 1998.'' This bill is a bipartisan effort to extend and strengthen several important women's health programs at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In recent years, women's health has begun to receive the high priority it deserves. Five years ago government guidelines were finally eliminated that specifically excluded women from many clinical trials. Increasingly, Congress has given higher priority to funds to address breast cancer and other women's health issues. We also established the Office of Women's Health within the Department of Health and Human Services, in order to develop and implement a national agenda for women's health. These successes, however, have revealed that there is much more to be done. The bill we are introducing today is an attempt to fill some of the gaps in research and prevention that we have identified in women's health. It is time for Congress to acknowledge that women's health involves a wider range of issues, and that the magnitude of these issues varies greatly with age. Car crashes and unintended injuries are the leading killer of women in their teens and twenties. Cancer is the leading killer of women between the ages of 25 and 64. Heart disease is the leading killer among women over 65. The nation's agenda on women's health must also address other key issues that are more common among women but affect men too, such as osteoporosis, depression, and auto-immune diseases, and illnesses that manifest themselves differently in men and women, such as heart disease, substance abuse, AIDS, and violence. Our legislation extends important research and prevention activities now being carried out by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in areas traditionally considered women's health issues, such as breast and ovarian cancer, osteoporosis, and domestic violence. It also calls for greater research efforts on heart attacks, strokes, and other cardiovascular diseases, in recognition of the serious effects of these diseases on women. Our bill also provides continued support for academic health centers to conduct research and demonstration projects related to health promotion and disease prevention to improve quality of life, and to curb premature mortality and illness that contribute to excessive health costs. These academic health centers are effective in informing women and their physicians of steps they can take to prevent serious illness and injury, especially in cases involving chronic and debilitating physical illness, such as arthritis and osteoporosis, which put women at high risk for bone fractures. In order to enable researchers to monitor health trends among women and to help policymakers make informed decisions on the allocation of resources, it is essential for accurate and timely statistical and epidemiological data to be available. Our bill will provide continued support of the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, which provides valuable data related to overall health status, lifestyle, onset and diagnosis of illness and disability, and use of health care and rehabilitation services. It is also important to understand differences between racial and ethnic groups. For example, black women have far higher death rates from heart disease, cancer, stroke and diabetes than white women. Minority women suffer the most from AIDS. More than half of new female cases of AIDS over the past decade were found among blacks. For other chronic diseases, black women have the highest rates of hypertension, while Native American women have higher rates of asthma and chronic bronchitis. This bill will enable the National Center for Health Statistics to continue its important work on the health of ethnic and racial populations, and improve methods to collect data on these subgroups in order to understand and address their various health needs more effectively. Too many health needs of women continue to be neglected by the nation's health care system. The cost of this national neglect, both in dollars and in lives, is staggering. This bill is an excellent starting point for strengthening current programs and pursuing new initiatives to address urgent national priorities in women's health. I look forward to working with my colleagues and with the women's health community to enact the strongest legislation we can to deal with these vital issues.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, few aspects of immigration are more important than the naturalization of new Americans. Naturalization goes to the heart of those we welcome to join our country. Unlike those of us who were born in this country, naturalized immigrants are Americans by choice. Naturalization is the occasion when these new citizens embrace our nation, and our nation embraces them. Unfortunately, America's immigrant heritage and history are under increasing attack today. Legal immigrants have been unfairly hurt by recent actions to deal with illegal immigration. Voting rights, welfare benefits, and naturalization itself are also under assault. It now takes two to four years for immigrants to become naturalized citizens. The backlogs continue to increase. It is time to improve the naturalization process, and deal more responsibly with these important issues. Today, Congressman Gephardt and I are introducing the ``New American Citizenship Act,'' because we believe legal immigrants deserve a fair, efficient and affordable way to become citizens. Our bill builds on the recent reforms by INS to reach out to potential new citizens, help them learn