Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I wish to briefly review where we are on this issue involving releasing the other arm of the Federal Government to fight hate crimes. This is an issue that has been before the Congress since 1997. We reported the legislation out of the committee in 1999. It is the year 2002, and we still, in this body and in the House of Representatives, have been unwilling, unable to pass legislation that is going to permit the Federal Government to fight terrorism at home. That is what hate crimes are all about. I am always surprised that we are unable to break the logjams. This legislation has been before the Senate. We voted on this legislation about a year ago as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill. The vote was 57 to 42. So we had strong bipartisan support for that legislation. Then we get to the conference and the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives said no. What we really need is to have the legislation passed free and clear, meaning no amendments attached to the legislation, in spite of the fact that 232 Members of the House of Representatives, Republicans and Democrats, understood as well that we ought to be fighting hate and terror at home. That is what this is all about, whether we are going to deal with the insidious hate crimes that continue to exist in this country and which, in too many instances, are not prosecuted. We have the strong support of those in the law enforcement area. Twenty-two State attorneys general support it; 175 law enforcement, civil rights, civic, and religious organizations; and 500 diverse religious leaders from across the Nation. We have to ask ourselves: Why are we really being blocked from permitting the Senate to address an issue which we have already addressed and which is in great need at home? And that is the hate crime issue. It is an outrage that Congress continues to be AWOL in the fight against hate crimes. Hate crimes are terrorist acts. They are modern- day lynchings designed to intimidate and terrorize whole communities. Our Attorney General in this past year has said: Just as the United States will pursue, prosecute and punish terrorists who attack America out of hatred for what we believe, we will pursue, prosecute and punish those who attack law abiding Americans out of hatred for who they are. Hatred is the enemy of justice, regardless of its source. In the same speech: Criminal acts of hate run counter to what is best in America, our belief in equality and freedom. The Department of Justice will aggressively investigate, prosecute and punish criminal acts of violence and vigilantism motivated by hate and intolerance. Our message this morning is unambiguous and clear. The volatile poisonous mixture of hatred and violence will not go unchallenged in the American system of justice. That is what this legislation is all about, to try to make sure we are going to prosecute these acts of violence that are based upon bigotry and hatred and that affect not only the individuals who are involved but also affect the whole community. Many of us thought, after September 11 and after the extraordinary loss of lives, after the extraordinary acts of heroism, there was a new spirit in America. I believe that to be so. I think it is true. It is reflected in so many different areas. We are reaching out to understand our communities. We are reaching out to understand our neighbors and friends. We have a strong understanding that America, in many respects, is closer, bonded together in order to try to resist the acts of terror that are at home but also understand the values which are important to each other. Within that spirit, it is amazing to me that we as a country are so prepared to assault those cells of hatred as they exist in other parts of the world and refuse to address them at home. That is what this legislation is really all about. That is why we need this legislation. It is very simple. I see my friend and colleague. I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I was very disturbed to learn that the Appropriations Committee included language in the Emergency Supplemental that would direct the Department of Transportation to work with the Immigration and Naturalization Service and State motor vehicle authorities to implement a policy with respect to immigrant eligibility for drivers licenses. This decision was made without any consultation with the Committee of jurisdiction. The issue of immigrant access to drivers licenses is a complex one, implicating road safety, as well as questions of immigration, discrimination and racial profiling. It is a controversial issue that is being addressed by almost all state legislatures and about which there has yet to develop a national consensus. My reading of the provision is that this language applies solely in the case where a State elects to move towards the policy on nonimmigrants referenced by the Report. In such a case, the Committee intends to direct the Department of Transportation to act as a liaison between the state motor vehicle department and the INS to facilitate implementation of the State's policy. This language should not be intended as a mandate to the states, nor affect in any way the States' discretion to determine which of their residents is eligible for a drivers license. Indeed, there is no statute on the books authorizing the Department of Transportation to limit, entice, or otherwise influence a state's discretion to provide drivers licenses to immigrants. Moreover, there are no funds in the bill itself or elsewhere that have been authorized for such purposes. Finally, the language does not authorize the Department of Transportation or the Immigration and Naturalization Service to publish regulations or guidelines for States to follow, nor does it require any particular action either by the Department of Transportation or by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Everyone agrees that drivers licenses must provide accurate and reliable proof of one's identity and ability to operate a motor vehicle. However, tying drivers licenses expiration dates to visa expiration dates