John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3659 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, my amendment seeks to address the digital divide that all of us are aware is significantly handicapping the capacity of a lot of Americans to participate in the new marketplace. The House of Representatives has recognized this problem to the tune of $517 million. In our budget, we are only at $425 million. We are going to vote in the Senate on the H-1B visa, allowing 200,000-plus people to be imported into this country because of our lack of commitment to our own citizens in developing their skills for the new marketplace. This is an opportunity to make it clear that, for teachers and their ability to be able to teach, for virtual high school capacity to have advanced placement, in order to enhance the ability of our young to learn the new marketplace skills and to close the digital divide, we need to make this commitment. I think everybody in the Senate knows that with this surplus, with our ability to be able to make the choices we have in the budget, we have allowed for a waiver of the budget precisely for this kind of moment. I ask my colleagues to join me in saying the House of Representatives will not have a better sense of this priority than the Senate.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I don't want to end today without pointing out the importance of this amendment to our national trade policy. I believe very strongly in free trade. I know that the Trade and Development Act that we passed earlier this year and granting PNTR to China--if we ever get the chance to debate it in the Senate--will grow Massachusetts's economy and produce long-term benefits for workers in Massachusetts and across the country. But the budget put forth by the Republicans takes no responsibility for protecting those who are most at risk for being left behind. This amendment does claim that responsibility. As we continue with our push to open new markets, we have got to ensure those who lack the skills, the income or the education to get quality jobs can have an opportunity to succeed in the new economy. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Exhibit I Massachusetts Municipal Association, Boston, MA, March 22, 2000. Hon. Edward M. Kennedy, Russell Senate office Building, Washington, DC. Hon. John F. Kerry, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senators Kennedy and Kerry: We are writing to urge you to advocate for summer jobs funding in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill currently before Congress. As you are aware, the Workforce Development Act (WIA), which was signed into law in August 1998, will become effectively July 1st, 2000. While we certainly support the WIA goal of offering more comprehensive services for youth on a year-round basis, we are concerned that the additional requirements of WIA and the lack of an increase in funding for year-round youth programs will result in the Commonwealth's inability to provide the number of jobs that we need to serve our youth population this summer. Estimates project that we may have to turn over half of the eligible youth away this summer barring an increase in summer jobs funding. The summer jobs program in Massachusetts has been phenomenally successful, both for our young people and the state as a whole. The young people gain work experience (many for the first time), earn a paycheck (which many contribute to household expenses), and have the chance to gain academic skills (as summer is often a time when young people slide backwards academically). The state has benefited because with the young people working, negative behaviors that often result from idleness are prevented. This year we face a double threat, as Governor Cellucci has chosen not to fund the state summer jobs program in his budget. We are working with the Legislature and others to restore this funding to the state budget. We will certainly have a major problem if we lose funding from both the federal and state programs. At its winter meeting in January, the U.S. Conference of Mayors passed a resolution to support: (1) an emergency appropriation to address the shortfall of funds needed to serve youth this summer; and (2) increased funding in the FY2001 budget to meet the projected doubling of program costs resulting from the new requirements of the Workforce Investment Act. A copy of the resolution is enclosed. Please keep us updated on the efforts to include funding for summer jobs in the emergency appropriation and increased funding in the FY 2001 budget. Thank you for your continued support and assistance on this high priority issue. Sincerely, Thomas Menino Mayor, Boston; Daniel Kelly Mayor, Gardner; Mary Whitney Mayor, Fitchburg; Michael Tautznik Mayor, Easthampton; Robert Dever Mayor, Woburn; William Scanlon Mayor, Beverly; Mary Clare Higgins Mayor, Northampton; Lisa Mead Mayor, Newburyport; John Yunits Mayor, Brockton; Thomas Ambrosino Mayor, Revere; Ted Strojny Mayor, Taunton; David Madden Mayor, Weymouth; Edward Lambert, Jr. Mayor, Fall River; Gerald Doyle Mayor, Pittsfield; Patrick Guerriero Mayor, Melrose; Peter Torigian, Mayor, Peabody; James Rurak, Mayor, Haverhill; John Barrett III Mayor, North Adams; Richard A. Cohen Mayor, Agawam; David Ragucci Mayor, Everett; Frederick Kalisz, Jr. Mayor, New Bedford; James A. Sheets Mayor, Quincy.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to express my enthusiastic support for the amendment offered by my colleague and friend, Senator Kennedy. Mr. President, Labor Secretary Herman summed up the challenge of today's economy when she declared at the National Skills Summit in April that in this country we have ``a skills shortage, not a labor shortage.'' Right now we have the lowest unemployment rate in this country in the last 30 years. But even as we celebrate this remarkable feat--and it is remarkable--we must remember that there are still some 13 million people in this country who want, but do not have, a full-time job. The Kennedy amendment would make full-time employment a real possibility for homeless veterans, young people, and for youths seeking summer employment. I appreciate that the Labor-HHS subcommittee's allocations were inadequate to fund at sufficient levels all of the programs in this legislation and I think they have done a good job with what they had to work with. But clearly Mr. President this bill retreats from our commitment to fund many critical education, training, and health programs. I am troubled that the bill before us does not adequately fund job training programs for homeless veterans. Veterans issues are especially important to me, and I know it is of great importance to my fellow veterans here in the Senate. The Kennedy amendment would allow 1,400 more veterans to receive employment placement and economic security than does the bill put forth by the Republicans. This appropriations bill severely under-funds many important programs, but none more critical than the youth job programs like Job Corps, Youth Opportunity Grants program, and the Summer Jobs program. Mr. President, Job Corps is the nation's largest residential education and training program for disadvantaged youth. This program takes head on the issues and the people who have been left behind in this period of economic expansion. While many Americans enjoy unprecedented prosperity, the nation's unemployment rate among African-American teenagers is 22%, almost double the national teenage unemployment rate. Twenty-six percent of those who dropped out of high school between October 1998-99 are unemployed. We cannot relegate these people to the margins of our society, especially during this moment of great national wealth. There are 120 Job Corps centers in 46 states, including three in my state of Massachusetts. Since 1964, Job Corps has given 1.7 million young people in this country the academic and vocational training they need to get good, entry-level jobs, join the military, or go to college. Job Corps offers GED or high school equivalency programs and training in various occupations, as well as advanced training and additional support services. Graduates of Job Corps go on to work in every field from automotive mechanics and repair, to business, and to health occupations. This amendment would allow Job Corps to serve more than 70,000 additional students and reduce staff turnover by offering Job Corps employees a more competitive salary. This amendment would also greatly increase funding for the Youth Opportunity Grants. These grants serve some of the poorest inner-city areas and Native American reservations in the country, where unemployment levels are well above the national average. Unfortunately, the Republican legislation would not allow the Department of Labor to expand this program. Last year, the Department of Labor was able to fund only 36 of 150 grants under the Youth Opportunity Grant program, two of which are in Boston and Brockton, Massachusetts. This amendment would allow the Department of Labor to fund 15-20 new grants, allowing us to provide job skills and real work experience to people who live in areas that have only heard rumors about our nation's economic growth, but have not seen it for themselves. I would also like to voice my support for increasing funding by $254 million to restore cuts in the Summer Jobs program. In late March I met with 20 members of the Boston Mayor's Youth Council, who raised money to travel to Washington. We met right outside this chamber on the Senate steps. The 20 young people that I met with spoke extremely eloquently and passionately about their experiences in summer jobs programs, and they asked me to speak on their behalf in Washington in support of the Summer Jobs program. Well, Mr. President, I intend to speak on their behalf. Approximately 85% of youths in the summer jobs program last year were between the ages of 14-17. Teens in that age group typically do not find private- sector work. But these young people were afforded the opportunity to learn job skills and responsibility. We have all heard teachers lament that students often greet lessons with cries of ``When are we ever going to have to use this again?'' Summer jobs make education relevant to teenagers, helping to reduce drop-out rates and fostering an interest in higher education. The Workforce Investment Act consolidates the Summer Jobs program and year-round jobs program into a comprehensive system of services for at- risk, low-income youth. But under the bill before us, 13,000 teens will be eliminated from this program. The Kennedy amendment would add back $254 million, allowing us the opportunity to provide summer jobs to 152,400 low-income students, 85% of whom would not otherwise be able to find summer employment. In March I received a letter signed by 22 mayors in the State of Massachusetts, urging me to fight for Summer Jobs program funding. In this letter, the mayors write ``The state has benefitted because with the young people working, negative behaviors that often result from idleness are prevented.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the record following my statement. I know these programs are important and are working. And I know they should receive greater funding.

