Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today Senators Kerry, Reed, Akaka and I are introducing the America After School Act. With this legislation, I hope that we can do more to provide the care and activities that children need when they are not in school. Millions of parents today have no choice but to work outside the home. Over 17 million parents need someone to care for their children when the children are not in school. Many are able to find child care through friends or family, local centers, or school-based programs. But over 5 million ``latch-key'' children have no such arrangements and are left home alone. Our goal in this legislation is to encourage communities to develop activities that will engage our children and keep them off the streets, away from drugs, and out of trouble. In many cases, parents know the importance of enrolling their children in after-school programs, but cannot afford to do so. Child care costs thousands of dollars each year and is therefore out of reach for many families. Congress has responded by supporting an array of child care programs over the years, but the funding has not kept pace with the need, especially under The Welfare Reform Act which requires more and more parents each year to enter the workforce. As a result, hundreds of thousands of children are now on waiting lists for child care and after school activities. Help for these families and their children cannot come too soon. The entire country benefits when children get the care that they need. Health costs are lower. Parents' productivity at work improves. Education costs decline when children learn to cooperate in group activities, and when they can obtain help with their homework during after-school programs. The massive costs associated with juvenile delinquency, such as injuries to people, damage to property and police, courts, and corrections--are reduced when responsible after-school activities are available. By expanding after-school programs, we literally are investing in children, their future, and the country's future. Our legislation significantly expands after-school care, enabling more parents to choose safe, quality programs for their children. We primarily accomplish this goal by increasing the Child Care and Development Block Grants available to states, which subsidize child care for low-income families. Under Title I of this bill, we authorize a $5 billion increase in that program over the next 5 years. This level of investment is necessary to end the waiting lists, and provide after- school care for an estimated 2 million children from low-income working families. Communities with high concentrations of poverty and at-risk children will get priority in this funding, so that help will be available where it is needed most. No parent should have to make the cruel choice between pressing needs such as food, heat and shelter. The needs of disabled children are also specifically addressed. Our proposal builds on the experience of the Defense Department, which operates the world's largest child care program for members of the armed services. Over the past decade, they have developed a widely acclaimed model program. They have found that child-care quality is most effectively achieved through salary incentives tied to training. We get what we pay for. Child care workers are notoriously underpaid in today's society. Stronger incentives are needed in order to develop and retain a quality child care workforce. Our bill designates 25% of the block-grant increases for indirect services that include salary incentives tied to training for those who provide care. In addition, our bill enacts President Clinton's proposal to expand 21st Century Learning Centers which have proved highly successful in using schools as places where members of the community can engage in continuing education, recreation, community building activities and others. This program now only serves 100,000 children nationwide. Our bill contains a five-fold increase in grants by the Department of Education to local public schools. Under this increase, 500,000 more children will be able to participate in school-based programs before and after school. This bill also provides $1.25 billion over the next five years to expand grants by the Justice Department for after-school programs to prevent juvenile crime. Public and private agencies may apply for these grants, and awards will be made on a matching basis. Recipients must coordinate their efforts with state or local law enforcement to achieve maximum effectiveness in fighting crime. After-school educational and recreational programs in high crime neighborhoods will receive priority since children in these inner city neighborhoods face the highest risks. Hundreds of police chiefs, prosecutors, and crime victims have created an organization called ``Fight Crime: Invest in Kids,'' dedicated to promoting increased federal investment in after-school programs. A 1995 National League of Cities survey reported that 92% of respondents rank before- and after-school care as one of the most pressing needs for children and families--ahead of crime, welfare reform, education, housing and drug abuse. Over 70% of people recently surveyed by the Children's Defense Fund--Democrats and Republicans, women and men, young and old alike--believe that revenues from tobacco companies should be invested in child care programs. Hundreds of thousands of parents have put their children's names on waiting lists for child care and after school activities. The need is urgent and widespread, and Congress has a responsibility to act. The America After School Act, can be effective in meeting these needs and I urge the Senate to approve it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill may be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today Senators Kerry, Reed, Akaka and I are introducing the America After School Act. With this legislation, I hope that we can do more to provide the care and activities that children need when they are not in school. Millions of parents today have no choice but to work outside the home. Over 17 million parents need someone to care for their children when the children are not in school. Many are able to find child care through friends or family, local centers, or school-based programs. But over 5 million ``latch-key'' children have no such arrangements and are left home alone. Our goal in this legislation is to encourage communities to develop activities that will engage our children and keep them off the streets, away from drugs, and out of trouble. In many cases, parents know the importance of enrolling their children in after-school programs, but cannot afford to do so. Child care costs thousands of dollars each year and is therefore out of reach for many families. Congress has responded by supporting an array of child care programs over the years, but the funding has not kept pace with the need, especially under The Welfare Reform Act which requires more and more parents each year to enter the workforce. As a result, hundreds of thousands of children are now on waiting lists for child care and after school activities. Help for these families and their children cannot come too soon. The entire country benefits when children get the care that they need. Health costs are lower. Parents' productivity at work improves. Education costs decline when children learn to cooperate in group activities, and when they can obtain help with their homework during after-school programs. The massive costs associated with juvenile delinquency, such as injuries to people, damage to property and police, courts, and corrections--are reduced when responsible after-school activities are available. By expanding after-school programs, we literally are investing in children, their future, and the country's future. Our legislation significantly expands after-school care, enabling more parents to choose safe, quality programs for their children. We primarily accomplish this goal by increasing the Child Care and Development Block Grants available to states, which subsidize child care for low-income families. Under Title I of this bill, we authorize a $5 billion increase in that program over the next 5 years. This level of investment is necessary to end the waiting lists, and provide after- school care for an estimated 2 million children from low-income working families. Communities with high concentrations of poverty and