will not enhance our security. Sophisticated terrorists with substantial financial resources are likely to have the ability to obtain drivers licenses when necessary, regardless of restrictions like those discussed in the Supplemental. Moreover, State drivers license issuing agencies should not be in the business of verifying immigration status, as determining immigration status is very complicated with serious ramifications for all non- citizens. The term nonimmigrant itself is a technical legal term that leads to much confusion. Errors will likely result as motor vehicle personnel attempt to interpret complicated immigration law provisions. Distinguishing between immigrant, nonimmigrant, and other applicants, as well as understanding when visas expire, is complicated and very difficult without proper training. Furthermore, nonimmigrant visas do not have uniform documentation nor do they have a simple expiration date. Experience has shown that when public officials are required to check immigration status, Latinos, Asians, and others who appear to be foreign are asked to produce additional documentation or have their documents more closely scrutinized. This behavior often results in civil rights violations, frequently involving U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents. While security concerns are extremely important, we need to consider the negative consequences of linking drivers licenses to immigration status. Mr. President, this legislation on supplemental appropriations for further recovery from and response to terrorist attacks on the United States for fiscal year 2002 provides $15 million for the State Department to create a new high school exchange program for students from predominantly Islamic countries. The program that will be established with this funding is based on S. 2505, the Cultural Bridges Act, which Senators Lugar, Leahy, Chafee, Dodd, Hagel, Gordon Smith, Cochran, Brownback, Jeffords, Durbin, Feingold, and I introduced on May 10. One of the clear lessons of September 11th is that our government needs to do more to ensure that future generations in the Islamic world understand more about American values and culture. A recent Gallup poll in nine predominantly Muslim countries revealed strong anti-American attitudes. Nearly 1.5 billion people live in the Islamic world, and if we ignore these sentiments, we do so at our own peril. If we try to address the problem directly, by teaching American values to students from the Islamic world, we have a chance, in the long run, of changing negative attitudes. It's a long process, which September 11th has taught us we must begin now. There are no better ambassadors for American values than Americans themselves, and student exchange programs have proven to be an effective tool in reaching out to the next generation of leaders. As Secretary Powell said in his August 2001 Statement on International Education Week, ``I can think of no more valuable asset to our country than the friendship of future world leaders who have been educated here.'' In October of last year, President Bush spoke eloquently about the need to reach out in friendship to children and the Islamic world. In a speech to students at Thurgood Marshall Extended Elementary School, the President said that America is ``determined to build ties of trust and friendship with people all around the world--particularly with children and people in the Islamic world.'' To facilitate the President's goal of reaching children, this supplemental appropriations bill provides the funding that is essential for the State Department to create a new program for high school students from the Islamic world to study in the United States. No federal program currently exists to facilitate such student exchanges with ever-increasing numbers of youth in the Islamic world. There are many benefits to reaching out to students while they are young and open-minded to enhance mutual cultural understanding and tolerance. Today's high school students are tomorrow's leaders, and we need to begin working with them now to inform their attitudes about our country. In January 20, 2002 op-ed in the Washington Post, a former Fulbright scholarship recipient from Egypt expressed concern that his university in Egypt was and continues to be fertile ground for recruiters from terrorist or extremist organizations. Our challenge is to provide young students with the opportunity to learn about America, participate in all aspects of American family life, and understand our values before they reach that stage. The high school student exchange program that will be developed with this funding will be modeled on the State Department's highly successful Future Leaders Exchange Program (FLEX), which brings approximately 1,000 students ages 15-17 from the Newly Independent States to the United States each year to attend an American high school for a year and live with an American family. The FLEX program has been extremely effective in shaping attitudes among the students selected to participate from the Newly Independent States. A 1998 U.S. government study, which compared Russian FLEX alumni with other Russian youth of the same age, indicated that the FLEX alumni are more open to and accepting of Western values and democratic ideals. They are more likely to want to become leaders in and to make a contribution to their society. They tend to be more optimistic about the future of their country--especially its evolution to a more democratic, rule-of-law society--than other Russian youths. Significantly, the FLEX program has been successful in the six predominantly Islamic countries from the Newly Independent States-- Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. More than 1,500 students from those Muslim countries have studied and lived in the United States since the program began. FLEX alumni in Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan are teaching English in their home countries, and alumni in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have been involved in activities to develop democratic practices. Given the track record in these countries, there is every