Mr. KERRY. I thank my colleague.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive the applicable section of that act for consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KERRY. If the Senator from Pennsylvania wants to yield back time, I am prepared to do the same. I want to reserve one comment. I appreciate everything the Senator has said. I appreciate his comments. I know he wants to do more. Unless we in the Senate tackle this beast called the allocation process, and unless we begin to challenge the constraints within which we are now dealing, we are not doing our job. These votes are an opportunity to try to do that. My plea is to the Senator, the Appropriations Committee, and others, that we begin to try to change these shackles that are keeping us from responding to the real needs of the country. The measurement should not be what we are doing against a baseline set by us. The measurement should be, what will it take to guarantee we can turn to Americans and say we are addressing the problem, we are getting the job done. We need to close that gap. I am happy to yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to join the City of Boston, the residents of Massachusetts, and members of the law enforcement community across the country in recognizing the loss of Paul McLaughlin. Paul was a committed prosecutor who lived his life for others, and on September 25, 1995, he was shot while getting into his car after work. This weekend Boston memorializes its loss with the dedication of the Paul McLaughlin Boys and Girls Club in Dorchester's Savin Hill neighborhood and I join the city in this important day of recognition. Paul came from a long, distinguished line of Bostonians. His grandfather, Edward Sr., was the Boston Fire Commissioner as well as a member of the State Legislature in the 1920's, and his father, Edward Jr., was President of the Boston City Council, an Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Lt. Governor under Governor Volpe. A graduate of Boston Latin School, Dartmouth College and Suffolk Law School, Paul was admitted to the bar in 1981 and his early work included time at the Cambridge District Court and the Public Protection Bureau. Paul was the consummate professional, and his reputation soon led to serving on the Attorney General's staff in 1991, where he was assigned to drug and gang cases in Suffolk Superior Court. During one five year stretch he compiled an impressive 73 percent conviction rate, winning 98 of 134 Superior Court cases. In a fitting tribute to Paul's commitment to working for a better community for all of us, especially our children, the site for the McLaughlin Boys and Girls Club is one of Boston's Ten Most Wanted drug houses. On Saturday, June 24th, the McLaughlin Family joined with Mayor Thomas M. Menino and members of the Colonel Daniel Marr Boys & Girls Club in honoring Paul's life by opening a remarkable new facility in his name in Dorchester's Savin Hill neighborhood. The Paul R. McLaughlin Youth Center will perpetuate Paul's legacy of selfless service to his community by serving 2,600 children in one of the state's most successful youth programs. The structure that used to be the source of drugs and despair will now be a beacon of hope for the whole city. Mr. President, I join the people of Dorchester, West Roxbury and Jamaica Plain in mourning the loss of their neighbor and friend. My thoughts go out to Paul's colleagues, friends and family. Together, we realize how fortunate we are to have worked with and known an individual of his caliber. Today the City of Boston memorializes this loss, and I join everyone in honoring his life by opening the Paul R. McLaughlin Youth Center.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I have followed the issue of narcotrafficking and other international crimes for years, particularly during my tenure as chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations, Narcotics and Terrorism. Although I have many concerns about this piece of legislation, I believe we have a chance here to provide support to a Colombian administration trying to address its largest problem--drug trafficking. The line between counternarcotics and counterinsurgency is not at all clear in Colombia, but we cannot let this stop our extension of aid. Withholding aid is not an option. In doing so, we would send the message to Colombia, our important ally in the war on drugs, that when the going gets tough, they must go it alone. We must be very clear: the terrible human rights conditions in Colombia are inextricably tied to the narcoterrorists. That won't change overnight with our support of this assistance package, but it won't change at all without our help. And just as important as our support for this package will be our continuing oversight of its implementation. If human rights abuses continue, or if we begin to get embroiled in the counterinsurgency efforts, the Senate must remain vigilant, ending the program if necessary. But we cannot simply turn our backs and walk away. Civil conflict in Colombia has worn on for half a century as the government has fought narcoterrorists for control of the country. Opposition groups such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia [FARC] and the National Liberation Army has made a business of guerrilla warfare and continue to terrorize the civilian population. Paramilitary groups, formed in the 1980's as anti-guerrilla forces, have resorted to many of the same terror tactics. Opposition and paramilitary groups control much of the country and the vast majority of the drug producing areas. It is clear that drug money fuels the fighting. In the last decade, this conflict has claimed over 35,000 lives and has created a population of over a million and a half internally displaced persons. Colombian President Andres Pastrana, in sharp contrast to his recent predecessor, is trying to improve human rights conditions and promote democracy, under extremely difficult conditions. Under Pastrana, the Colombian Government has begun the first peace talks ever with the FARC. Though the talks have been slow moving and have encountered setbacks, Pastrana has clearly made the peace process a top priority. Plan Colombia was developed by President Pastrana as a comprehensive approach to strengthening the Colombian economy and promoting democracy, with heavy emphasis on fighting drug trafficking. In my view, any successful approach to Colombia's myriad of problems will require a strong counterdrug effort. The United States contribution to Plan Colombia, as proposed by the administration, does this. Let us be clear, however, that the drug trade in Colombia is not simply a Colombian problem. The United States is the largest and most reliable market for the Colombian cocaine and heroin that is at the center of this conflict. We have approximately 5.8 million cocaine users and 1.4. million heroin users. Based on the most recent National Household Survey on Drug Abuse estimates, fourteen million Americans are current drug users. Clearly we are making a large contribution to the problem and should therefore contribute to finding a solution. The United States must seize the opportunity presented by President Pastrana's current efforts to fight drug trafficking and bring stability to Colombia. This legislation offers us a chance to play a constructive role in Colombia while simultaneously promoting American interests. The Plan addresses the major components of the problem. ``Push into Southern Colombia'' is designated to affect the major growing and production areas in the South. It provides for the training of special dedicated narcotics battalions, and the purchase of helicopters for troop transport and interdiction. To complement this effort, interdiction tools will also be upgraded, including aircraft, airfields, early warning radar and intelligence gathering. The Plan also provides increased funding for eradication of coca and poppy, and the promotion of alternative crop development and employment. Perhaps most importantly, the Plan calls for and provides resources for increasing protection of human rights, expanding the rule of law, and promoting the peace process. As I outlined earlier, Colombia's situation is bleak, and this may be its last chance to begin to dig its way out. If we fail to support aid to Colombia, we can only sit back and watch it deteriorate even further. This Plan presents a unique opportunity to support the Colombian Government's effort to address its problems while at the same time promoting U.S. interests. The Colombian Government, despite immense obstacles, has begun to address significant human rights concerns and is working to instill the rule of law and democratic institutions. Though the United States is not in the business of fighting insurgents, we are in the business of fighting drugs, and this is clearly an opportunity to work with a willing partner in doing so. While I support a United States contribution to helping Colombia, I believe that if we are going to commit, we must do so in the context of an ongoing process under constant review to respond to changing needs. My first concern is the fine line that exists between counternarcotics and counterinsurgency operations, particularly since they are so intertwined in Colombia. It is impossible to attack drug trafficking in Colombia without seriously undercutting the insurgents' operations. We must acknowledge that the more involved in Colombia's counternarcotics efforts we become the more we will become involved in its counterinsurgency, regardless of our intentions to steer clear of it. But, because the drug trade is the most destabilizing factor in Colombia, our cooperation with the government will over the long run, advance the development and expansion of democracy, and will limit the insurgents' ability to terrorize the civilian population. But our military involvement in Colombia should go no further than this. Efforts to limit number of personnel are designed to address this. I appreciate the concerns expressed by my colleagues that the United States contribution to Plan Colombia is skewed in favor of the military, but we must keep in mind that our contribution is only a percentage of the total Plan. The total Plan Colombia price tag is approximately $7.5 billion. The Colombian Government has already committed $4 billion to the Plan, and has secured donations and loans from the International Monetary Fund, the Inter-American Development Bank, the World Bank, the Andean Development Corporation, and the Latin American Reserve Fund. As part of our contribution, and to balance military aid, the United States must continue to support Colombian requests for additional funding from international financial institutions and other EU donors. We must also continue to implement stringent human rights vetting and end-use monitoring agreements, and make sure that our Colombia policy does not end with the extension of aid. Second, I am concerned that even if the Plan is successful at destroying coca production and reducing the northward flow of drugs, large numbers of coca farmers will be displaced, worsening the current crisis of internally displaced people in Colombia. Colombia has the largest population of internally displaced persons in the world, estimated at over one and half million in November 1999. Seventy percent of those displaced are children, and the vast majority of them no longer attend school. There is every indication that as Plan Colombia is implemented, this population may grow. This problem underscores the importance of supporting the Colombians in their efforts to secure economic aid for alternative development. Unless we strongly support loans and additional donations, the danger remains that desperate farmers will simply move across the borders into Peru