at-risk children will get priority in this funding, so that help will be available where it is needed most. No parent should have to make the cruel choice between pressing needs such as food, heat and shelter. The needs of disabled children are also specifically addressed. Our proposal builds on the experience of the Defense Department, which operates the world's largest child care program for members of the armed services. Over the past decade, they have developed a widely acclaimed model program. They have found that child-care quality is most effectively achieved through salary incentives tied to training. We get what we pay for. Child care workers are notoriously underpaid in today's society. Stronger incentives are needed in order to develop and retain a quality child care workforce. Our bill designates 25% of the block-grant increases for indirect services that include salary incentives tied to training for those who provide care. In addition, our bill enacts President Clinton's proposal to expand 21st Century Learning Centers which have proved highly successful in using schools as places where members of the community can engage in continuing education, recreation, community building activities and others. This program now only serves 100,000 children nationwide. Our bill contains a five-fold increase in grants by the Department of Education to local public schools. Under this increase, 500,000 more children will be able to participate in school-based programs before and after school. This bill also provides $1.25 billion over the next five years to expand grants by the Justice Department for after-school programs to prevent juvenile crime. Public and private agencies may apply for these grants, and awards will be made on a matching basis. Recipients must coordinate their efforts with state or local law enforcement to achieve maximum effectiveness in fighting crime. After-school educational and recreational programs in high crime neighborhoods will receive priority since children in these inner city neighborhoods face the highest risks. Hundreds of police chiefs, prosecutors, and crime victims have created an organization called ``Fight Crime: Invest in Kids,'' dedicated to promoting increased federal investment in after-school programs. A 1995 National League of Cities survey reported that 92% of respondents rank before- and after-school care as one of the most pressing needs for children and families--ahead of crime, welfare reform, education, housing and drug abuse. Over 70% of people recently surveyed by the Children's Defense Fund--Democrats and Republicans, women and men, young and old alike--believe that revenues from tobacco companies should be invested in child care programs. Hundreds of thousands of parents have put their children's names on waiting lists for child care and after school activities. The need is urgent and widespread, and Congress has a responsibility to act. The America After School Act, can be effective in meeting these needs and I urge the Senate to approve it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill may be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to take this opportunity to congratulate Northeastern University in Massachusetts as it begins its centennial celebration. Northeastern University began providing higher education in conjunction with the Boston Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA) in 1898. Since then, it has been a leader in providing quality higher education to large numbers of students. It currently enrolls 27,000 full-time students and has graduated over 137,000 students over the years. Northeastern University is also an impressive leader in the current effort to expand access to higher education. It offers the largest cooperative education plan in the country for students to combine work with college. It has also helped educators in other countries develop cooperative education programs. Thanks to Northeastern's leadership, universities in Africa and Asia now have significant programs in this important field. Northeastern also excels in numerous academic fields. It has an outstanding engineering faculty, and excellent engineering centers in electromagnetics, communications, and digital signal processing. With its newly created graduate program in Applied Science and Engineering, Northeastern is poised to engage in breakthrough scientific research. Northeastern is also a leader in creating partnerships with community organizations, educators, and businesses to deal with critical issues such as domestic violence and women's health. In 1990, Professor Clare Dalton founded the Domestic Violence Institute which works with community agencies to protect women and children who are victims of domestic violence. Recently, the Institute's initiatives were enhanced by a three-year grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for this critically important work. Northeastern's first hundred years have been filled with outstanding accomplishments and contributions to our state, our country, and the world. I am sure that in the years ahead, Northeastern will continue this proud tradition of excellence, and I congratulate the university on this auspicious centennial anniversary.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I, too, join in commending Senator Feingold, Senator McCain, Senator Lieberman and the others for their persistence and perseverance in advancing sensible and responsible campaign finance reform to the U.S. Congress, and, hopefully, we will address it in a serious way as they have addressed this issue and do so in the next few days. I will speak for a few moments about the underlying bill that is being proposed, and I suggest that this bill really is a sham in terms of proposing to protect the interests of American workers. The average American worker earns $12.51 an hour, just over $26,000 a year. These workers want a good retirement, a decent education for their children, safe neighborhoods and quality health care. But how can they compete on these issues in the political process when the fat cats spend far more in one political fundraiser or in one 30-second political ad than the average worker earns in a year? We must return election campaigns to the people, in which all voters are equal, no matter what their income, what job they hold or where they live. The current system is a scandal, and Democrats are ready to reform it right now. Every Democratic Senator--every single one--supports the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill. The burden now rests squarely with the Republican Party. It is up to Republicans to decide whether Congress will reform the broken campaign finance laws or continue the unseemly influence of special interests in American politics. So far, all the Republican leadership in Congress proposes is more money in politics, not less. They want more money from their special interest friends. They want to silence working families and the labor unions for speaking up on issues they care about. That is what the Republican leadership calls campaign finance reform. The Republican proposal purports to help working families by regulating how labor unions pay for their participation in the political process. But for working families, this proposal is grossly unfair. It is the centerpiece of an agenda by big corporations and the right wing of the Republican Party to silence working families, not help them. The Republican leadership proposal is not reform but revenge--revenge for the role of the labor movement in the 1996 campaign. It imposes a gag rule on American workers, and it should be defeated. The bill is a sham. It does not protect the workers. It is designed to advance an antiworker, antilabor, antiunion agenda. It does not protect individual rights, as its sponsor claims. It singles out unions, but does nothing for corporate shareholders or members of other organizations. In fact, in the 1996 election, corporations outspent labor unions 11 to 1. Under the Republican proposal, big tobacco can still use corporate treasury funds to oppose using cigarette tax revenues to promote children's health, even if shareholders object. And the National Rifle Association can oppose a ban on cop-killer bullets even if NRA members object. But before labor unions can use union funds to speak up for working families, they would have to obtain written approval from every union member first. But it does not stop