reason to believe that a high school student exchange program would succeed throughout the Islamic world. Like the existing student exchange program for the Newly Independent States, and consistent with the Cultural Bridges Act, this new program should require participating students in high school exchanges from the Islamic world to be selected competitively and in a manner that ensures geographic, gender, and socio-economic diversity. To qualify, students should be tested extensively and interviewed under State Department guidelines. As with the FLEX program, the State Department should work with experienced American non-governmental organizations to recruit, select, and place students and will remain in close contact with the public high school, American host family, and American non-governmental organizations while the students are in the United States. Importantly, consistent with the Cultural Bridges Act, all students and visitors participating in programs authorized in this legislation should be admissible under all immigration laws and procedures. Furthermore, legislation recently signed into law improves our ability to screen foreign students by requiring increased communication among the State Department, the INS, and the schools enrolling foreign students and by closing gaps in the existing foreign student monitoring program. The high school exchange program included in this supplemental appropriations bill has been endorsed by the Alliance for International Education and Cultural Exchange, AMIDEAST, AFS, the Academy for Educational Development, the American Councils for International Education, the American Institute for Foreign Study, the Institute of International Education, the National Council for International Visitors, Sister Cities International, World Learning, and World Study Group. America must respond to the terrorist threat on many levels. We need to ensure that our defenses are strong, our borders are secure, and our relationships with allies are vibrant. We also need to do more in the area of public diplomacy. It is clearly in America's national security interest to promote more people-to-people contacts throughout the Muslim world. Indeed, in a May 3rd speech to the World Affairs Council in California, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz spoke about the need to reach out and strengthen voices of moderation in the Islamic world and to bridge the ``dangerous gap'' between the West and the Muslim world. He said America must ``begin now . . . the gap is wide and there is no time for delay.'' After September 11, many of the Muslim countries condemned those acts and pledged to help the United States fight terrorism. As we have seen in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere in the Muslim world, some individuals and factions within a country can support terrorists and terrorist organizations, while others seek to resolve issues peacefully. America must reach out in friendship to all individuals in the Islamic world who share our worldview. The Koran says, ``O Mankind! We created you from a single pair of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other.'' These words speak eloquently of the need for this legislation. Building bridges of understanding and tolerance across cultures will help ensure that Americans and people of the Islamic world will truly understand and know each another. I am grateful to Senator Leahy for recommending that funding for this new student exchange program be included in the supplemental appropriations bill. I am grateful as well to Senators McConnell, Byrd, and Stevens for their support. I urge my colleagues to support funding for this program, and I hope it will be preserved during the conference on the supplemental appropriations bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on May 23, 2002, the Senate passed the Conference Report to H.R. 3448, the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002. Included in Title V of this Conference Report is the reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, ``PDUFA''. Performance goals, existing outside of the statute, accompany the reauthorization of PDUFA. These goals represent a realistic projection of what the Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research can accomplish with industry cooperation. The Secretary of Health and Human Services forwarded these goals to the chairmen of the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions of the Senate, in a document entitled ``PDUFA Reauthorization Performance Goals and Procedures.'' According to Section 502 of the Conference Report, ``the fees authorized by amendments made in this subtitle will be dedicated towards expediting the drug development process and the process for the review of human drug application as set forth in the goals in the Congressional Record.'' Today I am submitting for the Record this document, which was forwarded to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions on June 4, 2002, as well as the letter from Secretary Thompson that accompanied the transmittal of this document. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join in support of the amendment by the Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin, to provide urgently needed help in the international battle against the AIDS pandemic. AIDS is the fourth leading cause of death in the world. This terrible disease ends lives, destroys families, undermines economies, and threatens the stability and progress of entire nations. We must carry the fight against AIDS to every corner of the globe. And the Durbin amendment would help the United States and the world to meet this extraordinary challenge. We in America know of the pain and loss that this disease cruelly inflicts. Millions of our fellow citizens, men, women, and children, are infected with HIV/AIDS. And far too many have lost their lives. While we still seek a cure to AIDS, we have learned to help those infected by the virus to lead long and productive lives through the miracle of prescription drugs. But this disease knows no boundaries. It travels across borders to infect innocent people in