and Bolivia, and undo all the eradication progress that has been made in those areas. My third major concern with respect to this aid package is that it does not adequately address Colombia's human rights problem. The Colombian Government has made a real effort to address human rights and to promote the rule of law. Pastrana has worked to root out members of the military who have committed gross violations of human rights, and has suspended a number of high-level officers. He has also attacked corruption in the legislature, and has come under heavy fire for doing so. Despite this progress, there is no question that recent events in Colombia have raised some cause for concern. The Colombian Government's unfortunate decision to send back to the legislature a bill to criminalize genocide and forced disappearance was a significant setback for the promotion of human rights and the rule of law. I would like to commend my colleagues on the Foreign Operations Subcommittee for bolstering the human rights component of this legislation. In addition to requiring additional reporting from the Secretary of State on the human rights practices of the Colombian security forces, Senator Leahy's provisions for human rights programs in the Colombian police and judiciary, a witness protection program and additional human rights monitors in our embassy and Bogota, and Senator Harkin's provision to provide $5 million to Colombian NGOs to protect child soldiers, demonstrate our commitment to improving the human rights situation. Despite my reservations, the potential benefits of this plan are too large to ignore. In light of the changes made by the committee, I believe the plan can help advance United States interests by reducing drug trafficking and thereby promoting stability and democracy in Colombia. We must now work to ensure that our concerns do not become realities. Recognizing that we are not the sole contributors to this Plan, we must support Colombia's requests for additional aid from our allies, and work closely with them to ensure that additional aid complements our efforts in the areas of human rights and strengthening the rule of law. The committee report recognizes the importance of reducing the drug trade first to build confidence among the Colombian people that progress can be made in other important areas such as economic development and democracy. Plan Colombia's counterdrug focus will also benefit the United States by reducing the flow of drugs to the United States. The United States is faced with a serious drug problem which must be attacked at both ends--supply and demand. Our consideration of counterdrug aid to Colombia should force us to look inward, reexamine our domestic counterdrug plan, and find ways strengthen it. The United States has long been the cocaine traffickers' largest and most reliable market, fueling continued and expanded cultivation and production. Without addressing the problem here at home, we present no reason to expect that the growers and traffickers will not continue to shift their operations to maintain access to their best market. Increasing funding and expanding drug treatment and prevention programs are absolutely imperative if we are to coordinate an effective counterdrug campaign, particularly if we are to expect any real improvement in the situation in Colombia. Levels of drug abuse in the United States have remained unacceptably high, despite stepped-up interdiction efforts and increased penalties for drug offenders. Our criminal justice system is flooded with drug offenders. Three- quarters of all prisoners can be characterized as alcohol or drug involved offenders. An estimated 16 percent of convicted jail inmates committed their offense to get money for drugs, and approximately 70 percent of prisoners were actively involved with drugs prior to their incarceration. America's drug problem is not limited to our hardened criminals. The 1997 National Household Survey revealed that 77 million, or 36 percent of Americans aged 12 and older reported some use of an illicit drug at least once in their lifetime. The statistics in U.S. high schools are even more disturbing. According to a 1998 study by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, 54 percent of high school seniors reported that they had used an illicit drug at least once and 41.4 percent reported use of an illicit drug within the past year. As we support Colombia's efforts to attack the sources of illegal drugs, we need to make sure we are addressing our own problems. According to recent estimates, approximately five million drug users needed immediate treatment in 1998 while only 2.1 million received it. It was also found that some populations--adolescents, women with small children, and racial and ethnic minorities--are badly underserved by treatment programs. Only 37 percent of substance-abusing mothers of minors received treatment in 1997. Drug offenders, when released from jail, are often not ready or equipped to deal with a return to social pressures and many return to their old habits if they are not provided with effective treatment while incarcerated and the social safety net they so desperately need upon release. It is clear that drug treatment works, and there is no excuse for the high numbers of addicts who have been unable to receive treatment. As we increase funding for supply reduction programs in Colombia, we must increase funding for treatment to balance and complement it. Drug research has made significant strides in recent years, and there are a variety of treatment options now available to help even the most hardcore addicts. These treatments have been successful in the lab studies. Now we must allow these methods to be successful in helping the population for whom they were developed. Access to drug abuse treatment in the United States is abysmal when compared to the resources we have to provide it. The administration's Office of National Drug Control Policy argues that a balanced approach that addresses both demand reduction and cutting off supply at the source is necessary to significantly reduce drug abuse in America. While Plan Colombia works to cut off the drug supply, we must balance that with increased funding for drug abuse prevention and better treatment programs that reach more of the population that so desperately needs it. Plan Colombia is an opportunity to help an important ally attack the sources of illegal drug production reduce the flow of cocaine and heroin to the United States. The United States must stay engaged with the Pastrana government and support its critical efforts to combat drug trafficking. Instead of being limited by our reservations, we must use them to carefully craft a policy that addresses economic development, political stability, human rights and the rule of law. Drug trafficking is the major obstacle to the advancement of these goals, and it must be curbed if any progress is to be made in our drug war at home. amendment no. 3546

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Collins in introducing the Equal Access to Medicare Home Health Care Act. This legislation will protect patient access to home health care under Medicare, and ensure that providers are able to continue serving seniors who reside in medically underserved areas. Medicare was enacted in 1965, under the leadership of President Lyndon Johnson, as a promise to the American people that, in exchange for their years of hard work and service to our country, their health care would be protected in their golden years. Today, over 30 million seniors rely on the Medicare home health benefit to receive the care they need to maintain their independence and remain in their own homes, and to avoid the need for more costly hospital or nursing home care. Home health care is critical. It is a benefit to which all eligible Medicare beneficiaries, regardless of where they live, should be entitled. But, this benefit is being seriously undermined. Since enactment of the Balanced Budget Act, BBA, of 1997, federal funding for home health care has plummeted. According to the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, Medicare spending on home health care dropped 45 percent in the last two fiscal years--from $17.5 billion in 1998 to $9.7 billion in 1999--far beyond the original amount of savings sought by the BBA. Across the country, these cuts have forced over 2,500 home health agencies to close and over 500,000 patients to lose their services. In my own State of Massachusetts--a state that, because of economic efficiency, sustained a disproportionate share of the BBA cuts in Medicare home health funding--28 home health agencies have closed, 6 more have turned in their Medicare provider numbers and chosen to opt out of the Medicare program, and 12 more have been forced to merge in order to consolidate their limited resources. The home health agencies that have continued to serve patients despite the deep cuts in Medicare funding reported net operating losses of $164 million in 1998. The loss of home health care providers in Massachusetts has cost 10,000 patients access to home health services. Consequently, many of the most vulnerable residents in my state are being forced to enter hospitals and nursing homes, or going without any help at all. To compound the problem, without Congressional action, Medicare payments for home health care will be automatically cut by an additional 15 percent next year. It is critical that we defend America's seniors against future cuts in home health services, and this bill will eliminate the additional 15 percent cut in Medicare home health payments mandated by the BBA. However, we must do more than attempt to stop future cuts. Indeed, it is equally as important that we begin to provide relief to home health providers who are already struggling to care for patients. During the first year of implementation of the Interim Payment System, IPS, thousands of home health care agencies incurred overpayments because they were not notified of their per beneficiary limits until long after the limits were imposed. The provisions of this bill would extend the repayment period for IPS overpayments without interest for three years, and thereafter at an interest rate lower than currently mandated. Under IPS, even agencies which did not incur overpayments were placed on precarious financial footing because of insufficient payments, particularly for high-cost and long-term patients. Accordingly, it is critical that we bolster the efforts of all home health care providers to transcend their current operating deficits, especially as they transition from the Interim Payment System to the Prospective Payment System, PPS. The BBA specified that, in aggregate, PPS payments to home health providers must equal IPS payments. This adjustment--the budget neutrality factor--is expected to reduce PPS payments for home health services by 22 percent below the average Medicare costs prior to enactment of the BBA. In order to provide relief to home health providers in this budget neutral context, the Equal Access to Medicare Home Health Care Act would establish a 10 percent add-on to the episodic base payment for patients in rural areas, to reflect the increasing costs of travel, and a ``reasonable cost'' add-on for security services utilized by providers in our urban areas. These add- ons ensure that patients in our medically underserved communities continue to receive the home care they need and deserve. Finally, this legislation would encourage the incorporation of telehealth technology in home care plans by allowing cost reporting of the telemedicine services utilized by agencies. Telemedicine has demonstrated tremendous potential in bringing modern health care services to patients who reside in areas where providers and technology are scarce. Cost reporting will provide the data necessary to develop a fair and reasonable Medicare reimbursement policy for telehomecare and bring the benefits of modern science and technology to our nation's underserved. Unless we increase the federal commitment to the Medicare home health care benefit, we can only expect to continue to imperil the health of an entire generation. We must act to deliver on that promise that President Johnson made 25 years ago--our nation's seniors deserve no less.