our history and form of government, and ensure that the naturalization process is one in which America can take pride. Our bill provides increased services, and requires INS to reduce the naturalization process to six months with no backlogs. We encourage local communities to help in this effort, by disseminating information to community- based organizations on the requirements of citizenship and the contents of the naturalization exam. Under our proposal, INS cannot increase the naturalization fee to more than $150 until they have shown progress in reducing the backlog. In addition, we take specific steps to prevent fraud and abuse in the exam. We strengthen the fingerprint process to prevent the mistaken naturalization of unqualified applicants. Each naturalization ceremony represents the continuing renewal and revitalization of our country. As Barbara Jordan said, We are a nation of immigrants, dedicated to the rule of law. That is our history and our challenge to ourselves. . . . It is literally a matter of who we are as a nation and who we become as a people. E Pluribus Unum. Out of many, one. One people. The American people. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to continue the debate on the steps needed to achieve the goal of equal opportunity for women and minorities. Clearly, we have made substantial progress toward the goal of equal justice under law, but just as clearly, we still have a long way to go. From President Kennedy to President Nixon to President Clinton, there has always been bipartisan recognition in the White House and Congress that the playing field is not level for women and minorities and widespread acceptance of the need to take steps to remedy the effects of persistent discrimination. Civil rights is still the unfinished business of America. We have made significant progress toward justice for all and opportunity for all. But, as the church arson epidemic, the Texaco and Mitsubishi scandals, the Good Ol' Boys Round Up, and the brutalizing of a Haitian immigrant by police officers in New York City demonstrate, we are not there yet. Incredibly, there are some who believe that discrimination is a thing of the past, and that the playing field is now level for women, for minorities, and for other victims of discrimination. They are wrong. Job discrimination is still a persistent problem for minorities in all aspects of the economy. The glass ceiling still prevents large numbers of women from attaining important job opportunities. Nowhere is the deck stacked more heavily against women and minorities than in the construction industry. African American contractors still report arriving at job sites to find signs with racial epithets. One African American contractor was told to leave a home site by a white customer who said, ``You didn't tell me you were black and you don't sound black.'' In California, a female contractor was told that the reason her asbestos-removal business had declined, even though her work was good, was because ``it's back to the good ol' boys club. Haven't you heard affirmative action is out?'' There is no doubt that if we terminate meaningful programs, like the Disadvantaged Business Program in ISTEA, the clock will be turned back--back to bigotry, back to closed-door deals, back to denial of opportunity. The door that America is steadily opening to women and minorities will be shut once again. Proof comes from communities across the Nation. If we terminate a State disadvantaged business program, public contracts awarded to businesses owned by women and minorities decline rapidly. In Philadelphia, contracts awarded to women and minorities dropped 97 percent--97 percent--in the first month after the city terminated its disadvantaged business ordinance. In Tampa, contracts awarded to black-owned firms dropped 99 percent-- when that city ended its goals program. In Michigan, minority firms were eliminated as contractors on State highway projects within 6 months after the suspension of the State's disadvantaged business program in 1989. Within 9 months, participation by women-owned businesses had dropped to 1 percent of total awards. Can it be that no qualified minority contractor was available for a highway construction contract in Michigan after the State program ended? It defies reason to believe that is true. The Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program and others like it have brought new faces to the table. Many women and minorities have had the opportunity to participate--to show they can excel. An electronics company in Orlando--a steel assembly firm in Illinois--a crane and crane operator supplier in Chicago--all owned by women. This program gave them the opportunity to prove themselves. But if these programs end, they are deeply concerned that the major contractors that called them and the companies that praised their work will disappear--not because they do bad work, or charge more than their competitors, but because they are women. Dorinda Pounds, currently president of Midwest Contractors, Inc., an Iowa highway construction business, had trouble getting startup capital. After 9 years in the construction business, she had decided to start her own business and was faced with the task of raising $500,000 for equipment and expenses. She turned to banks and investors, but they initially expressed concern that the male contractors would lock her out and the banks would not recoup their investment. The DBE program certification was indispensable in persuading bankers and investors to take a