every continent across the globe. We have an obligation to continue the fight against this disease at home. But we should also share what we have learned to help those in other countries in this life-and-death battle. And we must do all we can to provide new resources to help those who cannot afford today's therapies. As we sought to enforce child labor laws at home, we also worked to protect children abroad. As we developed new ways of promoting children's health and public health, we have shared these life-saving discoveries with other countries in need. And once again, we are called upon to open the doors between nations to do all we can to halt the spread of AIDS, and to treat those infected by it. Twelve years ago, this country demonstrated its commitment to the care and treatment of Americans living with AIDS by passing the Ryan White Care Act. Since that time, community-based care has become more available, drug treatments have been developed that nearly double the life expectancy of HIV positive individuals, and public campaigns have increased awareness of the disease. Yet, advances such as these remain largely the privilege of wealthy nations. AIDS inflicts a particular toll on developing countries. Globally, 40 million people have HIV/AIDS, and the overwhelming majority live in poor countries. Sub-Saharan Africa is the most affected region, where nearly all of the world's AIDS orphans live. AIDS robs poor countries of the workers they need to develop their economies. They lose teachers needed to combat illiteracy and train their workers for modern challenges. Africa has lost seven million farmers needed to meet the food needs of entire nations. AIDS plunges poor nations into even deeper, more desperate poverty. Governments can make the difference in battling this epidemic. Where governments in poor countries have been provided resources to fight the spread of AIDS, infection rates have dropped 80 percent. But these countries cannot turn the corner on AIDS on their own. Their governments must be provided the technical assistance and resources to carry out anti-AIDS campaigns. They need financial help to afford expensive anti-retroviral drugs. And drug companies must do their part to make these drugs more affordable to the poor. In addition, more public education is needed. A UNICEF survey found that most young people still have not heard of AIDS or do not understand how the disease is transmitted. By speaking out, our government can help to lift the stigma and taboo surrounding the disease and save lives. The challenges are great, but not insurmountable. The epidemic is in its early stages. In most regions of the world, the prevalence rate is still less than one percent of the population. But we cannot delay. It only took 10 years for the HIV/AIDS population to double in the Russian Federation. And in South Africa, the rate increased from 1 in 100 people to 1 in 4 in one decade. Senator Durbin's amendment gives much needed support to fund the programs that fight international HIV and AIDS. By supporting this amendment to increase the funding for bi-lateral AIDS prevention, care and treatment, as well as the United States commitment to the global fund, we will be helping to address the global public health crisis and maintain international stability. I thank Senator Durbin for offering the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will take 2 minutes. I mentioned earlier the impact on some of the counties. I want to point out this is not just large communities or small communities, it is in all communities. I will use, for example, what some cuts mean to children. Just for the minute or two, I will use some of the counties in the State of Florida, but these are replicated in other communities. In Hillsborough, around Tampa, a $6.2 million cut, which is the entire program canceled for 36,000 students not served; Lee County, $1.3 million cut, all summer school services have been cut, except for those for the IDEA students. That is 2,500 high school students will not be served. In Leon County, they have $1 million for their summer school program. They have now decided not to serve any of the 3,600 they intended to serve. In Manatee County, $1.4 million was cut from their summer program leaving just $275,000, so that entire program is canceled, except for the students who need only one credit to graduate. This is being replicated in rural areas, urban areas, all across the country--300,000 children were depending upon summer school in order to meet their obligations to try to meet the rigors of academic challenges in school. If we do not provide the resources here in this legislation in a timely way, those programs will be canceled and those children are in very serious risk of not being able to move to another grade or to graduate. I think that falls into the definition of an emergency. Amendment No. 3608, As Modified

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. KENNEDY. I had asked that the pending Reid amendment be temporarily set aside, and then I was going to send my amendment to the desk, if that was agreed to. Then I understood Senator Feingold asked unanimous consent to go after I conclude my amendment. That is what I had understood was going to be the process. I am glad to work out whatever arrangement.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending Reid amendment be temporarily set aside in order that I may offer an amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to waive section 205 of H. Con. Res 290, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001 for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if I may have 30 seconds, I thank my friend from West Virginia. He can make a speech in favor of education, name every one of his elementary and secondary schoolteachers, give all of their background, and convince this body of the importance of funding. I am looking forward to standing with him, hopefully shoulder to shoulder, as we move on into these appropriations to try to do what needs to be done for the children of this country. I always enjoy the chance of working with him. My time has expired, I understand.