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am joining colleagues on both sides of the aisle to introduce the American Community Renewal and New Markets Empowerment Act. Demonstrating that Congress can constructively work together and find common ground, we--Senators Lieberman, Torricelli, Kohl, Santorum, Abraham, and Hutchinson--unveiled a plan that creates economic incentives to help close America's wealth gap. Among many important initiatives, our plan includes my new markets legislation that I introduced last September, S. 1594, the Community Development and Venture Capital Act, and full funding for Round II of Empowerment Zones. This plan builds on the President's and Speaker's agreement by securing full, mandatory funding for Massachusett's Empowerment Zone. So far, the money has dribbled in--only $6.6 million of the $100 million authorized over ten years--and made it impossible for the city to implement a plan for economic self-sufficiency. Some 80 public and private entities, from universities to technology companies to banks to local government, showed incredible community spirit and committed to matching the EZ money, eight to one. Let me say it another way--these groups agreed to match the $100 million in Federal Empowerment Zone money with $800 million. Yet, regrettably, in spite of this incredible alliance, the city of Boston has not been able to tap into that leveraged money and implement the strategic plan because Congress hasn't held its part of the bargain. I am extremely pleased that we were able to work together and find a way to provide full, steady funding to these zones. That money means education, daycare, transportation and basic health care in areas--in Massachusetts that includes 57,000 residents who live in Roxbury, Dorchester and Mattipan--where almost 50 percent of the children are living in poverty and nearly half the residents over 25 don't even have a high school diploma. Mr. President, this bill also includes an initiative that I introduced last year called the Community Development and Venture Capital Act. Its purpose is to stimulate economic development through public-private partnerships that invest venture capital in smaller businesses that are located in impoverished rural and urban areas, known as new markets, or that employ low-income people. We call these areas new markets because of the overlooked business opportunities. According to Michael Porter, a respected professor at Harvard and business analyst who has written extensively on competitiveness, ``. . . inner cities are the largest underserved market in America, with many tens of billions of dollars of unmet consumer and business demand.'' Both innovative and fiscally sound, my new markets initiative is financially structured similar to Small Business Administration (SBA's), successful Small Business Investment Company (SBIC), program, and incorporates a technical assistance component similar to that successfully used in SBA's microloan program. However, unlike the SBIC program which focuses solely on small businesses with high-growth potential and claims successes such as Staples and Calaway Golf, the New Markets Venture Capital program will focus on smaller businesses that show promise of financial and social returns, such as jobs--what we call a ``double bottomline.'' To get at the complex and deep-rooted economic problems in new market areas, my initiative has three parts: a venture capital program to funnel investment money into our poorest communities, a program to expand the number of venture capital firms that are devoted to investing in such communities, and a mentoring program to link established, successful businesses with businesses and entrepreneurs in stagnant or deteriorating communities in order to facilitate the learning curve. What I'm trying to do as Ranking Member of the Small Business Committee, and have been working with the SBA to achieve, is expand investment in our neediest communities by building on the economic activity created by loans. I think one of the most effective ways to do that is to spur venture capital investment in our neediest communities. But, Mr. President, this bill even goes further than funding empowerment zones and establishing incentives to attract venture capital into distressed communities. It enhances education opportunities, creates individual development accounts to help low- income families save and invest in their future, increases affordable housing, improves access to technology in our classrooms and creates incentives to help communities remediate brownfields. Before closing, I want to thank my colleauges for working so hard on this compromise and for their admirable willingness to put aside our differences for a larger purpose.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Collins in introducing the Equal Access to Medicare Home Health Care Act. This legislation will protect patient access to home health care under Medicare, and ensure that providers are able to continue serving seniors who reside in medically underserved areas. Medicare was enacted in 1965, under the leadership of President Lyndon Johnson, as a promise to the American people that, in exchange for their years of hard work and service to our country, their health care would be protected in their golden years. Today, over 30 million seniors rely on the Medicare home health benefit to receive the care they need to maintain their independence and remain in their own homes, and to avoid the need for more costly hospital or nursing home care. Home health care is critical. It is a benefit to which all eligible Medicare beneficiaries, regardless of where they live, should be entitled. But, this benefit is being seriously undermined. Since enactment of the Balanced Budget Act, BBA, of 1997, federal funding for home health care has plummeted. According to the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, Medicare spending on home health care dropped 45 percent in the last two fiscal years--from $17.5 billion in 1998 to $9.7 billion in 1999--far beyond the original amount of savings sought by the BBA. Across the country, these cuts have forced over 2,500 home health agencies to close and over 500,000 patients to lose their services. In my own State of Massachusetts--a state that, because of economic efficiency, sustained a disproportionate share of the BBA cuts in Medicare home health funding--28 home health agencies have closed, 6 more have turned in their Medicare provider numbers and chosen to opt out of the Medicare program, and 12 more have been forced to merge in order to consolidate their limited resources. The home health agencies that have continued to serve patients despite the deep cuts in Medicare funding reported net operating losses of $164 million in 1998. The loss of home health care providers in Massachusetts has cost 10,000 patients access to home health services. Consequently, many of the most vulnerable residents in my state are being forced to enter hospitals and nursing homes, or going without any help at all. To compound the problem, without Congressional action, Medicare payments for home health care will be automatically cut by an additional 15 percent next year. It is critical that we defend America's seniors against future cuts in home health services, and this bill will eliminate the additional 15 percent cut in Medicare home health payments mandated by the BBA. However, we must do more than attempt to stop future cuts. Indeed, it is equally as important that we begin to provide relief to home health providers who are already struggling to care for patients. During the first year of implementation of the Interim Payment System, IPS, thousands of home health care agencies incurred overpayments because they were not notified of their per beneficiary limits until long after the limits were imposed. The provisions of this bill would extend the repayment period for IPS overpayments without interest for three years, and thereafter at an interest rate lower than currently mandated. Under IPS, even agencies which did not incur overpayments were placed on precarious financial footing because of insufficient payments, particularly for high-cost and long-term patients. Accordingly, it is critical that we bolster the efforts of all home health care providers to transcend their current operating deficits, especially as they transition from the Interim Payment System to the Prospective Payment System, PPS. The BBA specified that, in aggregate, PPS payments to home health providers must equal IPS payments. This adjustment--the budget neutrality factor--is expected to reduce PPS payments for home health services by 22 percent below the average Medicare costs prior to enactment of the BBA. In order to provide relief to home health providers in this budget neutral context, the Equal Access to Medicare Home Health Care Act would establish a 10 percent add-on to the episodic base payment for patients in rural areas, to reflect the increasing costs of travel, and a ``reasonable cost'' add-on for security services utilized by providers in our urban areas. These add- ons ensure that patients in our medically underserved communities continue to receive the home care they need and deserve. Finally, this legislation would encourage the incorporation of telehealth technology in home care plans by allowing cost reporting of the telemedicine services utilized by agencies. Telemedicine has demonstrated tremendous potential in bringing modern health care services to patients who reside in areas where providers and technology are scarce. Cost reporting will provide the data necessary to develop a fair and reasonable Medicare reimbursement policy for telehomecare and bring the benefits of modern science and technology to our nation's underserved. Unless we increase the federal commitment to the Medicare home health care benefit, we can only expect to continue to imperil the health of an entire generation. We must act to deliver on that promise that President Johnson made 25 years ago--our nation's seniors deserve no less.