Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 4 minutes 33 seconds to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, could we have 40 minutes then on the bill?

Mr. KENNEDY. No.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the D.C. voucher bill because it is unacceptable and unconstitutional. We all want to help the children of the District of Columbia get a good education. But this voucher provision is not the way to do it. Public funds should be used for public schools, not to pay for a small number of students to attend private and religious schools. Earlier this week, the House of Representatives soundly defeated a similar bill. It was Congress' first vote on a free-standing private school voucher bill. It's clear that private school vouchers are not the panacea that voucher proponents would like them to be. Americans do not want vouchers--they want to improve public education, not undermine it. President Clinton is a strong leader on education. In fact, President Clinton is the education President. He is leading the battle for education reform. The country is proud of his leadership, and our Republican colleagues don't know what to do. They keep shooting themselves in the foot in their repeated attempts to devise a Republican alternative that will satisfy their right wing hostility to public education and still have the support of the American people. It can't be done. First they tried to abolish the U.S. Department of Education. Then they tried to make deep cuts in funds for public schools. They even shut down the Government when they couldn't get their way. Now they are trying the same trick through the back door, using public funds to subsidize private schools. It won't work, and they shouldn't try. It is clear that President Clinton will veto the D.C. voucher bill, and he is right to veto it. The current debate involves schools in the District of Columbia. But the use of Federal funds for private schools is a national issue that Congress has addressed and rejected many times before. And so have many States. Now, voucher proponents are attempting to make the D.C. public schools a guinea pig for a scheme that voters in D.C. have soundly rejected, and so have voters across the country. Recent voucher proposals in Washington, Colorado, and California lost by over 2-to-1 margins. In 1981, D.C. voters defeated a voucher initiative by a ratio of 8 to 1, and the concept has never been brought up on the ballot again because it has so little support. Clearly, Congress should not impose on the District of Columbia what the people of D.C. and voters across the country reject. Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, and D.C. parents, ministers, and other local leaders have made it clear that they do not want vouchers in the District of Columbia. Members of Congress who can't get to first base with this issue in their own States should not turn around and impose it on the people of the District. Vouchers would undermine D.C. school reforms already underway. Last year, Congress created a Control Board and all but eliminated the locally elected school board. This bill would create yet another bureaucracy in the form of a federally appointed corporation to run the voucher program. Six of the seven corporation members would be nominated by the Federal Government, and those nominations are controlled by the Republican Congress. Only one representative of D.C. would serve on the corporation. This is precisely the kind of Federal takeover of a local school system that Republican Senators oppose for any other community in America. Public funds should not go to private schools when District of Columbia public schools have urgent needs of their own. Roof repairs still need to be made; 65 percent of the schools have faulty plumbing; 41 percent of the schools don't have enough power outlets and electrical wiring to accommodate computers and other needed technology; 66 percent of the schools have inadequate heating, ventilation, and air conditioning. Funding these repairs should be our top priority, not conducting a foolish ideological experiment on school vouchers. Another serious problem with private school vouchers is the exclusionary policies of private schools. Scarce Federal dollars should not go to schools that can exclude children. There is no requirement in the bill that schools receiving vouchers must accept minority students, or students with limited English proficiency, or students with disabilities, or homeless students, or students with discipline problems. Public schools are open to all children. Public schools don't have the luxury of closing their doors to students who pose difficult challenges. Voucher proponents argue that vouchers increase choice for parents. But choice for parents is a mirage. Private schools apply different rules than public schools. Unlike public schools, which 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 selective it is, and the more students are turned away. In Cleveland, nearly half of the public school students who received vouchers could not find a private school that would accept them. Vouchers will not help the overwhelming majority of children who need help. The current voucher scheme will, at most, enable 2,000 D.C. children to attend private schools, out of the 78,000 children who attend D.C. public schools. This proposal would provide vouchers for 3 percent of D.C. children--and do nothing for the other 97 percent. This is no way to spend federal dollars. We should invest in strategies that help all children, not just a few. As I have said before, instead of supporting local efforts to revitalize the schools, voucher proponents are attempting to make the D.C. public schools a guinea pig for an ideological experiment in education that voters in D.C. have soundly rejected, and that voters across the country have soundly rejected too. Our Republican colleagues have clearly been unable to generate any significant support for vouchers in their own States. It is a travesty of responsible action for them to attempt to foist their discredited idea on the long- suffering people and long-suffering public schools of the District of Columbia. If vouchers are a bad idea for the public schools in all 50 States, they are a bad idea for the public schools of the District of Columbia too. Many of us in Congress favor D.C. home rule. Many of us in Congress believe that the people of the District of Columbia should be entitled to have voting representation in the Senate and the House, like the people in every State. It is an embarrassment to our democracy that the most powerful democracy on Earth denies the most basic right of any democracy--the right to vote--to the citizens of the Nation's Capital. D.C. is not a test tube for misguided Republican ideological experiments on education. Above all, D.C. is not a slave plantation. Republicans in Congress should stop acting like plantation masters, and start treating the people of D.C. with the respect they deserve. General Becton, local leaders, and D.C. parents are working hard to improve all D.C. public schools for all children. Congress should give them its support, not undermine them. Another serious objection to this voucher scheme is its unconstitutionality. The vast majority of private schools that charge tuition less than the $3,200 available for a voucher are religious schools. Providing vouchers to religious schools violates the establishment clause of the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It's a Federal subsidy for sectarian schools. In many States, voucher schemes would violate the State constitution, too. Last January, a Wisconsin lower court held that the expansion of the Milwaukee voucher program to include religious schools was unconstitutional and violated the Wisconsin Constitution. The court stated that ``We do not object to the existence of parochial schools or that they attempt to spread their beliefs through their schools. They just cannot do it with State tax dollars.'' Last August, the Wisconsin State Court of Appeals affirmed that decision, holding that the expansion of the State voucher program to include religious schools was unconstitutional under the Wisconsin Constitution. Last May, an Ohio appellate court reversed a trial court's decision to allow public money to be paid to religious schools. The appeals court held that the voucher program violated the principle of separation of church and state under both the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution. The court ruled that the voucher program ``steers aid to sectarian schools, resulting in what amounts to a direct government subsidy.'' Last June, a Vermont State Superior Court held that the use of vouchers to pay tuition at private religious schools violates both the U.S. Constitution and the Vermont Constitution. As these cases demonstrate, the courts are clear that vouchers for religious schools are unconstitutional, and Congress should abide by their rulings. Last month, in a keynote address to the Conference of the Council of Great City Schools, Coretta Scott King said, I don't have a lot of sympathy with those who would further diminish the resources available to urban public schools with a voucher system . . . The debate over vouchers takes the focus away from where it really needs to be--on how we can increase funding and resources, so that every public school can provide the best possible education for all students. Coretta King is right. Instead of subsidizing private schools, we need to support ways to improve and reform the public schools--not in a few schools, but in all schools; not for a few students, but for all students. Subsidies for a few children at the expense of the many divides communities. The federal government should help bring communities together, not divide them. We should make investments that help all children in all neighborhood schools to get a good, safe education. I oppose the D.C. voucher bill as unwise, unacceptable, and unconstitutional. Private school vouchers are not the answer to the problems facing the nation's schools. It is a mistake and a misuse of tax dollars to send children to private schools at public expense.