Mr. KENNEDY. As I mentioned, we are prepared to move ahead with the resolution. I will yield back my 30 seconds. I understand when all time has expired, then a point of order will be made. We will let the Senate make a decision. I thank the Senator very much for extending me the time. We have had other Senators who have spoken. I think we are prepared to move ahead.

Mr. KENNEDY. I amend my request.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, is there objection to temporarily setting aside the Reid amendment?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. I think we have had a good discussion. I am prepared to yield back the time. I am very grateful to the Senator. We are prepared to yield back the time and move ahead. I would retain that time if others were going to speak, but I am prepared to move to the vote on what will probably be a point of order. If the Senator cares to, I will yield back my time, if those in opposition will yield back their time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I then offer---- Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. I think I still have the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I offer a second-degree amendment to the Reid amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in 1997, the Boston Celtics established the Heroes Among Us program to honor outstanding individuals in New England who have made an overwhelming impact on the lives of others. The ``Heroes Among Us'' award is designed to honor and recognize members of society that stand tall in their commitment to their community. The extraordinary achievements of the honorees include: individual acts of courage, saving lives, sacrificing for others, overcoming obstacles to achieve their goals, and a lifelong commitment to bettering the lives of those around them. We have recognized those of all ages and from all walks of life, including students, clergy, community leaders, non-profit founders, and even Nobel Prize and Academy Award winners. At each home game during this 5-year span, the Boston Celtics and their fans have saluted the exemplary efforts of these citizens during a special in-game presentation on the team's legendary parquet floor. To date, more than 200 individuals have received the Heroes Among Us Award. We are all very proud of this program, which has become one of the most recognized and respected initiatives in the city of Boston. On Friday, June 14, 2002 at 2:00 p.m., the Celtics will host the 4th Annual Heroes Among Us ceremony in the Great Hall at the Massachusetts State House. Heroes from the 2001-2002 season will attend the event, along with Heroes from past seasons. Boston Celtics players, legends, and front office staff will join dignitaries and politicians from all over New England to salute these special individuals. The following outstanding community leaders have been honored this year: The Massachusetts Urban Search and Rescue Task Force (Beverly, MA); Erin Rosen-Watson (Natick, MA); William Pease (Gardner, MA); Dawn McNair (Natick, MA); Francis Bok (Boston, MA); Billy Ketchen (Scituate, MA); Raymond Nunez (Lawrence, MA); Lynn Donohue (Marion, MA); Ralph True (Uxbridge, MA); Darin Conley (Uxbridge, MA); Jim Stevens (Uxbridge, MA); Paul Flaherty (Stoughton, MA); Bridget Shaheen (Lawrence, MA); Brian McLaughlin (North Easton, MA); Rachael Levy (Wayland, MA); The Ranieri Family (Bellingham, MA); Chris Curran (Carver, MA); Iris Rivera (Roxbury, MA); Yon Hanlon (Hanson, MA); Sandy Aiello (Waltham, MA); Agnes Lynch (Braintree, MA); Detective Lee Grasso (Melrose, MA); Danny Ricard (West Boylston, MA); Terri Pechner (Revere, MA); Steven Smith (Swampscott, MA); Raymond Piccinni (Marblehead, MA); John Gilpatrick (Hanover, MA); Irene Smalls (Boston, MA). Frieda Garcia (Boston, MA); Julia Tripp (Randolph, MA); Terri Sarno (Ashland, MA); Dario Espino (Natick, MA); Matthew Gilman (Framingham, MA); Jennifer Dallaire (East Bridgewater, MA); Doreen Morrison (Brockton, MA); Catherine D'Amato (Boston, MA); Jennifer and Stuart Siedman (Wellesely, MA); Tony Lalicata (Reading, MA); Carie Miele (Acton, MA); Professor Charles Ogletree (Cambridge, MA); Peter Badavas (Brockton, MA); Chris Norwood (Brockton, MA); Mark Norwood (Brockton, MA); Alexandra Oliver-Davila (Roxbury, MA); Tony Richards (Dorchester, MA); Cam Neely (Lincoln, MA); Rosemary Bowers (Warwick, RI); The Ginley Family on behalf of Lt. John Ginley (Warwick, NY); Dr. Roseanna Means (Wellesley, MA); Rev. Dr. Gloria White Hammond (Boston, MA); Dana Laurendeau (Boston, MA); Darrin Dawley (Boston, MA); Eddie Andelman (Lynnfield, MA); Anthony Bibbo (Newton, MA); Liz Walker (Boston, MA); Robert Lewis, Jr. (Boston, MA); Judy and Jim Langmead (Walpole, MA); Clementina and Joseph Chery (Dorchester, MA). We pay tribute to them for their service.