chance on her new company. Three years later, prime contractors ask for her--not because she is a DBE, but because she can get the job done. Jennylynne Gragg, president of G and G Signals and Lighting, is another example. After 6 years in her parents' construction business, she became the company's general manager, and was able to increase profitability immediately. Her father, acting on his belief that the construction industry is ``no place for a woman,'' offered her job to a younger brother with no experience, and Jennylynne decided to prove him wrong. Eight years later, she operates a successful contracting business of her own. But it has not been easy. She and her mother--now a business partner --have to struggle to obtain financing. General contractors often solicit their bids with no intention of hiring them. Even when they are the low bidder, general contractors have often used another firm and accepted a higher bid. Why would a general contractor accept a higher bid? It doesn't make sense--unless you remember that the traditional business network doesn't include women or minorities. At a Judiciary Committee hearing on this issue, Janet Shutt, who operates an Indiana construction company, said some general contractors would rather lose money than deal with female contractors. The Department of Transportation DBE program is changing all that. The program was signed into law by President Reagan in 1983 to assist minority-owned firms. It was expanded in 1987 to include women. President Reagan and Congress recognized that it was time to end the pervasive discrimination in the highway construction industry, that positive steps were needed to eliminate years of bias against women and minorities. Under the DBE program, the Department of Transportation sets a national goal--10 percent of Federal contracting dollars--for participation by women and minorities. States then set their goals--not quotas or set-asides--based on the availability of DBEs and the kind of work that must be completed. Most States set a goal of 10 percent. But on occasion, States have set goals lower or higher than the national level. States have never been penalized for failing to meet their goal. Once States set their goals, contracts are identified for DBE participation. Prime contractors must either meet the goal or show that they have made a good-faith effort to meet it. The new regulations proposed by the Department of Transportation clarify that States must accept valid showings of good-faith efforts, so that the goal will never become a quota. The proposed regulations also ensure that only truly disadvantaged businesses can participate in the DBE program. Currently, although women and minorities are presumed to be DBEs, those who are not economically disadvantaged are excluded from the program. The new regulations will ensure the integrity of the program by requiring that women and minorities certify that they are disadvantaged and provide a summary of net worth. The presumption may be challenged at any time by the State or the local certifying agency, the Federal Government, or any third party. Contracting firms owned by white males may also participate in the DBE program, and the proposed regulations clarify the existing requirements for certification. In fact, Randy Pech--the owner of the Adarand Construction Company involved in the Supreme Court case--is seeking DBE certification. Discrimination by general contractors is a major obstacle faced by women and minorities. But there are many others. A white contractor with a background identical to that of an African American contractor can expect to receive over 50 times as many loan dollars per dollar of equity capital. A study of contractors in Atlanta found that 19 percent of nonminority firms had unlimited bonding capacity--a privilege granted to no minority firm, regardless of size. Similarly, an African American owned company in Georgia found that if it sent white employees posing as owners of a white-owned company to purchase supplies, they could receive price quotations two-thirds lower than those quoted to the parent company. Discrimination in the form of higher quotations from suppliers is commonplace. A recent survey reported that 56 percent of African American business owners, 30 percent of Latino business owners, and 11 percent of Asian owners had experienced this discrimination. Yet, despite the exclusion, the mistreatment, and the prejudice that women and minority businesspeople experience every day--despite the clear and convincing evidence that the DBE program and others like it have given women and minorities a first, fair chance to succeed, there are those who want to eliminate this sensible program. Some argue that the DBE program is unconstitutional. But, the Supreme Court's Adarand decision did not strike down the program, nor does it prevent Congress from supporting measures to respond to the pervasive discrimination that still exists in this country. The Supreme Court, in reviewing this issue, has said only that Federal race-conscious programs must undergo ``strict scrutiny''--they must be narrowly tailored to meet a compelling governmental interest. The Court did not say that affirmative action programs are unconstitutional. What the Court did say is that: [W]e wish to dispel the notion that strict scrutiny is ``strict in theory, but fatal in fact.'' The unhappy persistence of both the practice and the lingering effects of racial discrimination against minority groups in this country is an unfortunate reality, and government