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Graham, Senator Mack, Senator Abraham, and Senator Moseley-Braun in introducing legislation providing permanent residence to Haitian refugees. The Senate has now adopted legislation to enable Nicaraguan and Cuban refugees to remain permanently in the United States as immigrants, and to enable Salvadorans and Guatemalans to seek similar relief on a case- by-case basis. Haitian refugees deserve no less. These families fled violence, torture, murder and other atrocities in Haiti. The Bush administration and the Clinton administration found that the vast majority of these refugees fled from Haiti because of a legitimate fear of persecution. These deserving Haitian refugees have resettled in many different States. They brought with them an unparalleled love of freedom, and a strong commitment to our democracy. They honor the opportunity that America offers. They were welcomed by churches and neighborhood groups, who have helped them rebuild their lives in communities across America. Today, they are contributing and valued members of our society. Immigration relief for Haitian refugees should have been included in the legislation to assist the refugees from Central America. President Clinton wrote to Speaker Gingrich to emphasize the importance of comparable relief for Haitian refugee families at a time when Congress was acting on relief for other refugees. Haitian refugees deserve the same immigration opportunities that the Republican leadership is proposing for refugees from Central America. But the Republican leadership in Congress said no. They even rejected our efforts at least to provide immediate relief from deportation for Haitian families. While the Republicans said no to these refugees, I understand that the Clinton administration will be taking steps to assure these Haitian families that they will be protected from deportation while Congress considers legislation in the coming months to allow the families to seek permanent residence here. And I commend Senator Moseley-Braun for her extraordinary leadership in working with the administration to achieve this important result, as well as Representative Carrie Meek for her tireless efforts for Haitian refugees. The legislation we are introducing will provide the fair relief that is greatly needed. It is a matter of simple justice. It should be adopted as soon as possible and I regret it was not part of the measure enacted today.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Specter and Senator Harkin for giving education the high priority it deserves in the fiscal year 1998 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations conference report, and I give it my strong support. We all know the serious challenges we face in improving public education and increasing access to college. Enrollments in elementary and secondary schools have reached an all-time high of 52 million children this year, and will continue to rise in the years ahead. Forty percent of fourth graders score below the basic level in reading, and fewer than 30 percent score in the advanced category. Yet our modern economy and the country's future depend more and more heavily on well- trained people. This bill increases funding for Federal education programs by $3.4 billion over last year to help provide young children with a good education and help more qualified students go to college. The bill provides a $1.5 billion increase in Pell grants to help an additional 210,000 young people attend college, and increases the maximum Pell grant from $2,700 to $3,000. The bill increases funding for title I by $200 million to help disadvantaged students get the extra help they need to improve their math and reading skills. The Education Technology Literacy Challenge Fund is more than doubled, from $200 million to $425 million. The technology innovation challenge grants receive $106 million, an increase of $49 million, to help teachers learn to use technology effectively and help schoolchildren prepare for the 21st century. The highly successful Star Schools Program will receive $34 million to continue to provide educational services to remote and underserved areas. The bill also increases Head Start funding by $375 million, including $279 million for the Early Head Start Program, to help more preschool children reach school ready to learn. Special education receives $775 million more than last year to help more children with disabilities get a good, appropriate education. The bill also contains a compromise on the issue of testing. Despite the efforts of many parents, schools, and communities to improve education, too many schools in communities across the country are educating in the dark. They have no way to compare the performance of their students with students in other schools in other communities in other parts of the country. We know that by every current indicator, the performance of American elementary and secondary school students falls far short of the performance of students in many other countries. We have to do better, and knowing where schools and students now stand is an essential part of helping them do better. This bill addresses these issues by including a fair compromise on President Clinton's proposal for voluntary national tests based on widely recognized national standards, so that parents, communities, and schools will have a better guide for improving local education. The voluntary national tests will be designed to test fourth grade reading and eighth grade math--two basic subjects at two critical times in students' academic development. Parents want to know how well their children are doing and how well their schools are doing, compared to other students and schools across the Nation. Voluntary national tests are an effective way to support local school reform, and I commend the conferees for their decision to move forward on these tests. This bill takes another step forward in higher education, too, by creating the Emergency Student Loan Consolidation Act. I commend Senator Jeffords for his leadership in continuing to make paying for college easier for more students. The Emergency Student Loan Consolidation Act reflects Congress's concern for students who have been unable to consolidate their loans in the direct loan program due to problems with the Department of Education's contractor. The act responds by opening up consolidation under the bank loan program to students who have direct loans. It does so without undermining the Department of Education's ability to pay for the administration of the loan programs. The act contains important nondiscrimination provisions that will help prevent lenders from choosing to allow consolidation of loans only for the most profitable borrowers. We will have an opportunity to do more on nondiscrimination during the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, but this bill is a good step toward making loans truly available to all students. The act also makes an important adjustment in the needs analysis calculation, so that needy students will benefit more effectively from the President's new education tax credits. Students who benefit from the HOPE tax credit and the life-long learning tax credit should not be penalized in their eligibility for future Federal financial aid. This change will help approximately 70,000 needy students, and it is an important part of this act. In addition to these advances in education, I also commend Senators Specter and Harkin for including increased funding for important health, energy, and biomedical research programs. This year's spending bill provides more funds for the Ryan White AIDS Program and the Community and Migrant Health Program. It provides $1.1 billion in fiscal year 1999 for LIHEAP, which will enable this program to serve thousands of additional senior citizens, the disabled, and working families by providing them with heating and cooling assistance. And it provides an increase of $907 million over last year for the National Institutes of Health. These investments in biomedical research hold great promise for the Nation to cure or prevent illnesses, and can also be an important factor in finding a long-term solution to the fiscal problems facing Medicare. One of the few major problems with the conference report is that it retains the ban on using any Labor Department funds in the bill to oversee the forthcoming Teamsters election. That election is a rerun of the 1996 election conducted under government supervision as part of the important ongoing effort to free the Teamsters from domination by organized crime. The 1996 election was cancelled because of fundraising improprieties by both sides driving the election campaign. A Federal court has ordered a rerun of the election, and Labor Department funds should be available to supervise it. The conference report is also disappointing in its funding of the National Labor Relations Board, which is frozen at last year's level. This result will require the agency to lay off 50 employees, and will hamper its ability to process its pending cases. There is no justification for Congress to disrupt the Nation's industrial relations in this way. There are many worthwhile provisions in this bill, and I intend to support it. But I hope that in action early next year, we can reconsider these unwise provisions and achieve a more satisfactory resolution.