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am joining colleagues on both sides of the aisle to introduce the American Community Renewal and New Markets Empowerment Act. Demonstrating that Congress can constructively work together and find common ground, we--Senators Lieberman, Torricelli, Kohl, Santorum, Abraham, and Hutchinson--unveiled a plan that creates economic incentives to help close America's wealth gap. Among many important initiatives, our plan includes my new markets legislation that I introduced last September, S. 1594, the Community Development and Venture Capital Act, and full funding for Round II of Empowerment Zones. This plan builds on the President's and Speaker's agreement by securing full, mandatory funding for Massachusett's Empowerment Zone. So far, the money has dribbled in--only $6.6 million of the $100 million authorized over ten years--and made it impossible for the city to implement a plan for economic self-sufficiency. Some 80 public and private entities, from universities to technology companies to banks to local government, showed incredible community spirit and committed to matching the EZ money, eight to one. Let me say it another way--these groups agreed to match the $100 million in Federal Empowerment Zone money with $800 million. Yet, regrettably, in spite of this incredible alliance, the city of Boston has not been able to tap into that leveraged money and implement the strategic plan because Congress hasn't held its part of the bargain. I am extremely pleased that we were able to work together and find a way to provide full, steady funding to these zones. That money means education, daycare, transportation and basic health care in areas--in Massachusetts that includes 57,000 residents who live in Roxbury, Dorchester and Mattipan--where almost 50 percent of the children are living in poverty and nearly half the residents over 25 don't even have a high school diploma. Mr. President, this bill also includes an initiative that I introduced last year called the Community Development and Venture Capital Act. Its purpose is to stimulate economic development through public-private partnerships that invest venture capital in smaller businesses that are located in impoverished rural and urban areas, known as new markets, or that employ low-income people. We call these areas new markets because of the overlooked business opportunities. According to Michael Porter, a respected professor at Harvard and business analyst who has written extensively on competitiveness, ``. . . inner cities are the largest underserved market in America, with many tens of billions of dollars of unmet consumer and business demand.'' Both innovative and fiscally sound, my new markets initiative is financially structured similar to Small Business Administration (SBA's), successful Small Business Investment Company (SBIC), program, and incorporates a technical assistance component similar to that successfully used in SBA's microloan program. However, unlike the SBIC program which focuses solely on small businesses with high-growth potential and claims successes such as Staples and Calaway Golf, the New Markets Venture Capital program will focus on smaller businesses that show promise of financial and social returns, such as jobs--what we call a ``double bottomline.'' To get at the complex and deep-rooted economic problems in new market areas, my initiative has three parts: a venture capital program to funnel investment money into our poorest communities, a program to expand the number of venture capital firms that are devoted to investing in such communities, and a mentoring program to link established, successful businesses with businesses and entrepreneurs in stagnant or deteriorating communities in order to facilitate the learning curve. What I'm trying to do as Ranking Member of the Small Business Committee, and have been working with the SBA to achieve, is expand investment in our neediest communities by building on the economic activity created by loans. I think one of the most effective ways to do that is to spur venture capital investment in our neediest communities. But, Mr. President, this bill even goes further than funding empowerment zones and establishing incentives to attract venture capital into distressed communities. It enhances education opportunities, creates individual development accounts to help low- income families save and invest in their future, increases affordable housing, improves access to technology in our classrooms and creates incentives to help communities remediate brownfields. Before closing, I want to thank my colleauges for working so hard on this compromise and for their admirable willingness to put aside our differences for a larger purpose.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am honored to rise today and pay tribute to a public servant who has selflessly contributed his legal knowledge and experience to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and its residents for almost 50 years. Today, the Honorable Neil L. Lynch, Associate Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, gathers with this friends and family to celebrate a career marked by military service, a devotion to family, and a true love of the law. Beginning in 1952 with his service as a First Lieutenant Adjutant in the 42nd Air Rescue Squadron of the United States Air Force, Justice Lynch set a standard of achievement and professionalism that would carry him to the pinnacle of the legal profession. After working at Hale, Sanderson, Byrne & Morton, he began teaching at the new England School of Law. He served as Chief Legal Counsel and Secretary-Treasurer at the Massachusetts Port Authority, worked again in the private sector with Herlihy & O'Brian, then return to New England School of law as a Professor of Law. Judge Lynch's skills and understanding of the law were well known in Massachusetts by the 1970's, and few were surprised when Governor Ed King appointed him to be his Chief Legal Counsel from 1979 to 1981. This ascension was completed by the Governor's nomination of Justice Lynch for a seat on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, a position he has held with unquestioned professionalism and integrity since 1981. While a member of the Court, Justice Lynch has reached out to all levels of law enforcement in an effort to pool and maximize the considerable knowledge and resources amongst his peers. As Dean and President of the Flaschner Judicial Institute, Justice Lynch oversaw a professional enhancement program that shares information on new initiatives and changes in the field with his colleagues, he returned to academia to teach at the Massachusetts School of Law, and issued the landmark study, ``Commission to Study Racial and Ethnic Bias in the Courts,'' in 1994. Now, instead of navigating through complex legal issues, Justice Lynch will be navigating his beloved ``Sui Generis'' through the waterways of the East Coast. He leaves the court to spend more time with Kathleen and his family and their growing number of grandchildren. Mr. President, I join all of justice Lynch's colleagues, past and present, and all of the people he has touched in the course of his professional life, in thanking him for his dedication to justice and equality under the law.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to spend a few minutes today talking about the importance of the Department of Labor's ergonomics regulation, which seeks to protect the health and safety of American workers. I'd like to urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment proposed by Senator Enzi that would prevent the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration from issuing any standard or regulation addressing ergonomics concerns in the workplace. Mr. President, let's be very clear about the issue before us, about the ergonomics issue, about employer health and safety, about the number of people nationwide--600,000 each year--that suffer from musculoskeletal injuries. In my state of Massachusetts, last year nearly 21,000 workers suffered serious injuries from repetitive motion and overexertion. Mr. President, if this amendment were to be passed by this body, then hundreds of thousands of people will continue to needlessly suffer on the job. The solution to this problem is NOT doing nothing, Mr. President, and that is what the Enzi amendment purports to do. Ergonomics injuries are real. They are prevalent in the workplace. And we must respond to this treacherous workplace hazard. Ergonomics is the science of fitting workplace conditions and job demands to the capabilities of the working population. Mr. President, the scientific community understands that effective and successful ergonomics programs assure high productivity, avoidance of illness and injury risks, and increased satisfaction among the workforce. Ergonomics disorders include sprains and strains, which affect the muscles, nerves, tendons, ligaments, joints, cartilage, or spinal discs; repetitive stress injuries, that are typically not the result of any instantaneous or acute event, but are usually chronic in nature, and precipitated by poorly designed work environments; and carpal tunnel syndrome. Many businesses, both large and small, have already responded to the threat of ergonomics injuries in the workplace. Mr. President, when businesses ensure that their workplaces are safe and protect workers from these types of injuries, their productivity rises! When workers are healthy, employers lose far fewer hours in productivity. Last year Assistant Secretary of Labor Charles Jeffress testified before the House Committee on Small Business and he reported that programs implemented by individual employers reduce total job-related injuries and illnesses by an average of 45 percent and lost work time and illnesses by an average of 75 percent. Mr. President, these numbers mean something, they indicate results, and they prove that making the workplace safe is crucial to increasing worker safety. But let me explain what these numbers really mean. Beth Piknik is a registered nurse at the Cape Cod hospital. Ms. Piknik's 21-year career as an intensive care unit nurse was cut short due to a preventable back injury. On February 17, 1992, she suffered a back injury while assisting a patient. The injury required major surgery--spinal fusion--and two years of major rehabilitation before and after surgery. The injury was devastating to Ms. Piknik, both professionally and personally. Prior to her injury, Beth led a very active life, enjoying competitive racquetball, water-skiing, and white- water rafting. But most importantly, she enjoyed her work as an ICU nurse, which had been her career since 1971. The loss of her ability to take care of patients led to a clinical depression, which lasted four and a half years. She now administers TB tests to employees at the hospital. Her ability to take care of patients--the reason she became a nurse--is gone. Ms. Piknik's injury could have been prevented and so can the crippling injuries suffered by hundreds of thousands of workers every year. In fact, many employers have already taken action and put into place workplace ergonomics programs to prevent these injuries. For example, the Crane Paper Company in Massachusetts had a serious problem with ergonomics injuries. In 1990, they put in place an ergonomics program to identify and control hazards, to train workers and provide medical management to intervene before workers developed serious injuries. These efforts paid off. Within 3 years of starting their ergonomics programs, Crane reduced their ergonomic injury rate by more than 40 percent. Mr. President, the Department of Labor took public comments on the proposed ergonomics regulation through 90 days of written comments and nine weeks of public hearings. During the hearings, OSHA heard from hundreds of workers and local union members and representatives from eighteen international unions. These workers and union members--who represent all sectors of the economy including auto workers, nurses and nurses aides, poultry workers, teachers and teachers aides, cashiers, office workers--told OSHA why an ergonomics standard is desperately needed and how ergonomics programs in their workplaces have worked to prevent injuries. I would like to share with my colleagues a couple of statements from some of the workers from my state of Massachusetts who appeared at the hearings. This is what Nancy Foley, who is a journalist from South Hadley, MA, had to say at one of the hearings. ``I am here today to strongly support an ergonomic standard. I suffer from serious injuries caused by a repetitive job. I want to see the ergonomics standard enacted so that others will not be injured as I have been. In 1988 I earned a masters degree in journalism from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Most of my career was spent at the Union-News in Springfield, Massachusetts. As a reporter, I spent four to five hours a day typing on a computer keyboard. In 1993, I began having pain in my neck and weakness in my hands. I