is not disqualified from acting in response to it. To ensure that the DBE program passes the strict scrutiny test, the Department of Transportation is currently completing new regulations that give priority to race-neutral measures. The regulations also emphasize that States must award contracts to bidders who document adequate good-faith efforts, even if the bidder doesn't meet the DBE goal. In addition, the regulations clarify DBE certification standards, including the eligibility of white males who prove disadvantage. We know that properly administered programs can meet the strict scrutiny test. State and local programs implemented after the Supreme Court's Croson decision prove this point completely. I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment offered by Senator McConnell. I support education and outreach efforts to eliminate discrimination. But they are not enough alone to end the discrimination that clearly exists. Congress must remain committed to taking needed steps to guarantee equal opportunity for all Americans. Mr. President, I yield back the remaining time.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, few aspects of immigration are more important than the naturalization of new Americans. Naturalization goes to the heart of those we welcome to join our country. Unlike those of us who were born in this country, naturalized immigrants are Americans by choice. Naturalization is the occasion when these new citizens embrace our nation, and our nation embraces them. Unfortunately, America's immigrant heritage and history are under increasing attack today. Legal immigrants have been unfairly hurt by recent actions to deal with illegal immigration. Voting rights, welfare benefits, and naturalization itself are also under assault. It now takes two to four years for immigrants to become naturalized citizens. The backlogs continue to increase. It is time to improve the naturalization process, and deal more responsibly with these important issues. Today, Congressman Gephardt and I are introducing the ``New American Citizenship Act,'' because we believe legal immigrants deserve a fair, efficient and affordable way to become citizens. Our bill builds on the recent reforms by INS to reach out to potential new citizens, help them learn our history and form of government, and ensure that the naturalization process is one in which America can take pride. Our bill provides increased services, and requires INS to reduce the naturalization process to six months with no backlogs. We encourage local communities to help in this effort, by disseminating information to community- based organizations on the requirements of citizenship and the contents of the naturalization exam. Under our proposal, INS cannot increase the naturalization fee to more than $150 until they have shown progress in reducing the backlog. In addition, we take specific steps to prevent fraud and abuse in the exam. We strengthen the fingerprint process to prevent the mistaken naturalization of unqualified applicants. Each naturalization ceremony represents the continuing renewal and revitalization of our country. As Barbara Jordan said, We are a nation of immigrants, dedicated to the rule of law. That is our history and our challenge to ourselves. . . . It is literally a matter of who we are as a nation and who we become as a people. E Pluribus Unum. Out of many, one. One people. The American people. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, President Clinton and Democrats in Congress have made it a top priority to see that America has the best public schools in the world--and we intend to do all we can to see that we reach that goal. 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 twelfth graders ranked among the lowest of the 22 nations participating in this international survey of math and science. The challenge is clear. We must do all we can to improve teaching and learning for all students across the nation. That means: We must continue to support efforts to raise academic standards. 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 and keep them off the streets, away from drugs, and out of trouble. 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 will do all I can to see that the ``RESULTS! Act''--``An Act to Revitalize and Empower Schools to Upgrade for Long-Term Success''--is approved by Congress. The bill will help modernize and expand the nation's schools, reduce class size, expand after-school care, improve education technology in schools, and create education opportunity zones in communities across the country. A necessary foundation for a successful school is a qualified teacher in every classroom to make sure young children receive the individual attention they need. That's why a pillar of the Democratic agenda is to help bring 100,000 new teachers to schools and reduce class size in the elementary grades. 