there. The antiworker Republican proposal before us today is only part of a larger, big business, right wing campaign conspiracy to deny working families a voice in their own Government. Already, proposals virtually identical to this one have been introduced in 19 States as ballot initiatives or as State legislation. The same people who fought the minimum wage and want to abolish labor unions-- the same people who lead the charge in the Republican party for tax breaks for the rich--are also part of this coordinated nationwide campaign to block workers and their unions at every turn in Washington and State capitals everywhere. A recent editorial in a Nevada paper says it clearly as anyone. Nevada is one of the States where the right wing is pushing these initiatives. And the Reno Gazette journal spoke out against the proposal, saying: Beware of GOP Foxes in Labor's House. . . . Its main purpose is not to help workers but to weaken Democrats. . . . This petition is not intended to benefit the common man nearly as much as it is intended to benefit one specific class of politicians. . . . So when someone asks you to sign this Republican petition outside your favorite supermarket or elsewhere, think about what is really going on here. The scent of special interest fills the air like a convention of skunks in the hollow. This language applies equally to the Paycheck Protection Act that my Republican friends are advocating in the U.S. Senate. The Republican proposal is phony reform, and it should be opposed. Far from protecting the American worker, it is a prescription for disaster for millions of Americans and their families. I oppose it. My colleagues on this side of the aisle oppose it. I urge every Senator to oppose it. Senator McCain and Senator Feingold have proposed sensible reforms to ban soft money and to crack down on campaign adds by outside interest groups that are nothing more than thinly veiled appeals to defeat particular candidates. These are responsible reforms. And I urge my colleagues to support them. I thank the Senator for yielding me time. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with the death of Roger Stevens earlier this month, the nation lost one of its greatest leaders in the arts. Roger Stevens was the Founding Chairman and unstoppable visionary for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Just inside the entrance of the Center is a bust of Roger Stevens with those words inscribed to him. Roger Stevens was a real estate magnate who loved the excitement, energy and creativity of American theater. During his lifetime, he produced hundreds of plays and musicals, including many of the nation's all-time favorites such as ``West Side Story,'' ``Les Miserables,'' and ``Annie.'' It was Roger Stevens whose efforts and extraordinary ability created Washington's national cultural center which was later named for my brother, President Kennedy. The Kennedy Center today is truly the house that Roger built, and it is a wonderful living memorial to my brother. It presents the finest in the performing arts on its stages, and it is an extraordinary success. Washingtonians and an estimated million visitors to Washington each year enjoy its performances and educational programs. In St. Paul's Cathedral in London, there is a tribute to its great architect, Christopher Wren. It says, ``If you would see his monument, look around you.'' The Kennedy Center is a monument to Roger Stevens' too. I know that my brother would be very proud of the Center which bears his name. All of us who value achievement in the arts treasure the Center's continued pursuit of Roger's dream--that Washington will be a great center for the performing arts and that the Kennedy Center will present the best in plays, symphonies, ballets and operas from across the country and around the world. Roger Stevens made it possible for all of us to share in that dream--and the nation owes him a tremendous debt. I ask unanimous consent that the tributes to Roger Stevens at a memorial service on February 4 at Oak Street Cemetery Chapel in Georgetown be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support the legislative priorities announced today by President Clinton, Vice President Gore, Senator Daschle, and Congressman Gephardt. These priorities contain a number of major Democratic initiatives to protect Social Security and to help working families across the country on key issues such as jobs, education, health care, and the environment. And I look forward to their enactment this year. One of the pillars of our Democratic agenda is a commitment to raise the minimum wage by 50 cents in each of the next 2 years. Our proposal will increase the minimum wage from its current level of $5.15 an hour to $5.65 an hour on January 1, 1999, to $6.15 an hour on January 1 in the year 2000. In 1996, after a hard-fought battle in the last Congress, we raised the minimum wage by comparable amounts with no adverse effects whatever on the economy. The scare tactics about lost jobs proved to be as false as they are self-serving. A recent study by the Economic Policy Institute contains documents that the sky hasn't fallen as a result of the last increase. Raising the minimum wage does not cause job loss for teenagers, adults, men, women, African Americans, Latinos, or anyone else. Twelve million Americans benefited from raising the minimum wage, and they deserve the increase that we are proposing. To have the purchasing power it had in 1989, the minimum wage today would have to be $7.33 an hour. That figure is still well above the level that we are proposing. That fact is a measure of how far we have not just fallen short but actually fallen back in giving low-income workers their fair share of our extraordinary economic growth. In the past 30 years, the stock market, adjusted for inflation, has gone up by over 100 percent while the purchasing power of the minimum wage has gone down by 30 percent. We know who these minimum wage workers are. Sixty-percent are women. Nearly three-quarters are adults. Half of those who would benefit work full time. Over 80 percent work at least 20 hours a week. They are teacher's aides, child care providers. They are single heads of households with children. They are people who clean office buildings in countless communities across the country working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year. Minimum wage workers earn $10,712 a year, $2,600 below the poverty level for a family of three. Low-income workers don't just deserve a wage; they urgently need a raise. Nationwide, soup kitchens, food pantries, and homeless shelters are increasingly serving the working poor--not just the unemployed. In 1996, according to a recent U.S. Conference of Mayors study, 38 percent of those seeking emergency food aid held jobs, up from 23 percent in 1994. Low-paying jobs are now almost the most frequently cited cause of hunger. Officials in 77 percent of cities cited this factor. The American people understand the unfairness of requiring working families to subsist on a subpoverty minimum wage. I look forward to the early enactment of the increase we are proposing. Twelve million working Americans deserve a helping hand. In good conscience we cannot continue to proclaim and celebrate the Nation's current prosperity while consigning millions who have jobs to live in continuing poverty. No one who works for a living should have to live in poverty in the United States of America. The second pillar of the Democratic agenda is the Patient's Bill of Rights on health insurance. Few issues are more important to all working families than quality, affordable health care. Every family needs and deserves good medical care when a loved one is ill. Every family that has faithfully paid its premiums to its insurance plan deserves to receive the benefits the plan has promised. The American family knows that this promise is broken too often because unscrupulous insurance companies put profit ahead of patients. In movie theaters across the country today audiences erupt in spontaneous cheers when the character portrayed by actress Helen Hunt explodes in frustration over the callous treatment that she and her son received from her managed care plan. The movie ``As Good As It Gets'' has been nominated for major academy awards. But managed care today isn't receiving any awards, and neither is Congress for our lack of needed action to end these flagrant abuses. The