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I give my strong support to the bill being introduced today by Senator Moseley-Braun to provide up to $1 billion a year for improving America's school facilities. Good education begins with good places to learn. We can't expect children to learn, when school roofs are crumbling, pipes are leaking, and boilers are failing. Adequate school facilities are essential to prepare children for the 21st century. It's preposterous to pretend that we can prepare students for the 21st century in dilapidated 19th century classrooms. We can no longer ignore this national crisis. We need to develop effective public-private partnerships to address these needs. Senator Moseley-Braun's bill provides that opportunity. Schools across the country are facing enormous problems with crumbling facilities. 14 million children in one-third of the nation's schools are now learning in substandard school buildings. Over half of all schools report at least one major building in disrepair, with cracked foundations, leaking roofs, or other major problems. This bill can be a major start toward repairing the nation's crumbling schools, by encouraging business and government to work together. It offers tax credits to developers and builders to cover costs of school improvements. Each state will receive funds based on the number of school-age children in the state who are eligible for federal education assistance. The states will have the flexibility to award the tax credits to developers in school districts with the greatest need. The credits will be taken against the developer's income, like other business tax credits. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Moseley-Braun's bill to help local communities rebuild America's crumbling schools. I look forward to continuing to work with her to make sure that Congress does its part to help address this national need.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the long impasse over the membership of the National Labor Relations Board is finally broken. For the first time since August 1995, the Board will have a full complement of five confirmed members. As a result, the Board will have additional resources to handle the many important cases on its docket. There will be greater certainly in industrial relations, which is good for labor, good for management, and good for the country. The nominees to be confirmed represent a balanced and fair package. The two Republican nominees, Peter Huertgen of Miami and J. Robert Bram III of Charlottesville, VA, are distinguished management lawyers, with many years of experience in Federal court in the NLRB litigation, and I know they will make a significant contribution as members of that Board. There are also two Democratic nominees, Wilma Liebman and Sarah Fox, both of Washington, DC. Ms. Liebman has served as Deputy Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service since 1994, and she has done an outstanding job. She helped to resolve dozens of disputes between labor and management, and worked effectively to administer the operations of the FMCS. Ms. Liebman also has extensive experience representing labor unions and their members. She brings a wealth of knowledge of labor-management relations to this position. and I am confident she will serve with great distinction on the Board. I am particularly pleased that the Senate will finally confirm the nomination of Sarah Fox, who is well known to many of us in the Senate. From 1990 until January 1996, she served as counsel on the Labor Committee staff, and she did an extraordinary job on issues of vital importance to working families, especially in areas such as job safety and health, pension rights, fair wages, and reform of job training programs and the Davis-Bacon Act. She worked well with Senators on both sides of the aisle, and has been serving as a recess appointee on the Board. I have great respect to Sarah's ability an commitment to public service, and I'm delighted by her confirmation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, I am joining Senators Lautenberg, Durbin, Reed, and Kerry to introduce the Healthy and Smokefree Children Act, which is a comprehensive tobacco control initiative. Congress has an historic opportunity in the next session to protect current and future generations from nicotine addiction and early death caused by tobacco. We know the enormous adverse health consequences of youth smoking. Each day, three thousand children begin smoking. A thousand of them will die prematurely from tobacco-induced illnesses. Ninety percent of current adult smokers began to smoke before they reached the age of 18. Our primary goal is to reduce youth smoking and help children. Our legislation will raise the price of cigarettes by $1.50 a pack over three years. A substantial portion of the revenues raised by the increase will be used to fund major new initiatives in biomedical research, child health, and child development. The legislation will affirm the authority of the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco products. It also provides for strongly worded warning labels on packs of cigarettes, for a large- scale anti-tobacco advertising campaign, new restrictions on youth access to tobacco products, new protections against secondhand smoke, and transitional assistance to farmers. Public health experts tell us that the most effective way to reduce youth smoking is by a significant increase in the price of cigarettes. Teenagers have less money to spend on tobacco products than adults, and those who are not yet addicted will be less likely to spend their dollars on smoking. In fact, price increases are three times more likely to deter youth from smoking than adults. The 65 cent increase in the Attorneys' General settlement is not enough to do the job. If the national goal is to dramatically reduce teenage smoking, a price increase of at least $1.50 a pack will be needed. Even with a price increase of that magnitude, cigarettes in America will still cost less than the current price in many European countries. It would be irresponsible to wait another decade while we test the impact of lesser measures on youth smoking. Too many children are becoming addicted to tobacco each day. The most effective way to reduce youth smoking is a substantial price increase, and we should do it now. The $1.50 increase will enable us to provide approximately $20 billion per year to be divided equally between medical research and child development investments. Under our proposal, half of these additional funds will be used for an unprecedented expansion of biomedial research to solve the scientific mysteries of the most severe diseases and medical conditions. We stand on the threshold of extraordinary medical breakthroughts against cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's Disease, AIDS, diabetes, mental illness, and many other conditions. The benefits of greater research will save millions of lives and improve the quality of life for countless more. The other half of the new funds will be directed to child health and child development. The brain research conducted in recent years has demonstrated the critical importance of the first three years of life to a child's learning potential. Additional resources will enable us to build on that foundation of knowledge, and implement it in ways that will enrich the lives of the next generation of children. By expanding Head Start to reach the large number of eligible pre-school children who are not now being served, and by improving the quality and availability of child care for working families, we can give far more children a better foundation on which to build their lives. In addition, under our proposal, the key public health provisions in the Attorneys General agreement will be implemented, and smokers seeking to stop will be able to obtain help in overcoming their addiction. States will receive compensation from the tobacco industry for their Medicaid costs attributable to smoking, and will not have to reimburse the federal government for the federal share of the Medicaid costs recovered. These funds will be available to the states to address the unmet needs of children. A strong FDA with broad authority to regulate tobacco is also essential. Our legislation affirms FDA's finding that nicotine is an addictive drug and that cigarettes are a drug delivery device. The scope of regulation will include manufacturing, marketing, advertising, and distributing tobacco products. The FDA will be freed from the numerous procedural roadblocks which the tobacco industry has placed in its path. This legislation will substantially reduce smoking in America, enhance medical research, and help millions of children reach their full potential. Congress has a unique opportunity. We own it to America's children and America's future to act now. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the recent dispute between the Federal Maritime Commission and Japanese cargo vessel owners over the operation of Japan's docks has given Congress and the country a new lesson in the important role of United States longshore workers. Day in and day out, away from the limelight, they work long hours under back- breaking conditions. In so many ways, these hard-working men and women symbolize the American work ethic. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal compared the productivity of American longshore workers favorably with that of their Japanese counterparts. The article noted that ``American dockworkers will unload 24 hours a day, taking 30% less time for about half the price.'' The recent trade dispute has helped these workers obtain the recognition they deserve for their invaluable work in keeping commerce moving at our nation's ports. According to recent figures, 1.7 tons of cargo a year are handled by longshore workers in the United States, with a value of nearly $900 billion. As the Senate debates important questions of international trade and fair competition, I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to these skillful, tireless, and courageous workers who do so much to support the Nation's economy and our trade with other countries. U.S. longshore workers across the Nation deserve America's gratitude--they have certainly earned it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the promise of new biomedical research is boundless. As impressive as the progress of the past has been, it pales in comparison to future opportunities. We stand on the threshold of stunning advances in medicine. Supporting biomedical research is among the wisest possible investments we can make in our Nation's future. Support for clinical research is central to biomedical research. Clinical research is essential for the advancement of scientific knowledge and the development of cures and improvement treatments of disease. Tremendous advances in basic biological research are opening doors to new insights into all aspects of medicine. As a result, there are extraordinary opportunities for cutting-edge clinical research to translate breakthroughs in the laboratory to the bedsides of patients. Improvements in patient care and diagnosis and prevention of disease depend upon clinical research that brings basic research discoveries to the bedside. In addition, the results of clinical research are incorporated by industry and developed into new drugs, vaccines, and health care products. These developments strengthen the economy and create jobs. Advances in biomedical research may also prove to be the most effective way to reduce the country's health care costs in the long run. As our Nation's demographics change and the baby boomers move toward retirement, financing Medicare has become an increasing concern. A Duke University study released earlier this year suggests that a small improvement in the disability rate of older Americans can bring large cost savings for Medicare. Investment in medical research will result in healthier older Americans and lower costs to Medicare. Despite these clear benefits, clinical research is in crisis. The resources dedicated to such research, particularly at the NIH, have fallen to a level that places the United States at a serious international disadvantage. Studies by the Institute of Medicine, the National Research Council, the National Academy of Sciences, and the National Institutes of Health have highlighted significant problems in the Nation's clinical research efforts. A 1994 report by the Institute of Medicine, for example, characterized the current level of training and support for health research professionals as ``fragmented, frequently undervalued and potentially underfunded.'' The legislation we are introducing today seeks to enhance support of clinical research by addressing the issues that have caused this crisis in clinical research. First, it will implement the longstanding recommendations regarding the merit review process for clinical research proposals at NIH. Second, it will provide greater support for general clinical research centers. Third, it will create new opportunities to pursue clinical research. A Clinical Research Career Enhancement Award will enable a clinical researcher to pursue research projects with a mentor prior to independent pursuit of research. For more established researchers, the Innovative Medical Science Award will provide funds to apply basic scientific discoveries to medical treatment. Both awards will generate the protected time which is so valuable to physician-scientists. Fourth, the bill provides support for individuals seeking advanced degrees in clinical investigation. Fifth, it expands the Loan Repayment Program for clinical researchers to encourage the recruitment of new investigators. A solid infrastructure is essential to any research program. In clinical research, that infrastructure is provided by the general clinical research centers at academic health centers throughout the country. Support for these centers was once largely provided by academic health centers. Today, academic health centers provide approximately $1 billion annually from clinical revenues to support clinical research. However, academic health centers are confronted with heavy competition from nonteaching institutions and are increasingly obligated to emphasize patient care over research to minimize costs. In the face of these changes, clinical researchers have become more dependent on NIH for infrastructure support. In spite of the expanding need, NIH support for the general clinical research centers has barely kept up with inflation. The centers are consistently funded at 75 percent of the funding level recommended by the NIH's own Advisory Council. This level is not adequate for the backbone of the Nation's clinical research efforts. Clearly we need to do more. The number of physicians choosing careers in clinical investigation is in serious decline. Between 1985 and 1997, the number of physicians increased by 34 percent, while the number of physicians pursuing research decreased by 37 percent. Fewer young physicians are choosing careers in research, and we need to reverse that decline. Student debt is a major barrier to pursuing clinical research. Young physicians graduate from medical school with an average debt burden of $80,000. Limited financial opportunity in clinical research has caused many young physicians to choose more lucrative medical practice. NIH has acknowledged this problem and has established a loan repayment subsidy to encourage the recruitment of clinical researchers to NIH. Our legislation expands the current program. Many of today's young clinical investigators are unfamiliar with research methodology. Dr. Harold Varmus, the Director of NIH, has articulated the need for individuals seeking careers in clinical research to have access to clinical research-specific training programs after they graduate from medical school. The NIH already supports a postgraduate training for those pursuing basic research. This legislation will support a comparable program for clinical investigators. Clinical researchers at academic health centers are also increasingly urged to turn their attention away from research to generate greater revenues. This loss of protected time has a significant adverse impact on their ability to compete for NIH research grants. This problem is particularly difficult for young researchers still seeking mentored research experience during the early years of clinical investigation. The NIH currently has awards to provide mentored career development experiences for basic scientists. Our legislation creates career development awards to help meet this need. Less than a third of all NIH grantees are physicians. Only a fraction of them receive awards for clinical investigation. The funding gap for clinical research is most severe in the earliest phases of clinical investigation, where basic scientific discoveries are tested on a small scale in studies involving few patients. Industry will not support such research in non-product-oriented studies and often regard such efforts as too speculative. The medical science awards in our bill will ensure funding for these important research initiatives. The need for reform of the peer review system has been documented by studies by the Institute of Medicine and an outside review committee of the NIH Division of Research Grants, which is responsible for the peer review process. So far, their recommendations have not been implemented, and the bias against clinical research persists. Our legislation will implement these recommendations and provide effective evaluation of clinical research proposals. The funds authorized by our legislation to support clinical research do not target specific diseases. The funds would go to peer-reviewed proposals to translate basic scientific discoveries into treatment and prevention of disease. Without such legislation, clinical research will continue to decline to a point where advances in medicine will no longer come from this country but from abroad. Mr. President, our bill is supported by more than a hundred and forty biomedical associations and organizations. I would like to thank the American Federation for Medical Research for their efforts to support this legislation and ask unanimous consent that the list of supporters, the letters of support be and a copy of the bill be included in the Record. I look forward to working with my colleagues as we move this important legislation through Congress.