did not seek medical attention until 1995 when the pain had spread into my left shoulder and left arm, making it difficult for me to sit through the workday. Fear prevented me from seeking medical attention sooner. I was a part-time reporter, and I was afraid I would never be made full-time if my employer knew the job was hurting me. Even after seeking medical attention, I was afraid to go out of work to recover from the injuries. I thought that taking time out of work would hurt my career. In October 1998, I went out of work altogether and was never able to return. I settled my workers' compensation case in 1999, with the insurance company taking responsibility for my injuries and continuing medical payments. I have been diagnosed with repetitive strain injury, carpal tunnel syndrome, cervical strain, thoracic outlet syndrome, and medial epicondylitis. By the time I left the newspaper I was so severely injured, that my recovery has been very slow. I may never fully recover. I live with chronic pain every day. Sitting still triggers pain. I have trouble carrying groceries into my house and doing simple housekeeping tasks. I am trying to retrain to be a schoolteacher, but my injuries make the retraining difficult. I do my school work by lying in bed and talking into a voice-activated computer. That is the way I wrote this statement.'' Mr. President, these are the real voices, the real people, the reality behind the 600,000 injuries. Unfortunately, gauging from the debate so far today my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem uninterested in talking about how devastating musculoskeletal injuries are. They are content to lambaste the Department of Labor and OSHA. They are content to nitpick at the rulemaking process, Mr. President, because they are incapable of refuting the proposed rule on its merit. They cannot deny that 600,000 a year suffer from musculoskeletal injuries. They cannot deny that workplaces that have adopted good ergonomics policies have increased productivity. Let's be clear about this Mr. President. These types of injuries are a real problem for American businesses and workers. Industry experts have estimated that injuries and illnesses caused by ergonomics hazards are the biggest job safety problem in the workplace today. The 600,000 workers who suffer from back injuries, tendinitis, and other ergonomics disorders cost over $20 billion annually in worker compensation. What is most troubling to me, Mr. President, is that these types of injuries are preventable. Something can be done to protect the American worker. In drafting this proposed rule OSHA worked extensively with a number of stakeholders, including representatives from industry, labor, safety, and health organizations, State governments, trade associations, and insurance companies. OSHA is currently in the process of holding stakeholder meetings on the draft rule for all interested parties. These comments are made part of the rulemaking record and OSHA is required to review these comments as the final rule is prepared. Just a few months ago, OSHA's small business liaison met with small business representatives in an open roundtable format. Mr. President, this is not a ``command and control'' regulatory action. Mr. President, this proposed rule has been criticized by those on the other side of the aisle as unfair, unnecessary, and prohibitively costly for businesses. I disagree. The proposed rule is drafted as an interactive approach between employee and manager to protect the assets of the company in ways that are either already being done, or should be done under existing rules. This new rule is a guide and a tool, not an inflexible mandate. The rule is a flexible standard that allows employers to tailor their programs to their individual workplaces. Small employers are not expected to have the same kind of program as big employers. The proposed rule exempts small businesses from record keeping requirements, so it does not add to small businesses paperwork burdens. Moreover, OSHA is reaching out to small businesses to provide them information on how to control ergonomics hazards through meetings and conferences and by providing on-site compliance assistance. According to the Department of Labor, thirty-two states have some form of safety and health program. Four states (Alaska, California, Hawaii, and Washington) have mandated comprehensive programs that have core elements similar to those in OSHA's draft proposal. In these four states, injury and illness rates fell by nearly 18 percent over the five years after implementation, in comparison with national rates over the same period. We are not talking about something that has come out of the blue--ergonomics programs are creating positive results for workers all over the country. Mr. President, in spite of the arguments for the Enzi amendment, there bulk of the science and the research proves that an ergonomic standard is needed in the American workplace. The National Academy of Sciences has compiled a report entitled Work- Related Musculoskeletal Disorders. This report summarized 6,000 scientific studies on ergonomics-related injuries and concluded that the current state of science reveals that workers exposed to ergonomic hazards have a higher level of pain, injury and disability, that there is a biological basis for these injuries, and that there exist today interventions to prevent these injuries. In 1997, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health completed a critical review of epidemiologic evidence for work-related musculoskeletal disorders of the neck, upper extremity, and lower back. This critical review of 600 studies culled from a bibliographic database of more than 2,000 found that there is substantial evidence for a causal relationship between physical work factors and musculoskeletal disorders. Furthermore, Mr. President, we are not talking about a new phenomenon, or the latest fad. Ten years ago in 1990 under a Republican President, Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole committed the Department of Labor to begin working on an ergonomics standard. Then-Secretary Dole was responding to a growing body of evidence that showed that repetitive stress disorders, such as carpal tunnel syndrome, were the fastest growing category of occupational illnesses. This rulemaking has been almost ten years in the making. Mr. President, it is time to put safeguards in place for the American worker, and this should not be a partisan issue. This rule has been delayed for far too long. In 1996, the Senate and the House agreed to language in an appropriations conference report that would prevent OSHA from developing an ergonomics standard in FY 1997. In 1997, Congress prevented OSHA from spending any of its FY 1998 budget on promulgating an ergonomics standard. Last year, money in the FY 1999 budget was set aside for the new National Academy of Sciences study, and the then-Chairman and Ranking Members of the House Appropriations Committee sent a letter to Secretary of Labor Alexis Herman, stating that this study ``was not intended to block or delay OSHA from moving forward with its ergonomics standard.'' Mr. President, we should wait no longer for this standard to be proposed and we should certainly not prevent OSHA from issuing its final ergonomics rule. Workers should not have to wait any longer for safety on the job. The time to protect the American workplace is now. This standard is a win-win for workers and management: the greater the safety workers have on the job, the more time they spend on the job. The more time they spend on the job, the more productive the workplace. And it is obvious, but it bears restating, that the more productive the workplace, the more productive this country. Workers want to be at work, and their bosses want them at work. It's been 10 years, Mr. President, since Secretary Dole promised to take action to protect workers from ergonomics injuries and to issue an ergonomics standard. Since that time, more than 6.1 million workers have suffered from serious injuries as a result of ergonomics hazards-- injuries that could have and should have been prevented. Workers have waited too long for protections from ergonomics hazards. It's time to stop breaking the promises made to American workers and to support the promulgation of a final OSHA ergonomics standard not to protect workers.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today's vote on hate crimes legislation marks a monumental day in our history. The U.S. Senate definitively voted in support of expanded hate crimes legislation because standing law has proven inadequate in the protection of many victimized groups. The 30-year-old Federal statute currently used to prosecute hate violence does not cover hate violence based on sexual orientation, gender or disability and requires that the victim be participating in a federally protected activity. The Kennedy-Smith amendment addresses and corrects these gaps in the law. Not only is this bill the right thing to do, but Americans overwhelmingly support it. Law enforcement groups, as well as 80 civil rights and religious organizations support this bill, in addition to a 1998 poll showing that this Hate Crimes Prevention Act is favored 2 to 1 by a majority of voters. This bill protects all Americans and ensures equal justice for all victims of hate violence, regardless of their race, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, gender, or disability--and regardless of where they live.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, in October 1998, I stood on the steps of the U.S. Capitol Building at a candlelight vigil for Matthew Shepard, the young gay man who was beaten and left for dead on a lonely Wyoming roadway. Two thugs were arrested, charged and convicted of murdering Matthew Shepard because of his sexual orientation. Tens of thousands of people--gay and straight, black and white, young and old, Americans all--came to the Capitol with only a few hours notice to encourage the passage of a Federal hate crimes law. The evening was memorable. We expressed our passionate conviction and knowledge that there is no room in our country for the kind of vicious, terrible, pathetic, ignorant hatred that took the life of Matthew Shepard, or of James Byrd, or of Barry Winchell, or of Brandon Teena. And the Congress responded. We came close to extending the federal hate crimes law that year, but the provision was dropped in conference. So, we came back again to guarantee that crimes will not be tolerated when they are motivated by other people's limitations. We are here to reaffirm that hate crimes are indeed an insult to our civilization. We are here for once and for all to make certain that there will be no period of indifference, as there was initially when the country ignored the burning of black churches or overlooked the spray-painted swastikas in synagogues; or suggested that the undiluted lethal hatred is someone else's problem, some other community's responsibility. We must accept the national responsibility for fighting hate crimes and commit--each of us in our words, in our hearts and in our actions-- to insure that the lesson of Matthew Shepard and scores of others is not forgotten. Mr. President, I understand that we cannot legislate racism and hatred out of existence, but we can empower our local law enforcement officials to prosecute hate crimes. And we can empower our local communities to be free of violence and fear brought about by hate crimes. Look to the 58 high schools in my own beautiful, progressive state of Massachusetts where 22 percent of gay students say they skip school because they feel unsafe there and fully 31 percent of gay students had been threatened or actually physically attacked for being gay. Matthew Shepard is not the