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. Many states are also considering proposals to reduce class size--but you can't reduce class size without the ability to hire additional qualified teachers to fill the additional classrooms. Too many schools are already understaffed. During the next decade, rising student enrollments and massive teacher retirements mean that the nation will need to hire 2 million new teachers. Between 1995 and 1997, student enrollment in Massachusetts rose by 28,000 students, causing a shortage of 1,600 teachers--without including teacher retirements. The teacher shortage has forced many school districts to hire uncertified teachers, and ask certified teachers to teach outside their area of expertise. Each year, more than 50,000 under-prepared teachers enter the classroom. One in four new teachers does not fully meet state certification requirements. Twelve percent of new teachers have had no teacher training at all. Students in inner-city schools have only a 50% chance of being taught by a qualified science or math teacher. In Massachusetts, 30% of teachers in high-poverty schools do not even have a minor degree in their field. Our proposal will reduce class size in grades K-3 to a nationwide average of 18 by hiring more teachers. Under our proposal, states and school districts will be able to recruit, train and hire 100,000 additional qualified teachers in order to reduce class size and improve teaching and learning in these early grades. In the first year, Massachusetts will receive $22 million to support these efforts. We will also be working through the Higher Education Act to improve teacher training at colleges and universities. Our proposal will also help schools meet their urgent needs for construction, modernization, and renovation. Schools across the nation face serious problems. Many are overcrowded. Many others have antiquated facilities suffering from physical decay, with no ability 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. Massachusetts is no exception. 41% of our schools across the state report that at least one building needs extensive repair or should be replaced. Three-quarters report serious problems in buildings, such as plumbing or heating defects. Eighty percent have at least one unsatisfactory environmental factor. It is difficult enough to teach or learn in dilapidated classrooms. But now, because of escalating enrollments, those classrooms are increasingly overcrowded. The nation will need 6,000 new schools in the next few years, just to maintain current class sizes. It will take over $100 billion just to repair existing facilities. Obviously, the federal government cannot do the whole job. But states and communities across the country are working hard to meet these needs, and the federal government should do more to help. This year, Revere, Massachusetts passed a $2.2 million bond issue to renovate the roofs on three of its seven schools. After these renovations were completed, a fourth school's roof started to leak. The leak is so serious that the school's new fire system is threatened. School Committee members estimate that fixing the roof will cost an additional $1 million, and they don't know where to get the money. Last year, half of Worcester's schools were not equipped with the wiring and infrastructure to handle modern technology. Enrollment in Springfield schools has increased by over 1,500 students, or 6 percent, in the last two years, forcing teachers to hold classes in storage rooms, large closets, and in basements. Our proposal will authorize states and local governments to issue $22 billion in bonds for school repairs and construction. Part of the amount will go to state governments and part will go to the 100 cities across the nation with the largest numbers of low-income children, including Boston and Springfield. The bonds will be interest-free for the states and cities--Uncle Sam will pay the interest. Our legislation also addresses the urgent need to provide effective activities for children of all ages during the many hours each week when they are not in school. Each day, 5 million children, many as young as 8 or 9 years old, are left home alone after school. Juvenile delinquent crime peaks in the hours between 3 p.m. and 8 p.m. Children unsupervised are more likely to be involved in anti-social activities and destructive patterns of behavior. Our goal in this legislation is to encourage communities to develop activities that will engage children and keep them out of trouble. Crime survivors, law enforcement representatives, prosecutors, and educators have all joined together in calling for a substantial federal investment in after-school programs. Clearly, such financial assistance is needed in states across the country. Too often, parents cannot afford the thousands of dollars a year required to pay for after-school care, if it exists at all. In Massachusetts, 4,000 eligible children are on waiting lists for after- school care, and tens of thousands more have parents who have given up on getting help. Nationwide, half a million eligible children are on waiting lists for federal child care subsidies. The need for increased opportunities is obvious and this legislation attempts to meet it. Our bill will provide $1 billion over the next 5 years for after- school programs, to enable public school districts in partnership with community-based organizations to bring millions more children, including disabled children, into such programs, and make schools into community learning centers as well. This proposal will help communities to increase the availability of after-school programs. It will support efforts in Boston to make after- school services available to as many children as possible. Boston's 2- to-6 Initiative will serve an additional 3,000 young people over the next four years, keep school buildings open for city programs and non- profit programs, and challenge private sector leaders to double the number of available after-school jobs to 1,000 over the next two years. The proposed expansion of the 21st Century Community Learning Center program will enable schools and communities to create programs that meet