problems are obvious. Insurance company accountants should not be allowed to practice medicine. It is time to guarantee women the right to see a gynecologist. No breast cancer patient should be forced by health insurance plans to have a drop-by mastectomy when hospital care is needed. No patients with a rare or dangerous disease should be denied the right to be treated by a specialist. No child's health or very life should be at risk because a parent feels forced to drive past the nearest emergency room to a more distant hospital that is the only hospital covered by the group plan. No doctor should be subjected to gag rules, financial incentives, or financial penalties to prohibit or discourage them from giving patients the best medical advice. Reasonable review procedures should be available to anyone denied coverage or treatment by their insurance plan. Patients with an incurable illness should be allowed to participate in clinical trials of new therapies that offer the hope of improvement and cure. The Republican leadership has told the special interests to ``get off their butts and get out their wallets'' to fight any legislation that puts the interests of working families ahead of the interests of unscrupulous insurers. But with the President and the congressional Democrats unified for reform, I am confident that we will prevail and that our Patient's Bill of Rights will be signed into law this year. A second health issue that is critical to millions of families is access to health insurance for those too young for Medicare but too hold for affordable private coverage. Our Democratic agenda offers these families immediate health and hope. We propose to allow them to buy into Medicare at a price that is far more affordable than the private market offers, if it offers them any insurance at all. Three million Americans between the ages of 55 and 65 have no health insurance. The consequences are often tragic. As a group they are in relatively poor health, and their health continues to deteriorate the longer they are uninsured. They have no protection against the cost of serious illness. They are often unable to afford the routine care that can prevent minor illnesses from turning into serious disabilities, or even becoming life threatening. The number of uninsured in this group is growing every day. Between 1991 and 1995, the proportion of today's workers whose employers promise them benefits if they retire early dropped 12 percent. Barely a third now have such a promise. In recent years too many who have counted on employer commitment have found themselves with only a broken promise and their coverage canceled after they have already retired. The plight of older workers who lose their jobs through layoffs or downsizing is equally grim. It is difficult to find a new job at 55 or 60, and it is even harder to a find job that comes with health insurance. For these older Americans who are left out and left behind for no fault of their own after decades of hard work, Democrats are offering a helping hand. By allowing these workers to buy affordable coverage through Medicare, our Democratic proposal is a lifeline for millions of these Americans. It provides a bridge to help them through the years before full Medicare eligibility. It is a constructive step towards the day when every American of any age will finally be guaranteed the fundamental right to health care. Our proposal places no additional burden on Medicare. It is fully paid for by premiums from the beneficiaries themselves and by savings from fraud and abuse. Democrats will fight hard for this commonsense approach to helping older workers and their families. And Congress should respond. In addition, on education, President Clinton and the Democrats in Congress have also made it a top priority to see that America has the best public schools in the world. We intend to do all we can to see that we have reached that goal. Successful schools need a qualified teacher in every classroom making sure that children get the individual attention they need. That is why another main pillar of the Democratic agenda is to provide 100,000 new teachers for America's public schools. The shortage has forced school districts to hire more than 50,000 uncertified teachers a year, or ask certified teachers to teach outside their area of expertise. One in four new teachers dot not fully meet State certification requirements, and 12 percent of new hires have no teacher training at all. In Massachusetts, 30 percent of teachers in high-poverty schools do not even have a minor degree in their field. Our Democratic proposal will also encourage State efforts to reduce class size by providing additional teachers needed to fill the smaller classrooms. Our proposal will also help schools meet their urgent needs for repair, renovation, modernization, and new construction. Investing in schools is one of the best investments America could possibly make. For schools across America, help can't come a minute too soon, and our Democratic proposal provides it. On key issues, such as the minimum wage, health care, and education, the Democratic priorities put working families first. Our proposals are investments in a better life for all of our families and a better future for the country. Special interests will fight hard to keep these proposals from becoming law. But Democrats in Congress and the President will fight harder because we know that the American people are with us. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the home health benefit available under Medicare plays a significant role in allowing elderly beneficiaries to remain in their homes and in their community. Those who use the home health benefit are among the most vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries. More than 40 percent have incomes below $10,000. One in three live alone, and two-thirds are over age 75. In recent years, the cost of the home health benefit has been one of the fastest growing parts of Medicare. While the vast majority of this growth is attributable to a legitimate increase in home health care as patients are moved out of the hospital more quickly, some portion is known to be due to fraud. As a result, Congress enacted provisions on this spending as a part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Unfortunately, it now appears that some of the restrictions will operate in a way that penalizes providers unfairly and jeopardizes their ability to continue to offer these vital services for the elderly. In order to address these issues, I am introducing legislation to delay the effective date of one provision, and to change the base year that will be used to calculate future home health payments. Congressman McGovern is introducing similar legislation in the House of Representatives. The problem with the current law is especially serious in New England. Home health agencies throughout the region generally provide care for less cost than the national average. For example, the average Medicare payment per home health visit in Massachusetts in 1995 was 19 percent below the national average. These programs are effective. They provide high quality home health care and help people to remain in the community and out of hospitals and nursing homes. And they do so in a cost-efficient manner. Nevertheless, the Home & Health Care Association of Massachusetts estimates that the provisions of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 could result in a loss of 1.5 million home health visits--a 20 percent reduction--this year. Under the Act, Massachusetts and other states that provide high quality care efficiently and at lower rates are at a disadvantage, whereas inefficient providers are permitted to lock in higher rates. One of the most questionable effects of the Act requires home health agencies to comply with ``per beneficiary caps'' before the federal government tells them what the caps are. The bill I am introducing delays the effective date of the caps until October 1, 1998, to allow time for agencies to adjust to forthcoming, essential guidance from the Health Care Financing Administration. In addition, this bill moves up the year--from 1994 to 1995--that will be used to calculate payments for 1998 and beyond. This change means that payments will more accurately reflect the type of home care that is currently delivered. The problem facing home health patients and agencies is substantial. Congress should address this issue now, before home health agencies that provide needed services are unfairly forced out of business, and before senior citizens are forced to go without necessary care or leave their homes for more expensive hospital care or nursing home care. The provisions of the Balanced Budget Act should be modified to avoid these unfortunate and unnecessary problems. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to just take a few moments this afternoon to express my very warm appreciation to Senator Conrad for the leadership that he has provided in bringing together a variety of different views and offering on behalf of the families of this country an absolutely superb proposal that is focused on how we are going to reduce smoking for the young people of this country. This bill isn't the perfect solution, but I daresay that if this particular legislative proposal was enacted into law it would save the lives of millions of Americans. This has been a long process, Mr. President, since the first Surgeon General pointed out the dangers of smoking. This has been a constant effort over many, many years to try and address this issue in a comprehensive and responsible way. All of us take our hats off to the work that was done by the attorneys general that resulted in the June 20 settlement. But the legislation Senator Conrad has introduced today is really a very, very comprehensive proposal that, in many respects, may be the most important legislative undertaking that we will have in this Congress. Senator Conrad and the other members of the task force should be commended in putting this proposal forward so early in the Congress. We know we have maybe 90 days left in this session, but I daresay that our time could not be more beneficially spent than in the debate and the discussion of this legislation. I join with those in hoping that we can get thoughtful consideration of this legislation in the committee on the floor of the Senate. It incorporates the principles that have been identified by the public health community and those who have studied this issue over a long period of time which are most important in reducing smoking: No. 1, raising the cost of cigarettes in a substantial way over a short period of time. In addition, the counteradvertising measures are very, very important. Those two measures in tandem can make a dramatic difference in the number of young people who will smoke in the future. The strong FDA measures will also make sure the Agency will have the power and the authority to regulate nicotine and the other additives in cigarettes. I think the attention that was given in the secondhand smoking proposals and also in recognizing our responsibilities of promoting cigarettes overseas are very thoughtful suggestions in these areas. I want to add that I believe it is so important that the revenues that are raised from this proposal will give a substantial boost to programs that affect the children of this country. A very substantial part of the financial resources that are gained when this legislation is enacted will be focused on the children who have been the focus of the tobacco industry for over a long, long period of time. I commend the Senator and the task force for that commitment to the nation's children. Secondly, there is an equally strong commitment towards supporting the biomedical research which offers such extraordinary opportunities for breakthroughs, not only in children's diseases but in other medical conditions such as cancer, AIDS, heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's Disease, and mental illness. This legislation can make a major difference in the public health of the nation by reducing youth smoking. It can also make a major difference to the children of this nation in focusing resources to make their lives more hopeful in the future. And it can make a major difference in terms of the biomedical research opportunities at NIH which offer extraordinary hope in finding treatments for some of the nation's most severe medical conditions. For all these reasons, this legislation should go forward. As Senator Conrad has pointed out, he welcomes the chance for others to join in strong support of this legislation, but certainly it is the challenge that is laid out here. Others will have views. We hope they will come forward. What we have heard so far is a deafening silence. I don't think the American people are going to tolerate a silence in blind opposition to what has been a very thoughtful, a very comprehensive, and a very detailed response to something that is of central importance to every family in this country. I commend the Senator from North Dakota for all of his work and indicate a great desire to work closely with him and the others to make sure this legislation becomes law. Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join as a sponsor of the Economic Development Partnership Act of 1998, which will reauthorize and extend the important work of the Economic Development Administration in the Department of Commerce. The Economic Development Administration was established in 1965 to provide grants to help hard-pressed communities in all parts of the country to deal more effectively with conditions of persistent unemployment in economically distressed areas. Over the past thirty years, EDA has helped generate new jobs, retain existing jobs, and stimulate industrial and commercial growth in economically distressed areas across the country. By making assistance available to areas suffering high unemployment, low-income levels, or sudden and severe economic emergencies, EDA provides local governments with the resources to revitalize their communities, create jobs, and plan for long-term growth. In fulfilling its mission, EDA is guided by the basic principle that distressed communities must be encouraged to plan and implement their own economic development and revitalization strategies. I commend Senator Baucus and the Clinton Administration for their leadership on this important legislation, and I look forward to its enactment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the home health benefit available under Medicare plays a significant role in allowing elderly beneficiaries to remain in their homes and in their community. Those who use the home health benefit are among the most vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries. More than 40 percent have incomes below $10,000. One in three live alone, and two-thirds are over age 75. In recent years, the cost of the home health benefit has been one of the fastest growing parts of Medicare. While the vast majority of this growth is attributable to a legitimate increase in home health care as patients are moved out of the hospital more quickly, some portion is known to be due to fraud. As a result, Congress enacted provisions on this spending as a part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Unfortunately, it now appears that some of the restrictions will operate in a way that penalizes providers unfairly and jeopardizes their ability to continue to offer these vital services for the elderly. In order to address these issues, I am introducing legislation to delay the effective date of one provision, and to change the base year that will be used to calculate future home health payments. Congressman McGovern is introducing similar legislation in the House of Representatives. The problem with the current law is especially serious in New England. Home health agencies throughout the region generally provide care for less cost than the national average. For example, the average Medicare payment per home health visit in Massachusetts in 1995 was 19 percent below the national average. These programs are effective. They provide high quality home health care and help people to remain in the community and out of hospitals and nursing homes. And they do so in a cost-efficient manner. Nevertheless, the Home & Health Care Association of Massachusetts estimates that the provisions of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 could result in a loss of 1.5 million home health visits--a 20 percent reduction--this year. Under the Act, Massachusetts and other states that provide high quality care efficiently and at lower rates are at a disadvantage, whereas inefficient providers are permitted to lock in higher rates. One of the most questionable effects of the Act requires home health agencies to comply with ``per beneficiary caps'' before the federal government tells them what the caps are. The bill I am introducing delays the effective date of the caps until October 1, 1998, to allow time for agencies to adjust to forthcoming, essential guidance from the Health Care Financing Administration. In addition, this bill moves up the year--from 1994 to 1995--that will be used to calculate payments for 1998 and beyond. This change means that payments will more accurately reflect the type of home care that is currently delivered. The problem facing home health patients and agencies is substantial. Congress should address this issue now, before home health agencies that provide needed services are unfairly forced out of business, and before senior citizens are forced to go without necessary care or leave their homes for more expensive hospital care or nursing home care. The provisions of the Balanced Budget Act should be modified to avoid these unfortunate and unnecessary problems. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to just take a few moments this afternoon to express my very warm appreciation to Senator Conrad for the leadership that he has provided in bringing together a variety of different views and offering on behalf of the families of this country an absolutely superb proposal that is focused on how we are going to reduce smoking for the young people of this country. This bill isn't the perfect solution, but I daresay that if this particular legislative proposal was enacted into law it would save the lives of millions of Americans. This has been a long process, Mr. President, since the first Surgeon General pointed out the dangers of smoking. This has been a constant effort over many, many years to try and address this issue in a comprehensive and responsible way. All of us take our hats off to the work that was done by the attorneys general that resulted in the June 20 settlement. But the legislation Senator Conrad has introduced today is really a very, very comprehensive proposal that, in many respects, may be the most important legislative undertaking that we will have in this Congress. Senator Conrad and the other members of the task force should be commended in putting this proposal forward so early in the Congress. We know we have maybe 90 days left in this session, but I daresay that our time could not be more beneficially spent than in the debate and the discussion of this legislation. I join with those in hoping that we can get thoughtful consideration of this legislation in the committee on the floor of the Senate. It incorporates the principles that have been identified by the public health community and those who have studied this issue over a long period of time which are most important in reducing smoking: No. 1, raising the cost of cigarettes in a substantial way over a short period of time. In addition, the counteradvertising measures are very, very important. Those two measures in tandem can make a dramatic difference in the number of young people who will smoke in the future. The strong FDA measures will also make sure the Agency will have the power and the authority to regulate nicotine and the other additives in cigarettes. I think the attention that was given in the secondhand smoking proposals and also in recognizing our responsibilities of promoting cigarettes overseas are very thoughtful suggestions in these areas. I want to add that I believe it is so important that the revenues that are raised from this proposal will give a substantial boost to programs that affect the children of this country. A very substantial part of the financial resources that are gained when this legislation is enacted will be focused on the children who have been the focus of the tobacco industry for over a long, long period of time. I commend the Senator and the task force for that commitment to the nation's children. Secondly, there is an equally strong commitment towards supporting the biomedical research which offers such extraordinary opportunities for breakthroughs, not only in children's diseases but in other medical conditions such as cancer, AIDS, heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's Disease, and mental illness. This legislation can make a major difference in the public health of the nation by reducing youth smoking. It can also make a major difference to the children of this nation in focusing resources to make their lives more hopeful in the future. And it can make a major difference in terms of the biomedical research opportunities at NIH which offer extraordinary hope in finding treatments for some of the nation's most severe medical conditions. For all these reasons, this legislation should go forward. As Senator Conrad has pointed out, he welcomes the chance for others to join in strong support of this legislation, but certainly it is the challenge that is laid out here. Others will have views. We hope they will come forward. What we have heard so far is a deafening silence. I don't think the American people are going to tolerate a silence in blind opposition to what has been a very thoughtful, a very comprehensive, and a very detailed response to something that is of central importance to every family in this country. I commend the Senator from North Dakota for all of his work and indicate a great desire to work closely with him and the others to make sure this legislation becomes law. Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President. I rise in strong support of Margaret Morrow to the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. She is well-qualified to serve as a federal judge, and she has already been waiting far too long for the vote she deserves on her nomination. Margaret Morrow was nominated in the last Congress in May 1996. Partisan politics prevented action on her nomination before the 1996 election, but even that excuse can't be used to justify the Senate's failure to act on her nomination in all of 1997. Margaret Morrow is a partner in a prestigious California law firm, and the first woman to serve as the president of the California Bar Association. She is a well-respected attorney and a role model for women in the legal profession. Her nomination has wide support. The National Association of Women Judges calls her ``an extraordinary candidate for the federal bench, a true professional, without a personal or political agenda, who would be a trustworthy public servant of the highest caliber.'' The National Women's Law Center calls her ``a leader and a path blazer among women lawyers.'' She also has the support of many prominent Republicans, because of her impressive qualifications for the bench. Representative James Rogan says that ``she would be the type of judge who would follow the Constitution and the laws of the United States as they were written.'' Richard Riordan, the Republican Mayor of Los Angeles has stated that the residents of Los Angeles ``would be extraordinarily well-served by her appointment.'' Robert Bonner, who headed the Drug Enforcement Administration under President Bush, says that Morrow is ``a brilliant person with a first-rate legal mind.'' I hope we can move ahead today her nomination. But I also want to express my concern over a related issue--the excessive difficulty that women judicial nominees are having in obtaining Senate action or their confirmation. An unacceptable double standard is being applied, and it is long past time it stopped. In this Republican Congress, women nominated to the federal courts are four times--four times--more likely than men to be held up by the Republican Senate for more than a year. Women nominees may eventually be approved by the Judiciary Committee. But too often their nominations languish mysteriously, and no one will take responsibility for secretly holding up their nominations. The distinguished majority leader has rightly noted that the process of confirming judges is time-consuming. The Senate should take care to ensure that only individuals acceptable to both the President and the Senate are confirmed. The President and the Senate do not always agree. But there is no reason the process should take longer for women than it does for men. It is time to end the delays and double standards that have marred the Senate's role in the Advice and Consent process. I urge my colleagues to support the nomination of Margaret Morrow and to vote for her confirmation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains?