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to express my concern at the delay in the vote on the nomination of David Satcher to be Surgeon General and Assistant Secretary for Health. I understand that some Senators have placed holds on the nomination. Dr. Satcher is an excellent choice for these positions. He is a respected family doctor, respected scholar, and respected public health leader. For the past 4 years, he has ably led the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the agency responsible for protecting the Nation's health and preventing disease, injury, and premature death. In 1992, under Dr. Satcher's leadership, CDC developed and implemented a very successful childhood immunization initiative. Before the initiative, only a little more than half the Nation's children--55 percent--were immunized. Today, the figure is 78 percent, and vaccine- preventable childhood diseases are now at record lows. Dr. Satcher has also led CDC efforts to deal more effectively with infectious diseases and food-borne illnesses. We rely heavily on CDC to provide the rapid response needed to combat outbreaks of disease and protect public safety. Under Dr. Satcher, CDC is implementing a new strategy against infectious diseases and a new early warning system to deal with food-borne illnesses. Prior to his appointment to CDC, Dr. Satcher was president of Meharry Medical College in Nashville, the Nation's largest private historically black institution for educating health care professionals and biomedical researchers. He previously served as professor and chairman of the Department of Community Medicine and Family Practice at the Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta. He also has been a faculty member at the UCLA School of Medicine and the King/Drew Medical Center in Los Angeles, and interim dean of the Drew Postgraduate Medical School. Dr. Satcher's range of skills and experience and his strong commitment to improving public health make him extremely well qualified to be the country's principal official on health care and health policy issues--America's Doctor. He's an excellent choice to be Surgeon General and Assistant Secretary for Health. Dr. Satcher's nomination has received broad bipartisan support. He's been endorsed by a large number of health provider groups, including the American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, numerous academic health centers, and public health organizations. Despite these endorsements, a few detractors have emerged and I want to take a few moments to address their concerns. Some colleagues have questioned Dr. Satcher's views on abortion. This was not an issue at his confirmation hearing, but some Senators are using the controversial and unconstitutional ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act'' to attack his credibility. Dr. Satcher believes--as do most Americans--that abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. His position reflects 25 years of medical experience and is consistent with Supreme Court decisions. In fact, Dr. Satcher supports a ban on late-term abortions. But he shares President Clinton's view that ``if there are risks for severe health consequences for the mother, then the decision [to have an abortion] should not be made by the government, but by the woman in conjunction with her family and physician.'' Dr. Satcher's position on this issue is shared by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Women's Association, the American Nurses Association, and the American Public Health Association. Some in the Republican leadership have raised this issue in an attempt to defeat an outstanding nominee. Instead of resolving the late-term abortion issue months ago, they would rather play politics with Dr. Satcher's nomination and the lives and health of American women. The nation faces significant public health challenges. Our national infant mortality rate is at a record low, but it is still higher than that of many countries. Despite recent declines in the teenage birth rate, the U.S rate is still the highest in the industrial world. Similarly, in the case of childhood immunization, the rate nationwide may be the highest ever, but in many communities, less than half of 2- year-olds are adequately immunized. The country needs a medical leader whom people can trust to advise them on their health care. For over two years, the Office of Surgeon General has been vacant. It is irresponsible to put partisanship ahead of public health and safety. Dr. Satcher is an excellent choice to be the Nation's Doctor. I look forward to working closely with him, and I urge the Senate to move expeditiously to approve this nomination, so that we can deal more effectively with the country's important health challenges. I am confident that Dr. Satcher will serve America well. He deserves to be confirmed now, before this session of Congress ends.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support free trade between the United States and other countries. Mr. President, I yield such time as I might use from the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support free trade between the United States and other countries. I have supported fast-track authority in the past, and I wish I could still do so. But this fast-track bill is grossly one-sided and unfair. It goes the extra mile to protect intellectual property rights and other rights of business. Yet it puts major roadblocks in front of any effort to protect the rights of workers. The bill lists 15 so-called principal negotiating objectives. Negotiators are directed to pursue these matters vigorously in trade talks with other nations. One of the objectives urges negotiators to seek strict enforcement of laws protecting copyrights, patents, and intellectual property. The bill even directs negotiators to seek criminal penalties for violations of intellectual property rights. But the bill is silent about any corresponding effort to promote workers' rights. Negotiators are forbidden to encourage other countries to improve worker protections. Any provisions designed to strengthen labor protections or improve another country's enforcement of its labor protections cannot be given fast-track treatment. No previous fast-track bill took such a one-sided and discriminatory approach. For example, the 1988 fast-track law included a specific objective to ``promote worker rights,'' and this was an important part of the legislation. The present bill is unprecedented. It's fast-track for business and no track for labor, and that isn't fair. We should not make it impossible to use other countries' desire for access to U.S. markets to urge improvements in working conditions. Leaders in other countries often say their door is open to such initiatives. But this bill actually prevents our negotiators from taking advantage of such opportunities. It prevents the United States from using the incentive of access to our markets to persuade a country to improve working conditions for its employees, even in cases where the issue is prison labor or child labor. There is nothing fair about that. The bill also prohibits fast-track consideration of any provision that would modify U.S. labor or environmental standards. Any agreement that seeks to create internationally-recognized worker rights--such as a ban on child labor or prison labor--could not be considered under fast-track procedures, because it would restrict the power of the United States to refuse unilaterally to modify our own laws in these areas. There is nothing fair about that. The bill denies our negotiators the power to push for improvements in another country's labor protections. And it denies our negotiators the power to push for improvements on a multi-national basis as well. Under this legislation, there could be no effort to improve worker protections in any forum. There is nothing fair about that. Congress should not handcuff our ability to negotiate improvements in agreements setting basic labor standards that apply to specific nations or to all nations. Instead, we should use the trend toward globalization of markets to raise the level of employee protections around the world. We tried to accomplish this goal in the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993. The labor and environmental side agreements that accompanied NAFTA were designed to strengthen labor standards and establish a forum for resolving disputes. Many have criticized the effectiveness of these side agreements, and with good reason. In 1994, Mexican workers who tried to organize a union at a Sony Corp. plant in Nuevo Laredo were fired, and some were beaten. This brutality violated Mexican law, and the NAFTA enforcement authorities found that the Mexican Government had failed to comply with its obligations under the labor side agreement. But none of the employees was rehired, and