their after-school needs--and obtain the extra resources required to make it happen. Our bill also proposes to help failing schools implement the reforms that they know will turn them around. Too many schools now struggle with watered-down curricula, low expectations, fewer qualified teachers, and fewer resources than other schools. Under the Education Opportunity Zones proposal, these school districts will get the extra resources they need in order to increase achievement, raise standards, end social promotion, upgrade teacher skills, and strengthen ties between the schools, the parents, and the community as a whole. The bill also calls for continued investment in education technology, so that cutting-edge technology will be available to as many students as possible. That means we must continue to invest more in computers, software, and high-tech training for teachers, so that every child has the opportunity to use technology as an effective learning tool. Investing in students and teachers and schools is one of the best investments America can make. For schools across America, help can't come a minute too soon, and I urge Congress to enact this legislation as expeditiously as possible. The message to schools across the country today is clear--help is finally on the way.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am honored to be a sponsor of the Public School Modernization Act of 1998, introduced today by Senator Moseley-Braun to help communities across the country in their struggle to modernize, repair, and rebuild their school facilities. 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 existing facilities nationwide. Massachusetts is no exception. 41% of our schools across the state report that at least one building needs extensive repair or should be replaced. Three-quarters report serious problems in buildings, such as plumbing or heating defects. 80% have at least one unsatisfactory environmental factor. In Boston, many schools cannot keep their heating systems functioning properly. On a given day, 15 to 30 schools complain that their heat is not working. The leaking roof at Revere High School is so serious that the new fire system is threatened. School Committee members estimate that fixing the roof will cost an additional $1 million, and they don't know where to get the money. It is difficult enough to teach or learn in dilapidated classrooms. But now, because of escalating enrollments, those classrooms are increasingly overcrowded. The nation will need 6,000 new schools in the next few years, just to maintain current class sizes. State governments and local communities are working hard to meet these challenges. In Massachusetts, under the School Building Assistance Act, the state will pay 50-90% of the most severe needs. 124 schools now have approved projects, and are on a waiting list for funding. The state share should be $91 million this year, but only $35 million is available. More than 50 other projects are awaiting approval. With that kind of deficit at the state and local level, it is clear that the federal government has a responsibility to act. I am pleased that President Clinton has made this issue one of his highest priorities. The legislation we are introducing will allow states and local governments to issue $22 billion in bonds over the next five years for school repairs and construction. Half of the amount will go to state governments, and the other half will go to the 100 cities across the nation with the largest numbers of low-income children, including Boston and Springfield. The bonds will be interest- free for the states and cities--Uncle Sam will pay the interest. Under this plan, the state government in Massachusetts can issue $230 million in bonds for construction and renovation of school buildings. The City of Boston can issue an additional $90 million, and the City of Springfield can issue an additional $36 million, so that a total of $356 million in bonds will be available to help Massachusetts schools under this legislation. Good teaching and good schools are threatened if school buildings are unsafe and need repairs. President Clinton has made it a top priority to see that America has the best public schools in the world. And my Democratic colleagues and I intend to do all we can to see that we reach that goal. Investing in schools is one of the best investments America can possibly make. For schools across America, help is truly on the way-- and it can't come a minute too soon.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, President Clinton and Democrats in Congress have made it a top priority to see that America has the best public schools in the world--and we intend to do all we can to see that we reach that goal. 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 twelfth graders ranked among the lowest of the 22 nations participating in this international survey of math and science. The challenge is clear. We must do all we can to improve teaching and learning for all students across the nation. That means: We must continue to support efforts to raise academic standards. 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 and keep them off the streets, away from drugs, and out of trouble. 