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

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. President, as the Senator from California has pointed out, we have someone who doesn't describe our position accurately and then differs with the position. And that is just what has happened here on the floor of the U.S. Senate. First of all, the committee which deals with these issues on public health has not had 1 day, 1 hour, 1 minute of hearings on this legislation. The distinguished Senator, Senator Bond, has said, ``Couldn't we sit down and discuss these measures?'' All we are saying is that a no vote gives us an opportunity to sit down in the committee and hear from the research organizations and the ethicists to try and draft legislation that is in the interest of the patients of this country. We have challenged those who support this legislation to mention one major research or patient group that supports their position. All we hear is about special interest groups that are going to benefit from this program. Do we consider the cancer society a special interest group? Do we consider the American Heart Association, the Parkinsons Action Network and the Alzheimers Aid Society special interest groups? If they are special interest groups, we are proud to stand with them. They know what is at risk. And those who support this legislation have not been able to bring to the floor of the U.S. Senate reputable researchers who believe that research towards alleviating human suffering will not be curtailed by this legislation. This has been pointed out effectively by the Senator from Florida and the Senator from South Carolina. This is not a partisan issue. We all want to have the best in terms of research for our families, for the American people and for the world. We are effectively cutting off opportunities to advance biomedical research if we impose cloture today. Let's give the committees the opportunity for full, open, informed, balanced judgment and then come back to the floor of the U.S. Senate and have a debate on this issue. Don't cut off one of the great opportunities for research in this country by voting for cloture today. I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 30 seconds. I have too much respect for my friend and colleague from Tennessee to let the comparison with Hitler and science be used on the floor of the U.S. Senate in reference to our position on this particular issue without comment. Our position has been embraced by virtually every major research group in this country. This vote isn't about a ban on the cloning of human beings. We have agreed on that principle. This vote is about preserving opportunities for major advances in biomedical research in this country. I hope the Senate will vote ``no'' on cloture.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. A letter from Dr. Gerald R. Fink, the Director of the Whitehead Institute of the American Cancer Society--one of the pre- eminent cancer research institutes in the country--explains very clearly what is at stake. Dr. Fink says: I am very concerned about efforts to bring the Bond bill to an immediate vote. While I agree that there should be a national ban on human cloning, it is essential that any such law protects areas of critical research that can benefit human health. The Bond bill's generic ban on the use of `human somatic cell transfer technology,' would in fact be quite damaging to medical research progress in the United States. The Bond bill would seriously limit our ability to develop new cell-based strategies to fight cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer's disease. It would also prevent vital research on the repair of spinal cord injuries and severe burns. I urge you to convey to your colleagues that the Bond bill would cause us to lose ground in the battle against deadly and disabling human diseases. Surely, what the Senate and the American people do not want to lose ground in the battle against deadly and disabling human diseases. More than 120 scientific and medical organizations have expressed opposition to the Lott-Bond bill or concerns about prohibition on legitimate cloning research as the result of ill-conceived or over- broad legislation. An immense array of scientific and medical societies and patient groups is opposing S. 1601. They urge us to use caution and not rush ahead without adequate consideration. Supporters of this bill say that it won't impede necessary research. If this is true, where is their support from people who know. I challenge them to cite mainstream scientific or medical organizations supporting their legislation. At the very least, we should not rush ahead without committee hearings, adequate definitions, or even a semblance of careful consideration. The scientific and medical and patients' communities know that such excessive legislation is wrong. The substance of this bill is objectionable, and so is the procedure by which it is being considered. To pass this bill tomorrow would be a travesty of the Senate's role as a deliberative body. This is one of the most important scientific and ethical issues of the 21st century. It was introduced on Tuesday of last week. It was put directly on the Senate calendar on Wednesday, with no referral to a committee. The Majority Leader tried to bring it to the floor last Thursday and filed an immediate cloture motion when he was unsuccessful. The Senate was not in session Friday--and few of our colleagues were present on Monday. This legislation has not received one day--not one hour of committee hearings here in the Senate. It has not received one minute of committee discussion and markup. The telephones in many of our offices are ringing off the hooks from scientists and physicians and patients across the country who are deeply concerned about the impact of this legislation. But he have had no opportunity for their voices to be heard. This is an important issue. It warrants Senate consideration. But it does not warrant consideration under this accelerated and indefensible procedure. The authors of this legislation know that it cannot stand up to public scrutiny, and they should not be making this extraordinary attempt to rush this legislation through the Senate. The Bond bill does not just ban cloning of human beings, it bans vital medical research related to cloning--research which has the potential to find new cures for cancer, diabetes, birth defects and genetic diseases of all kinds, blindness, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, paralysis due to spinal cord injury, arthritis, liver disease, life-threatening burns, and many other illnesses and injuries. Here is what the bill says--page 2, line 13, paragraph 301 is entitled, ``Prohibition on cloning.'' It is the heart of the bill. It states, ``It shall be unlawful for any person or entity, public or private, in or affecting interstate commerce, to use human somatic cell nuclear transfer technology.'' That is the end of the statement. It does not just ban the technology for use of human cloning. It bans if for any purpose at all. That means scientists can't use the technology to try to grow cells to aid men and women dying of leukemia. They can't use it to grow new eye tissue to help those going blind from certain types of cell degeneration. They can't use it to grow new pancreas cells to cure diabetes. They can't use it to regenerate brain tissue to cure those with Parkinson's disease or Alzheimer's disease. They can't use it to grow spinal cord tissue to cure those who have been paralyzed in accidents or by war wounds. Congress should ban the production of human being by cloning. But we should not ban scientific research that has so much potential to bring help and hope to millions of citizens. As J. Benjamin Younger, Executive Director of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, has said: We must work together to ensure that in our effort to make human cloning illegal, we do not sentence millions of people to needless suffering because research and progress into their illness cannot proceed. Let us work together. Let us stop this unnecessarily destructive know-nothing bill. Let us vote against cloture tomorrow and send this bill to committee, where it can receive the careful consideration it deserves. Together, we can develop legislation that will ban the cloning of human beings, without banning needed medical research that can bring the blessings of good health to so many millions of our fellow citizens. Mr. President, I am delighted to join in this effort with my friend and colleague and our leader in this whole effort, the Senator from California, Senator Feinstein. Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will cast one of the most important votes on health care in this Congress, and perhaps of this decade. That vote will determine whether one of the most promising avenues of research against a host of serious diseases will continue, or whether Congress will act to ban it--and condemn millions of Americans to unnecessary death and disability. The vote that will occur is on a cloture motion to take up S. 1601. The authors of S. 1601 say that it is a bill to ban the production of human beings by cloning--an attempt to stop Dr. Seed and other unscrupulous scientists in their tracks. But that claim cannot pass the truth in advertising test. S. 1601 goes far beyond a ban on the cloning of human beings, which we all support. This legislation also bans the use of the technology for any purpose, even though the research would be used to create cures for cancer, diabetes, spinal cord injuries, arthritis-damaged joints, birth defects, and a host of tragic diseases such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, Lou Gehrig's Disease, multiple sclerosis, and many other serious illnesses. It is not necessary to ban all of this important life-saving research in order to achieve our goal of banning the cloning of a human being. Every scientist in America understands the threat this legislation poses to critical medical research. Every American should understand it, too. A vote against this bill is a vote for medical research. It is a vote for millions of Americans suffering from serious diseases for whom this cutting-edge technology offers hope of new and miraculous cures. A vote against this bill is certainly not a vote in favor of cloning human beings. Congress can and should act to ban the cloning of human beings. But we should not pass legislation that goes far beyond what the American people want or what the scientific and medical community says is necessary and appropriate. It should also be clear to everyone that there is absolutely no need to act tomorrow to prevent cloning of a human being. No reputable scientist wants to clone human beings. Scientifically, it cannot be done yet. And the FDA, which has jurisdiction over this area, has made it clear that it has both the authority and intention to prevent any human cloning until further research is done. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from FDA making this point be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Senator Feinstein and I strongly support a ban on the cloning of human beings. We have introduced legislation to accomplish that goal. We hope that it can be reviewed through the normal committee process of hearings and mark-up. Responsible legislation to ban the cloning of human beings can and should be enacted. But S. 1601 is not such legislation. It is an attempt to capitalize on public concern to rush through a sweeping and unacceptable ban on a wide array of medical research. Every day, the concern about this legislation and the opposition to it grows. President Clinton and the Administration strongly support responsible legislation to ban human cloning. The President called for a ban on creation of a human being by cloning in the State of the Union message. If S. 1601 were simply a ban on creation of a human being by cloning, it would receive the Administration's wholehearted support. But that is not what S. 1601 does, and that is why the Administration says in its letter: The Administration . . . believes S. 1601, as introduced, is too far-reaching because it would prohibit important biomedical research aimed at preventing and treating serious and life-threatening disease. Therefore, the Administration does not support passage of the bill in its current form. As the scientific and medical community learns more about this legislation, almost universal opposition is developing. The American Association of Medical Colleges has circulated a letter to other scientific and medical organizations asking that this legislation not go forward. The letter is signed by 71 distinguished organizations, from the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, to the Association of American Cancer Institutes to the Parkinson's Action Network--and the list continues to grow. The letter states: The current opportunities in biomedical research are unparalleled in our nation's history. To ensure that these continue, the scientific and organized medicine communities urge you to oppose legislation that would prohibit the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer due to the grave implications it may have for future advances in biomedical research in human healing. The letter goes on to compare S. 1601's attempts to ban not just cloning of human beings but use of the technique itself to the ill- considered attempts to ban recombinant DNA techniques in the early 1970's. They state: Like the recombinant DNA debate, the scientific techniques involved in cloning research hold great promise for our ability to treat and manage myriad diseases and disorders-- from cancer and heart disease, to Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, to infertility and HIV/AIDS. Just yesterday, Alan Holmer, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturer's Association's President sent up a letter to members of the Senate on behalf of our nation's research pharmaceutical industry members urging a ``no'' vote on cloture on S. 1601. He said: Pharmaceutical companies and their researchers are not, nor do they support, cloning entire human beings. However, without more deliberation and a meaningful opportunity for comment by the scientific and patient communities, we fear that passage of this bill also will foreclose a promising line of research. The research involves stem cells which, unlike most other cells of the human body, retain the ability to renew themselves and to differentiate into specialized cells. Based upon a better understanding of the differentiation process, scientists may be able to take the cell of a patient paralyzed by an accident, induce that cell to return to a primary state, and then coax it to differentiate into the spinal cord nerve cell needed by that patient. Such cells than could be transplanted back into the patient, whose body would not reject those perfect genetic matches. This procedure could help not only victims of traumatic injuries, but also patients suffering from diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, and other dread diseases that cause suffering and death, reduce the quality of life for both patients and their families, and cost our economy hundreds of billions of dollars annually. Any hope for such cell-based therapies would be stymied if this avenue of research were foreclosed. These are our great research pharmaceutical companies speaking, the companies we depend upon to turn basic research in the laboratory into medical miracles at the patient's bedside. And they are saying, ``Stop this bill, because it could destroy our hope to find cures for these dread diseases.'' I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Also yesterday, twenty-seven Nobel prize-winners submitted a letter opposing cloning legislation that would choke off critical medical research. The more the research community understands what the Lott-Bond bill will do, the more alarmed they become. An editorial in the New York Times this morning represents a growing sense of concern in newspapers around the country. The editorial is entitled, ``A Slapdash Approach to Cloning.'' It states: Senate Republicans are now rushing to enact a bill that would outlaw cloning a human embryo and, in the process, ban a valuable technique that could potentially cure a wide range of diseases. No wonder a slew of scientific associations and high-tech industry groups are urging more carefully constructed legislation. The sensitive scientific and moral issues involved here require careful handling, not grandstanding by politicians more interested in pandering than in reaching a reasoned solution. The editorial concludes: When the matter comes up for a floor vote this week, the Senate should postpone action and demand more considered deliberation. It would be a shame if the rush to ban cloning of people ended up crippling biomedical research. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time again do we have?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know Senator Daschle wants to speak in favor of the nominee, and there are only 7 minutes left. I will take just 2 minutes, and then I hope that those who are opposed to the nominee will take what time they need, and then the time-honored tradition is that those who are in support of the nominee are generally accorded the courtesy of the last response. Mr. President, as we approach the vote, I want to point out that the various questions, allegations and charges that have been made to try to disqualify Dr. Satcher have been responded to, and none more eloquently than by our friend and colleague, the chairman of the Health Subcommittee of the Human Resources Committee, Senator Frist. I hope that those Members who have some questions in their mind have listened very carefully to those responses, because I think they accurately respond to the various allegations and charges. Finally, I just want to say that Dr. Satcher is uniquely well qualified. His life has been a life of service. He was one of 3 out of 70 students who graduated from his high school to go on to college. He graduated magna cum laude from his college. He was at the top of his class at Case Western Reserve University where he pursued a medical degree and a Ph.D. Dr. Satcher is a respected family doctor, researcher, teacher, and administrator, affiliated with some of the great universities of this country. He is an individual who has looked out for fairness and decency in the service to families in this country. Dr. Satcher has a unique background and it is due to this background that every single health organization, without exception, has endorsed Dr. Satcher. Every single one of them has endorsed him. The past Secretary of HEW, the very distinguished Dr. Louis Sullivan, has endorsed him as well. We are very fortunate to have Dr. Satcher as a nominee. I commend the President and look forward to a vote of cloture so we can get on with the business of getting him in place to serve the American public. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of endorsement of Dr. Satcher from the head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Barry McCaffrey, and the Director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Harold Varmus, be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, what is the allocation of time that remains?

Mr. KENNEDY

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

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