no fines were assessed against either the Mexican Government or the company. The side agreements were not enforced. Weak as they are, side agreements like these are barred from consideration under the present bill. Such side agreements could not be given fast-track treatment. They would be subject to full debate and amendment in both houses of Congress. But under this defective fast-track bill, an agreement making it a crime to infringe a copyright would be given fast-track treatment, and rushed through Congress with limited debate and without amendment. This double standard is unacceptable. Trade affects goods and business profits, but it affects workers' lives and health as well. We can't deny the linkage. Yet this bill treats property rights far better than it does labor and environmental protections. Surely the life or health of a working man or woman deserves at least equal priority. It's also true that NAFTA has failed to live up to our hopes. The Labor Department has certified that 127,000 American workers lost their jobs as a direct result of trade with Mexico and Canada under NAFTA. Some experts say the number may be as much as four times higher. The administration has announced that it will seek hundreds of millions of dollars more for trade adjustment assistance to help workers dislocated by foreign trade. When American firms move their American plants to foreign countries in search of higher profits through cheaper labor, the American workers left behind pay a heavy price. Trade adjustment assistance can help, but to many workers, it is little more than funeral expenses. It's obviously not enough to offset the anti-worker, antilabor bias of this discriminatory fast-track bill. The five measures the administration announced earlier this week, through the World Trade Organization and the World Bank, are another small step in the right direction on labor issues. But again, four studies and a promise don't fix the problems with this bill. I urge the Senate to reject this unfair approach. This bill puts the rights of business on a pedestal, and leaves the rights of workers in the gutter. That kind of discrimination is unacceptable. No worker should be treated with less dignity than a compact disk. I oppose this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to defeat it. Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last week the First Lady visited Dublin and Belfast. When the President and the First Lady visited those cities 2 years ago, they received a warm welcome from the people of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and Mrs. Clinton was warmly received on her return visit last week. During her visit, she emphasized the President's commitment to peace in Northern Ireland. All friends of Ireland in the United States are grateful for the continuing interest and involvement of the President and the First Lady in this issue, which is of such great importance to so many Americans. In Dublin on October 30, Mrs. Clinton spoke warmly of her previous visit in 1995 and the continuing strong commitment of the United States to the peace process. At the University of Ulster in Belfast on October 31, Mrs. Clinton delivered a lecture named in honor and in memory of Joyce McCartan, a courageous woman of peace whom the First Lady had met during her visit 2 years ago, and who had inspired many other women in Northern Ireland to take up the cause of reconciliation. I believe my colleagues will be interested in Mrs. Clinton's eloquent remarks about the positive role of women in Northern Ireland and around the world in the search for peace and hope and opportunity. I ask unanimous consent that the First Lady's remarks in Dublin and Belfast be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I oppose the Coverdell bill because 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 undermine public schools and provide yet another tax giveaway for the wealthy. Public education is one of the great successes of American democracy. It makes no sense for Congress to undermine it. This bill turns its back on the Nation's long-standing support of public schools and earmarks tax dollars for private schools. This bill is a fundamental step in the wrong direction for education and for the Nation's children. Senator Coverdell's proposal would spend $2.5 billion over the next 5 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. It is important to strengthen our national investment in education. We should invest more in improving public schools by fixing leaky roofs and crumbling buildings, by recruiting and preparing excellent teachers, and by taking many other steps. If we have $2.5 billion more to spend on elementary and secondary education, we should spend it to deal with these problems. We should not invest in bad education policy and bad tax policy. We should support teachers and rebuild schools--not build tax shelters for the wealthy. Proponents of the bill claim that it deserves our support because the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that almost 75 percent of funds will go to public school students. But they're distorting the facts. According to the Department of Treasury, 70 percent of the benefit of the bill would go to those families in the highest income brackets. An October 28, 1997, Joint Tax Committee memorandum states that 83 percent of families with children in private schools would use this account, but only 28 percent of families with children in public schools would make use of it. It is a sham to pretend that the bill is not providing a subsidy for private schools. The overwhelming majority of the benefits go to high-income families who are already sending their children to private school, and does nothing to improve public education. In fact, the Joint Tax Committee memorandum clearly confirms this basic point that the bill disproportionately benefits families who send their children to private schools. As the committee memorandum states, ``The dollar benefit to returns with children in public schools is assumed to be significantly lower than that attributable to returns with children in private schools.'' Proponents of the bill claim that 70 percent of the benefits from the Coverdell accounts would go to families that earn under $70,000 a year. But again, they're distorting the facts. The facts are that the majority of the benefits under the proposal go to upper income families. Only about 10 percent of taxpayers have incomes between $70,000 and the capped income levels. Therefore, 30% of the benefits would go to just 10 percent of the taxpayers. In addition, the majority of the benefits for families who earn under $70,000 a year go to those earning between $55,000 and $70,000 a year. Other families will get almost no tax break from this legislation. Families earning less than $50,000 a year will get a tax cut of $2.50 a year 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. Proponents also claim that these IRA's do not use public money. The money invested in the accounts, whether by individuals, their employer, or their labor union is their own money, not public funds. But the loss to the Treasury is clear. This proposal will cost the Treasury $2.5 billion in the first 5 years. It is nonsense to pretend that these funds are not a Federal subsidy to private schools. Scarce tax dollars should be targeted to public schools, which 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. Private schools can decide whether to accept a child or not. The real choice under this bill goes to the schools, not the parents. We should not use public tax dollars to support schools that select some children and reject others. We all want children to get the best possible education. We should be doing more--much more--to support efforts to improve local public schools. We should oppose any plan that would undermine those efforts. This bill is simply private school vouchers under another name. It is wrong for Congress to subsidize private schools. We should improve our public schools--not abandon them.