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 will do all I can to see that the ``RESULTS! Act''--``An Act to Revitalize and Empower Schools to Upgrade for Long-Term Success''--is approved by Congress. The bill will help modernize and expand the nation's schools, reduce class size, expand after-school care, improve education technology in schools, and create education opportunity zones in communities across the country. A necessary foundation for a successful school is a qualified teacher in every classroom to make sure young children receive the individual attention they need. That's why a pillar of the Democratic agenda is to help bring 100,000 new teachers to schools and reduce class size in the elementary grades. 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. Many states are also considering proposals to reduce class size--but you can't reduce class size without the ability to hire additional qualified teachers to fill the additional classrooms. Too many schools are already understaffed. During the next decade, rising student enrollments and massive teacher retirements mean that the nation will need to hire 2 million new teachers. Between 1995 and 1997, student enrollment in Massachusetts rose by 28,000 students, causing a shortage of 1,600 teachers--without including teacher retirements. The teacher shortage has forced many school districts to hire uncertified teachers, and ask certified teachers to teach outside their area of expertise. Each year, more than 50,000 under-prepared teachers enter the classroom. One in four new teachers does not fully meet state certification requirements. Twelve percent of new teachers have had no teacher training at all. Students in inner-city schools have only a 50% chance of being taught by a qualified science or math teacher. In Massachusetts, 30% of teachers in high-poverty schools do not even have a minor degree in their field. Our proposal will reduce class size in grades K-3 to a nationwide average of 18 by hiring more teachers. Under our proposal, states and school districts will be able to recruit, train and hire 100,000 additional qualified teachers in order to reduce class size and improve teaching and learning in these early grades. In the first year, Massachusetts will receive $22 million to support these efforts. We will also be working through the Higher Education Act to improve teacher training at colleges and universities. Our proposal will also help schools meet their urgent needs for construction, modernization, and renovation. Schools across the nation face serious problems. Many are overcrowded. Many others have antiquated facilities suffering from physical decay, with no ability 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. Massachusetts is no exception. 41% of our schools across the state report that at least one building needs extensive repair or should be replaced. Three-quarters report serious problems in buildings, such as plumbing or heating defects. Eighty percent have at least one unsatisfactory environmental factor. It is difficult enough to teach or learn in dilapidated classrooms. But now, because of escalating enrollments, those classrooms are increasingly overcrowded. The nation will need 6,000 new schools in the next few years, just to maintain current class sizes. It will take over $100 billion just to repair existing facilities. Obviously, the federal government cannot do the whole job. But states and communities across the country are working hard to meet these needs, and the federal government should do more to help. This year, Revere, Massachusetts passed a $2.2 million bond issue to renovate the roofs on three of its seven schools. After these renovations were completed, a fourth school's roof started to leak. The leak is so serious that the school's new fire system is threatened. School Committee members estimate that fixing the roof will cost an additional $1 million, and they don't know where to get the money. Last year, half of Worcester's schools were not equipped with the wiring and infrastructure to handle modern technology. Enrollment in Springfield schools has increased by over 1,500 students, or 6 percent, in the last two years, forcing teachers to hold classes in storage rooms, large closets, and in basements. Our proposal will authorize states and local governments to issue $22 billion in bonds for school repairs and construction. Part of the amount will go to state governments and part will go to the 100 cities across the nation with the largest numbers of low-income children, including Boston and Springfield. The bonds will be interest-free for the states and cities--Uncle Sam will pay the interest. Our legislation also addresses the urgent need to provide effective activities for children of all ages during the many hours each week when they are not in school. Each day, 5 million children, many as young as 8 or 9 years old, are left home alone after school. Juvenile delinquent crime peaks in the hours between 3 p.m. and 8 p.m. Children unsupervised are more likely to be involved in anti-social activities and destructive patterns of behavior. Our goal in this legislation is to encourage communities to develop activities that will engage children and keep them out of trouble. Crime survivors, law enforcement representatives, prosecutors, and educators have all joined together in calling for a substantial federal investment in after-school programs. Clearly, such financial assistance is needed in states across the country. Too often, parents cannot afford the thousands of dollars a year required to pay for after-school care, if it exists at all. In Massachusetts, 4,000 eligible children are on waiting lists for after- school care, and tens of thousands more have parents who have given up on getting help. Nationwide, half a million eligible children are on waiting lists for