exception to the rule--his tragic death is rather the extreme example of what happens on a daily basis in our schools, on our streets and in our communities. That is why we have an obligation to pass laws that make clear our determination to root out this hatred. And today we will have carried the day in passing the Kennedy-Smith amendment. It is my belief that Americans always act when confronted by an inherently unethical wrong. They stare down those who want us to live in fear and declare boldly that we will not live in a country where private prejudice undermines public law. American heroes such as Martin Luther King did this when he preached in Birmingham and Memphis, when he thundered his protest and assuaged those who feared his dreams. He taught us to look hatred in the face and overcome it. Harvey Milk did this in San Francisco, when he brushed aside hatred, suspicion, fear and death threats to serve his city. Even as he foretold his own assassination, Harvey Milk prayed that ``if a bullet should enter my brain, let that bullet destroy every closet door.'' He knew that true citizenship belongs only to an enlightened people, unwavered by passion or prejudice--and it exists in a country which recognizes no one particular aspect of humanity before another. Mr. President, we must root out hatred wherever we find it, whether on Laramie Road in Wyoming, or on a back road in Jasper, Texas, or in the Shenandoah National Park. That kind of hatred is the real enemy of our civilization. The day is here, Mr. President, when we can rightly celebrate our passage of this amendment to the hate crime prevention act to treat all Americans equally and with dignity, to allow all Americans to enjoy the inalienable rights framed in the Declaration of Independence--the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This indeed will be a happy day.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to discuss an issue of considerable importance, one I feel very strongly about and one that I think the Senate should address before the end of this Congressional session, and that is Mr. President, the issue of the digital divide. The digital divide is one of the key issues the Congress is currently facing--and will continue to face--in the foreseeable future. Right now we are wrestling with how to best encourage growth in this new economy, but at the same time, how to ensure that growth is evenly spread, that everyone in our society has an opportunity to participate in this new economy and reap its economic rewards. Mr. President, these are amazing times in which we live and the new economy is responsible for much of this nation's unprecedented prosperity: the stock market is soaring to unimaginable heights. IPO's are occurring at a record pace and creating literally thousands of millionaires in this country. The innovations of the new technologies are astounding: You can order a Saturn online and the very next day a new car shows up in your drive-way. Each day 25,000 new E-BAY subscribers sign up for the world's largest auction. The NetSchools program provides every child with a kid-proof laptop PC that is connected to teachers and classmates using wireless infared technology and has had tremendous results improving academic achievement, attendance, and parental involvement in extremely disadvantaged communities. A surgeon in Boston can direct a doctor in the Berkshires to do a biopsy by using telemedicine equipment. These innovations and hundreds more like them are changing how we live. The wealth creation--for those on the right side of the divide-- generated by this New Economy is breathtaking, Mr. President: College students go from the dorm room to the board room as high tech moguls, like Jerry Yang and Michael Dell. Starting salaries for high tech jobs even for students coming out of college can range from $70,000- $100,000--even more with stock options. Pick up the San Jose Mercury News job section each day and--literally--you will find advertisements for upwards of 10,000 high tech and information technology jobs. Silicon Valley has created more than 275,000 new jobs since 1992--and median family income has soared to $87,000 per year--the third highest in the country. But as we all know Mr. President, the new economy has not evenly spread its wealth to all Americans and income disparity in this nation continues to grow. One of the greatest challenges we currently face is to connect those not participating in the new economy with the skills, resources, and support necessary for them to do so. A January 2000 study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute found that in two-thirds of the states, the gap in incomes between the top 20 percent of families and the bottom 20 percent of families grew between the late 1980s and the late 1990s. In three-fourths of the states, income gaps between the top fifth and middle fifth of families grew over the last decade. By contrast, inequality declined significantly in only three states. Clearly Mr. President, the digital divide and the economic divide are closely interrelated and must be responded to as such. Mr. President, the new economy is more than the latest and greatest innovations in information technology and the highest-flying Internet companies. It is a knowledge economy, with a large share of the workforce employed in office jobs requiring some level of higher education. It is a global economy--the sum of U.S. imports and exports rose from 11 percent of gross domestic product in 1970 to 25 percent in 1997. This emerging economy is driven by innovation in every arena from traditional manufacturing to health care, and even farming and fishing. The new economy is powerful and exciting, but the digital divide is real and cannot afford to be ignored. Let me describe to you what this divide looks like. The Digital Divide: 61.6% of those with college degrees now use the Internet, while only 6.6% of those with an elementary school education or less use the Internet. At the highest incomes ($75,000+), the White/Black divide for computer ownership decreased by 76.2% between 1994 and 1998. Whites are more likely to have access to the Internet from home, than Blacks or Hispanics have from any location. Black and Hispanic households are 2/5 as likely to have home Internet access as White households. Forty-four million American adults, roughly 22 percent, do not have the reading and writing skills necessary for functioning in everyday life. And an estimated 87 percent of documents on the Internet are in English. Yet at least 32 million Americans speak a language other than English and they are--again and again--left behind on the Internet. Those with a college degree or higher are over eight times more likely to have a computer at home than the least educated and nearly sixteen times more likely to have home Internet access. The ``digital divide'' for Internet use between those at the highest and lowest education levels widened by 25% from 1997 to 1998. Those with college degrees or higher are ten times more likely to have Internet access at work as persons with only some high school education. Mr. President technology is changing our world. Technology is changing our lives, how we work, and how we learn. But this is not just a new economy, it is our economy. And ours is not a newly divided society. Mr. President, this country has always been a society of haves and have nots, and so although we must respond to the unique challenges presented by the changing economy and the changing world of work, we must also understand that bridging the digital divide is about more than just computers and the Internet. In order to meet the challenge of bridging the digital divide we must assist the have nots with basic necessities, like a good public education system, a safe and clean place to live, and adequate health care. We must recognize what I hear from business leaders, teachers, students, parents--everyone--the biggest technology issue in the United States today is education. And we need to make that connection. Originally when we talked about technology and education--the earlier days of our awareness that there was a growing digital divide--we were focused on wiring schools and outfitting them with equipment. Now, thanks in large part to the success of the E-Rate program, which we worked hard on in the Commerce Committee and which we pushed through to passage, now technology and education is about so much more. In just a few years most of our schools have gotten on-line. And now the focus is on training teachers to effectively use the technology, to integrate technology into the classroom, and to improve parental involvement through technology. What we can do and what we must do Mr. President, is work to harness technology to grow our economy and enlarge the winner's circle. What we can do and what we must do is work to communicate this single reality: to keep the economic growth moving ahead, we need to work together to ensure that we have a workforce and a generation of young people capable of working with the best technology and the very best ideas to raise living standards and expand the economy--and that is why we must close the digital divide. The digital divide goes far beyond technology to encompass basic human needs. Mr. President, if we can ensure that there is a computer in every classroom--for every student--the technology will not be effectively used, learning will continue to be challenged if the child does not have a safe and secure home to go to at the end of the day. If a child attends a school that is falling apart, does it matter how many computers are in the classroom and whether or not the school is wired? If a child lives in a dangerous and violent community--a reality for far too many of this nation's young people-- the fear of bullets and gangs is certain to triumph over the desire to conquer new technologies. If a child goes hungry, if school is the only place that can be counted on for a good meal, that child cannot focus on computing and learning. Mr. President, these are the issues of the digital divide: adequate and affordable housing, safe and secure school buildings, adequate health care, qualified teachers, an increased minimum wage, strong communities, and affordable day care. We must understand that in order to seize upon this brilliant moment of technological advance and move our entire nation forward, we must address these basic needs. We must shore up the foundation, Mr. President and provide all our citizens with opportunity as we march forward in the digital age. I ask my colleagues to ponder this for a moment: change is nothing new, technology is nothing new, the challenge is the same as it's ever been. But we can use these new technologies to extend opportunity to more Americans than ever before--or, if we're not careful, we could allow technology to heighten economic inequality and sharpen social divisions. By the same token, we can accelerate the most powerful engine of growth and prosperity the world has ever known--or allow that engine to stall. As every economics textbook will tell you, new technologies will continue to drive economic growth--but only if they continue to spread to all sectors of our economy and civic life. And that's the challenge that faces this Congress and this nation. Mr. President, we have a real opportunity here--and I urge my colleagues to seize it--to close the divisions within our society that have always existed and also to close the digital divide.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I had a feeling my 4 minutes was going to be shorter than their 4 minutes. But here is what I am willing to do. I want to try to accommodate my colleagues. I think it is important. I know how important these critical moments are. You want to try to make it work when you can.