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this bill exempts adopted immigrant children ages 10 and under from the battery of immunizations they would normally have to receive before being allowed to enter the United States. I share Senator Abraham's disappointment that this bill does not go further. The immunization requirement which has caused so many problems for all immigrants, including the parents of adopted immigrant children, was passed as a part of last year's immigration bill. This provision requires all immigrants to receive the entire series of vaccinations recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices before they are allowed to enter the United States. During the debate of the immigration bill, significant concerns were raised that this requirement would lead to many unintended results, such as forged immunization records, unavailability of vaccines, and inadequate health care if the immigrant had an adverse reaction to a vaccine. As a result of these concerns, the Senate passed a modified immunization provision, requiring immigrants to obtain most of their immunizations after they entered the United States, where vaccines and health care are available and adequate. Unfortunately, the Senate provisions were dropped in the conference on the final bill. Our concerns were borne out, and the bill we are about to pass deals with part of the problems caused by the overseas immunization requirement. I had hoped we could pass a bill that exempted all immigrant children, not just adopted immigrant children, from this requirement. However, the adoptive parents are legitimately concerned about their children's health, and they deserve this relief. I urge my colleagues to approve this legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Sheila Widnall, the Secretary of the Air Force, who is leaving office at the end of this month to return to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology as a professor of aeronautics and astronautics. In 1993, Secretary Widnall became the first woman to serve as a service Secretary when she assumed her present position as the Secretary of the Air Force, and she has done an outstanding job. During her distinguished tenure, Secretary Widnall has led the Air Force through a critical period of post-cold-war consolidation and adjustment. Congress and the country are proud of her achievements. She directed a modernization program to shape the future of the Air Force and incorporate space technology into military operations. She led the Department's remarkable success in overhauling its business practices, including major initiatives in acquisition reform, outsourcing, and privatization to increase efficiency and make maximum use of scarce funds. She has also taken the lead in strengthening the Nation's role in space, by working effectively with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Reconnaissance Office, and the private space sector. Above all, Secretary Widnall has done her best to care for Air Force members and their families. Her emphasis on equal opportunity and her skillful and tireless pursuit of quality of life issues kept morale high during a period of significant and far-reaching change. Secretary Widnall brought an outstanding background to her current position. Her accomplishments include many years as a professor of aeronautics and astronautics and also as associate provost at MIT. She has earned international recognition for her work in fluid dynamics, and has had extensive service on numerous boards, panels, and committees in government, industry, and the academic world. In her years as Secretary, Sheila Widnall has set a high standard of leadership and service to the Nation. I know I am joined by my colleagues in Congress and a grateful Nation in thanking her for her dedication and distinguished service to our country, and I wish her well in the years to come.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. In June, the President nominated Nancy-Ann Min DeParle to be Administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration [HCFA]. When confirmed as the Head of HCFA, Ms. DeParle will be responsible for running Medicare, Medicaid, and the new children's health program, and provide valuable direction for other important health insurance initiatives. More than 70 million Americans--senior citizens, children, persons with disabilities and others--depend on these programs for lifesaving health care. Leaving this critically important agency without a leader during this challenging time is irresponsible and indefensible, and I urge the Senate to move quickly to confirm her nomination. It is especially offensive that a Senator is holding this nomination hostage in order to extract a concession from the President on an HCFA- related issue. We all want things from HCFA, and those issues should be resolved as part of the legislative process, not by denying this important Federal agency the leadership it needs. At this moment, a large number of Medicaid waivers are pending from States that want flexibility to go beyond the current rules. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of decisions must be made regarding implementation of the Medicare provisions in the Balanced Budget Act--including the establishment of important new preventive benefits. This historic legislation also included the largest health insurance expansion since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid. It provides health insurance to uninsured children in working families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to purchase private health insurance. We all worked hard for this program. All 50 States will be submitting their plans for this coverage in the coming months and HCFA needs to take action. Ms. DeParle is extremely well-qualified to lead HCFA. She served from 1993 to 1997 as the Associate Director for Health and Personnel at the Office of Management and Budget. In this capacity, she guided the development and implementation of budget and policy matters for all Federal health programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. In addition to other accomplishments, she has extensive experience running a state- level cabinet agency. From 1987 to 1989, she administered a 6,000- employee agency as commissioner of human services in Tennessee. No significant objection to her nomination was raised at the Finance Committee hearing in September. She was approved unanimously by the committee on September 11, and she has been waiting since that day for the full Senate to act. It is long past time for the Senate to act.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I oppose the Coverdell bill because 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 yet another tax give-away for the wealthy. Public education is one of the great successes of American democracy. It makes no sense for Congress to undermine it. This bill turns its back on the nation's long-standing support of public schools and earmarks tax dollars for private schools. This is a fundamental step in the wrong direction for education and for the nation's children. Proponents of the 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 that public schools do not charge tuition. Therefore, the 90% of the nation's children who attend public schools do not need help in paying tuition. Even worse, the people helped most by this proposal are families in high income brackets--and these families can already afford to send their children to private school. The nation's children deserve good public schools, safe public schools, well-trained teachers, and a good education. Private school vouchers disguised as IRAs will undermine all of those essential goals by undermining the public schools, not helping them. We all want the nation's children to get the best possible education. We should be doing more--much more--to support efforts to improve local schools. We should oppose any plan that would undermine those efforts. 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. Vouchers will not help children who need help the most. Proponents of the bill argue that vouchers increase choice for parents. But 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. In fact, many private schools require children to take rigorous achievement tests, at the parents' expense, as a basis for admission to the private schools. Lengthy interviews and complex selection processes are often mandatory. Private schools impose many barriers to admission. Few parents can even get to the schoolhouse door to find out if it is open to their child. For the vast majority of families with children in public schools, the so-called ``school choice'' offered by the voucher scheme is a hollow choice. Public schools must take all children, and build a program to meet each of their needs. Private schools only take children who fit the guidelines of their existing programs. We should not use public tax dollars to support schools that select some children, and reject others. Senator Coverdell's proposal would spend 2.5 billion dollars over the next five 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. It is important to continue the national investment in children and their future. We should invest more in improving public schools by fixing leaky roofs and crumbling buildings, by recruiting and preparing excellent teachers, and by taking many other steps. We should not invest in bad education policy and bad tax policy. We know that at the current time, 14 million children in one-third of the nation's schools are learning in substandard facilities. Over half of all schools report at least one major building in disrepair, with cracked foundations, or leaking roofs, or other major problems. If we have 2.5 billion more dollars to spend on elementary and secondary education, we should spend it to deal with these problems. During the next decade, because of rising student enrollments and rising teacher retirements, the nation will need over 2 million new teachers. Yet today, more than 50,000 underprepared teachers enter the classroom every year. Students in inner-city schools have only a 50% chance of being taught by a qualified science or math teacher. We should support teachers and rebuild our schools--not build tax shelters for the wealthy. It is clear that this proposal disproportionately benefits wealthy families. The majority of the tax benefits would go to families in high income brackets. These families can already afford to send their children to private school. 