federal child care subsidies. The need for increased opportunities is obvious and this legislation attempts to meet it. Our bill will provide $1 billion over the next 5 years for after- school programs, to enable public school districts in partnership with community-based organizations to bring millions more children, including disabled children, into such programs, and make schools into community learning centers as well. This proposal will help communities to increase the availability of after-school programs. It will support efforts in Boston to make after- school services available to as many children as possible. Boston's 2- to-6 Initiative will serve an additional 3,000 young people over the next four years, keep school buildings open for city programs and non- profit programs, and challenge private sector leaders to double the number of available after-school jobs to 1,000 over the next two years. The proposed expansion of the 21st Century Community Learning Center program will enable schools and communities to create programs that meet their after-school needs--and obtain the extra resources required to make it happen. Our bill also proposes to help failing schools implement the reforms that they know will turn them around. Too many schools now struggle with watered-down curricula, low expectations, fewer qualified teachers, and fewer resources than other schools. Under the Education Opportunity Zones proposal, these school districts will get the extra resources they need in order to increase achievement, raise standards, end social promotion, upgrade teacher skills, and strengthen ties between the schools, the parents, and the community as a whole. The bill also calls for continued investment in education technology, so that cutting-edge technology will be available to as many students as possible. That means we must continue to invest more in computers, software, and high-tech training for teachers, so that every child has the opportunity to use technology as an effective learning tool. Investing in students and teachers and schools is one of the best investments America can make. For schools across America, help can't come a minute too soon, and I urge Congress to enact this legislation as expeditiously as possible. The message to schools across the country today is clear--help is finally on the way.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am honored to be a sponsor of the Public School Modernization Act of 1998, introduced today by Senator Moseley-Braun to help communities across the country in their struggle to modernize, repair, and rebuild their school facilities. 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 existing facilities nationwide. Massachusetts is no exception. 41% of our schools across the state report that at least one building needs extensive repair or should be replaced. Three-quarters report serious problems in buildings, such as plumbing or heating defects. 80% have at least one unsatisfactory environmental factor. In Boston, many schools cannot keep their heating systems functioning properly. On a given day, 15 to 30 schools complain that their heat is not working. The leaking roof at Revere High School is so serious that the new fire system is threatened. School Committee members estimate that fixing the roof will cost an additional $1 million, and they don't know where to get the money. It is difficult enough to teach or learn in dilapidated classrooms. But now, because of escalating enrollments, those classrooms are increasingly overcrowded. The nation will need 6,000 new schools in the next few years, just to maintain current class sizes. State governments and local communities are working hard to meet these challenges. In Massachusetts, under the School Building Assistance Act, the state will pay 50-90% of the most severe needs. 124 schools now have approved projects, and are on a waiting list for funding. The state share should be $91 million this year, but only $35 million is available. More than 50 other projects are awaiting approval. With that kind of deficit at the state and local level, it is clear that the federal government has a responsibility to act. I am pleased that President Clinton has made this issue one of his highest priorities. The legislation we are introducing will allow states and local governments to issue $22 billion in bonds over the next five years for school repairs and construction. Half of the amount will go to state governments, and the other half will go to the 100 cities across the nation with the largest numbers of low-income children, including Boston and Springfield. The bonds will be interest- free for the states and cities--Uncle Sam will pay the interest. Under this plan, the state government in Massachusetts can issue $230 million in bonds for construction and renovation of school buildings. The City of Boston can issue an additional $90 million, and the City of Springfield can issue an additional $36 million, so that a total of $356 million in bonds will be available to help Massachusetts schools under this legislation. Good teaching and good schools are threatened if school buildings are unsafe and need repairs. President Clinton has made it a top priority to see that America has the best public schools in the world. And my Democratic colleagues and I intend to do all we can to see that we reach that goal. Investing in schools is one of the best investments America can possibly make. For schools across America, help is truly on the way-- and it can't come a minute too soon.