Mr. KERRY. I am happy to accommodate my colleagues. It will probably be shorter if they start and do it rather than talk about doing it. Motion to Instruct Conferees, As Modified

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it may be my remarks will be shorter. If they take a brief period of time, I am happy to let that go forward, with the understanding that I will have the floor immediately after.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today, along with my colleagues, Senators Santorum and Sarbanes, I am introducing legislation which will help address the lack of affordable housing for the most vulnerable Americans--the elderly, disabled persons, and low-income families. This bill closes a number of gaps in the federal housing assistance programs for these families, and ensures that programs designed to promote affordable housing can do so in this rapidly expanding economy. As our economy flourishes at an unprecedented rate, many Americans have prospered. However, as the economy grows, so too does the gap between rich and poor. Instead of finding opportunities in this new economy, some Americans have found closed doors. This is especially true for low-income people who are being squeezed out of tight housing markets in my home state of Massachusetts and around the Nation. Although a majority of elderly Americans live in decent, adequate and affordable housing, millions of elderly households require some assistance in order to afford housing that meets their needs. In fact, there are eight elderly people waiting for each unit of assisted elderly housing in this country. Fourteen percent of people in Massachusetts are over 65 years of age, and one out of every ten of these elderly persons has an income below the poverty level. This bill expands upon the current program of providing affordable housing, increasing housing opportunities for low-income elderly and disabled persons, and bringing the program up-to-date. As Americans grow older, housing programs must be altered to address the changing needs of a generation that is living longer, and aging in place. This bill enables existing housing to be converted to assisted living facilities to meet the needs of the elderly and disabled. Assisted living is the fastest growing type of elderly housing in the U.S., and this legislation ensures that this supportive, and increasingly necessary living arrangement, is available to all elderly and disabled Americans, regardless of income. By 2030, 20 percent of this Nation's population will be over the age of 65, compared with only 13 percent of the population today. As we make strides in medicine to allow older people to live longer, more active lives, we must also make sure that the services and structures are in place to support elderly Americans. This bill is a step in this direction. This bill also encourages the leveraging of federal funds, helping to increase the stock of affordable housing. Public dollars alone are unable to meet the needs of low-income families. This legislation makes it easier for federal funds for disabled and elderly housing to be combined with other sources of funding, including the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, and private funds. Not only will this bill increase the supply of affordable housing for the elderly and disabled, it will help to preserve affordable housing for all low-income households. A record high number of households, 5.4 million, have worst case housing needs, paying over 50 percent of their income to housing costs or living in substandard housing. This is a 12 percent increase since 1991. At the same time that more Americans are finding it increasingly difficult to find suitable and affordable housing, the federal government has not been doing enough to preserve the affordable housing that exists. A number of provisions aim to ensure that affordable housing is preserved. This bill allows uninsured 236 project owners to retain their excess income for use in the project, helping to keep these owners in the program and ensuring that the units will remain affordable. In addition, this bill includes the preservation bill introduced earlier this Congress by Senator Jeffords and myself, S. 1318, to provide matching grants to States and localities devoting resources to the preservation of affordable housing. Cities, like Boston, which have dedicated a substantial amount of funds to the production and preservation of affordable housing units, would receive federal funds to assist in their efforts under this provision, ensuring that an even greater number of units are preserved. I hope that this critical legislation will attract broad support. At this time of prosperity, we cannot forget that while many Americans have benefited, there are still too many people who cannot afford to meet their basic housing needs. These people cannot be overlooked in this era of economic growth. This legislation ensures that they won't be.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today, along with my colleagues, Senators Santorum and Sarbanes, I am introducing legislation which will help address the lack of affordable housing for the most vulnerable Americans--the elderly, disabled persons, and low-income families. This bill closes a number of gaps in the federal housing assistance programs for these families, and ensures that programs designed to promote affordable housing can do so in this rapidly expanding economy. As our economy flourishes at an unprecedented rate, many Americans have prospered. However, as the economy grows, so too does the gap between rich and poor. Instead of finding opportunities in this new economy, some Americans have found closed doors. This is especially true for low-income people who are being squeezed out of tight housing markets in my home state of Massachusetts and around the Nation. Although a majority of elderly Americans live in decent, adequate and affordable housing, millions of elderly households require some assistance in order to afford housing that meets their needs. In fact, there are eight elderly people waiting for each unit of assisted elderly housing in this country. Fourteen percent of people in Massachusetts are over 65 years of age, and one out of every ten of these elderly persons has an income below the poverty level. This bill expands upon the current program of providing affordable housing, increasing housing opportunities for low-income elderly and disabled persons, and bringing the program up-to-date. As Americans grow older, housing programs must be altered to address the changing needs of a generation that is living longer, and aging in place. This bill enables existing housing to be converted to assisted living facilities to meet the needs of the elderly and disabled. Assisted living is the fastest growing type of elderly housing in the U.S., and this legislation ensures that this supportive, and increasingly necessary living arrangement, is available to all elderly and disabled Americans, regardless of income. By 2030, 20 percent of this Nation's population will be over the age of 65, compared with only 13 percent of the population today. As we make strides in medicine to allow older people to live longer, more active lives, we must also make sure that the services and structures are in place to support elderly Americans. This bill is a step in this direction. This bill also encourages the leveraging of federal funds, helping to increase the stock of affordable housing. Public dollars alone are unable to meet the needs of low-income families. This legislation makes it easier for federal funds for disabled and elderly housing to be combined with other sources of funding, including the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, and private funds. Not only will this bill increase the supply of affordable housing for the elderly and disabled, it will help to preserve affordable housing for all low-income households. A record high number of households, 5.4 million, have worst case housing needs, paying over 50 percent of their income to housing costs or living in substandard housing. This is a 12 percent increase since 1991. At the same time that more Americans are finding it increasingly difficult to find suitable and affordable housing, the federal government has not been doing enough to preserve the affordable housing that exists. A number of provisions aim to ensure that affordable housing is preserved. This bill allows uninsured 236 project owners to retain their excess income for use in the project, helping to keep these owners in the program and ensuring that the units will remain affordable. In addition, this bill includes the preservation bill introduced earlier this Congress by Senator Jeffords and myself, S. 1318, to provide matching grants to States and localities devoting resources to the preservation of affordable housing. Cities, like Boston, which have dedicated a substantial amount of funds to the production and preservation of affordable housing units, would receive federal funds to assist in their efforts under this provision, ensuring that an even greater number of units are preserved. I hope that this critical legislation will attract broad support. At this time of prosperity, we cannot forget that while many Americans have benefited, there are still too many people who cannot afford to meet their basic housing needs. These people cannot be overlooked in this era of economic growth. This legislation ensures that they won't be.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it has been more than a year now since the Columbine tragedy, and still regrettably our friends on the other side of the aisle refuse to act on commonsense, sensible gun legislation. I understand the divisions in the Senate and in the country on the issue of guns. I am certainly not unmindful of the truth to some people's assertions regarding the degree to which personal responsibility enters into the actions of anybody with respect to guns. Obviously, we need to create greater accountability on a personal level with respect to those actions. But common sense tells every single American that there are also basic things we can do to make this country safer for our children, things we can do to keep guns out of the hands of our children, things we can do to make our schools safer, ways in which guns themselves can become safer. I am deeply troubled by the numbers of people, particularly the number of children who have been wounded or killed by gunfire since Columbine, and who are killed and wounded by gunfire each year in this country. All we are asking is that the juvenile justice conference meet, that the Senate do its business, that they finish the business, issue their report, and that the Congress have the courage and the willingness to vote on the conference report. Until we do act, many of us on this side of the aisle--I would say the Democratic caucus--is prepared to read the names of those who have lost their lives to gun violence over the past year. We will continue to do so every single day that the Senate is in session. The following are the names of people who were killed by gunfire, 1 year ago today: Latonia Davis, 21, Charlotte, NC; Jacob B. Dodge, 24, Madison, WI; Elvin R. Dugan, 33, Oklahoma City, OK; Marcus E. Gray, 39, Chicago, IL; Dante Green, 26, Washington, DC; Dwayne Pate, 32, Washington, DC; Charles Vullo, 42, Houston, TX; Brandon Williams, 3, Hollywood, FL; Lennox Williams, 49, Hollywood, FL; Mae William, 44, Hollywood, FL; Unidentified male, 63, Portland, OR. I hope my colleagues will join in releasing the juvenile justice bill from its prison and empowering the Senate to do its job and to pass the juvenile justice bill, which will make this country safer for our children. I yield the floor.