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 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 $100,000 will get $97. Even many 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. In addition, ``qualified expenses'' are defined so broadly in this bill, that parents could justify almost any expense even remotely connected to the costs of elementary and secondary education, creating a large loophole for people to spend funds in ways not intended. In order to guard against fraud and abuse, the IRS would have to take on more tax audits of families that establish these accounts. The IRS will have to ask what school a child attends, what expenses the parents actually incurred, and whether the accounts were properly set up and used. This bill is bad tax policy and bad education policy. It does not improve public education for the 90 percent of children who go to public schools. It is a waste of scarce tax dollars. Education reform should help education, not undermine it. Students need to master the basics, meet high standards, and be taught by well- trained teachers. We need to hold schools accountable for results, and create safe buildings and learning environments. This bill is simply private school vouchers under another name. It is wrong for Congress to subsidize private schools. We should improve our public schools--not abandon them.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to introduce the Paul E. Tsongas Fellowship Act. This bill commemorates an outstanding leader and former colleague in the Senate who was an impressive and dedicated advocate of technology and environmental protection. Congressman Joe Kennedy is the sponsor of a companion bill in the House of Representatives. As a Senator, Paul Tsongas worked skillfully to guarantee that technology and environmental concerns are at the forefront of our country's priorities. He was an extraordinary leader who understood the importance of addressing the serious energy and environmental challenges we face at home and around the world. Today, we honor his commitment to these important priorities by proposing a national fellowship program to support graduate students in science and engineering. As a nation, we need to do more to encourage the best students to pursue graduate studies in these basic fields, which are so essential to a strong future for the Nation. As much as 50 percent of economic growth is attributed to technological innovation. The Paul E. Tsongas Fellowship will support the modern pioneers who will keep the Nation at the cutting edge of the technology revolution. The fellowship is modeled on the successful Office of Naval Research Graduate Fellowship Program, which over the past 15 years has provided fellowships to 592 graduate students in 11 disciplines, and has made significant contributions to research. The Tsongas fellowships in science and engineering can make a comparable contribution in these fields. They will enhance our efforts to improve educational opportunity for students, and strengthen our country's economy by investing wisely in the future. The Tsongas fellowships will be a living memorial to one of the outstanding Senators of our time, and I hope that Congress will act quickly on this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to introduce the Paul E. Tsongas Fellowship Act. This bill commemorates an outstanding leader and former colleague in the Senate who was an impressive and dedicated advocate of technology and environmental protection. Congressman Joe Kennedy is the sponsor of a companion bill in the House of Representatives. As a Senator, Paul Tsongas worked skillfully to guarantee that technology and environmental concerns are at the forefront of our country's priorities. He was an extraordinary leader who understood the importance of addressing the serious energy and environmental challenges we face at home and around the world. Today, we honor his commitment to these important priorities by proposing a national fellowship program to support graduate students in science and engineering. As a nation, we need to do more to encourage the best students to pursue graduate studies in these basic fields, which are so essential to a strong future for the Nation. As much as 50 percent of economic growth is attributed to technological innovation. The Paul E. Tsongas Fellowship will support the modern pioneers who will keep the Nation at the cutting edge of the technology revolution. The fellowship is modeled on the successful Office of Naval Research Graduate Fellowship Program, which over the past 15 years has provided fellowships to 592 graduate students in 11 disciplines, and has made significant contributions to research. The Tsongas fellowships in science and engineering can make a comparable contribution in these fields. They will enhance our efforts to improve educational opportunity for students, and strengthen our country's economy by investing wisely in the future. The Tsongas fellowships will be a living memorial to one of the outstanding Senators of our time, and I hope that Congress will act quickly on this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, a few months ago, the American Immigration Lawyers Association held an essay contest entitled ``Celebrate America'' for children in grades four through seven. The children were asked to write on the subject, ``Why I Am Glad America Is a Nation of Immigrants.'' Hundreds of children entered the contest, and I congratulate all the participants. The winner of the contest was Veronica Curran, a fifth grader in St. Mark's School in Shoreline, WA, who wrote about her family's extraordinary immigrant history--she and each of her brothers and sister were adopted from different countries. Eric Eves of Goulds, FL, Crystal Kohistani of Plymouth, MN, and Joseph Opromollo of Morris Plains, NJ, wrote other top essays. All of the essays reflect pride in America's immigrant heritage, and emphasize the benefits of immigration for the United States. I congratulate each of these young writers, and I ask unanimous consent that the five winning essays from the ``Celebrate America'' essay contest be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I'd like to join Senator Jeffords in submitting the Senate resolution declaring the last Friday in April National Child Care Professional's Day. Child care is a vital part of the fabric of the daily lives of millions of America families. The majority of children today have working parents who must find some way of ensuring that their children are safe and well-cared for during working hours. Millions of children of all income levels are cared for by someone other than their parents. Each day, approximately 13 million children spend some or all of their day in some type of child care. Research demonstrates that the quality of these settings makes a significant difference in children's health, safety and early learning. Yet far too many children are being cared for in poor quality settings that jeopardize their safety and development. We know how to do it better, and it is long past time to start doing it. A sensible action plan includes better staff training, requiring basic health and safety protections, monitoring programs, informing parents, and improving staff salaries. Today, Senator Jeffords, Senator Dodd, Senator Roberts, and I are submitting a bipartisan Senate resolution to designate the last Friday in April every year as National Child Care Professional's Day, starting next April--April 24, 1998. Child Care professionals are indispensable to the future of the Nation's children. Children deserve the best we can provide. Parents deserve the peace of mind that comes with knowledge that their children are in safe, healthy surroundings that encourage, not undermine their development. Quality child care is essential for healthy child growth and healthy child development. By honoring child care providers and the child care profession in this way, Congress will be taking a significant step toward giving them the stronger support and the greater encouragement and the higher priority they deserve.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the American Medical Association recently honored Massachusetts State Senator Mark Montigny of New Bedford with its 1997 Nathan Davis Award. This honor is a well-deserved tribute to Senator Montigny for his outstanding commitment to public service and his leadership in health care. The award was established by the AMA in 1989 to honor elected and career officials at the Federal, State and local levels for their leadership in advancing public health. Mark Montigny's role on these vital issues in the Massachusetts legislature has helped our State to make impressive progress in improving the quality and affordability of health care for all citizens. In July 1996, one of Senator Montigny's principal legislative initiatives was enacted into law, to provide health insurance for the 160,000 children in Massachusetts without such insurance. His initiative also launched a pilot prescription drug subsidy program for senior citizens. These initiatives are financed by a 25 cent increase in the State cigarette tax. The linkage between the cigarette tax and children's health insurance in Senator Montigny's bill was one of the principal models for the national children's health insurance legislation enacted by Congress as part of the balanced budget agreement this year. New Bedford and Massachusetts are proud of Mark Montigny's leadership on these issues. I congratulate him on the AMA's award, and I look forward to working closely with him in the years ahead.