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, as I understand, we have time now until 10:15; is that correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may use.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, over the period of these past weeks I have tried, with other of our colleagues, to bring attention to what is happening across the country in terms of the funding of education. Many of us took pride in supporting the No Child Left Behind Act. Yet we are finding increasing information showing that more and more children across the Nation are being left behind. We are finding that daily in the reports. In a little while this morning, I and others will be offering an amendment to try to address some of the special needs in the summer programs which are so important to children, in providing supplementary services to these children. But I will focus on the overall issue we are facing of funding education, and, in particular, with regard to the availability of higher education for children from working families and from middle- income families and low-income families, and the availability and accessibility of the Pell grant program to help fund their education. As we have all seen, there have been increasing reductions in support even in the areas of higher education. First, I want to talk about the effect of the Bush budget on the overall investment in children and in teachers. This chart shows the overall education program. The proposal was for a 3.5-percent increase last year. We got it up to 20 percent last year. That was really as a result of working together. That is what we all wanted to do, to work together with our colleagues and work with the administration. But working together is a two-way street. Part of it is reform but also investing in education. That is what we were able to do last year. Yet, this year, we see the administration proposal is only a 2.8-percent increase, which is completely unsatisfactory. It does not even meet the cost of living. Of course, there are increasing numbers of children who are eligible for particularly the title I programs. So we will be, as we move through the appropriations battle, trying to meet our responsibilities to these children. I will bring to the attention of the Members of the Senate what happened just yesterday in New York City. Madam President, 100,000 teachers and students in New York City gathered to protest the drastic school budget cuts. There are $358 million in cuts proposed by the mayor. One-hundred thousand students and teachers crammed eight blocks outside City Hall to protest the drastic school budget cuts proposed by the mayor. Parents want their children educated. They want the Federal Government to work with the States and local communities to get the job done. If they see they are not getting it done in one area, there ought to be support for it in another area. They are tired of excuses. We had the great national debate in terms of K through 12 just this last year. We made some commitments. We have some sense of expectation about what we are asking young people to do. We have some important accountability. But if we are going to ask the children to be accountable, we ought to be accountable. That is the key issue. If we are asking the young children who are going to school every single day to be accountable for the work they are to do, it is not too much to ask whether we are going to be accountable to make sure they are going to have the kind of support they need. What is happening now is we are failing to do that. Although money does not answer all of the problems, it is a clear indication of a nation's priorities. When you see that we have a virtual abandonment of the commitment in terms of investing in children, and leaving millions of children behind because of budget considerations, it is not satisfactory. We are, over the period of the remaining time in the Congress, going to be raising this issue. We are putting our friends and colleagues on notice that we are going to insist on accountability in the Senate. Now, I want to mention an item in the supplemental which is very important, and that is the $1 billion for the Pell shortfall. We are grateful to the appropriators for ensuring that that $1 billion of shortfall was included in the supplemental. That is enormously important. But as we are looking at the shortfall, we have to look at where we have been and what we are looking forward to. If you look at where we have been in terms of the funding of the Pell grants over the period of the recent years, you can look back from 1993 to the year 2001, and the average increase was $167. During the Democratic administration, they raised the Pell grants from $2,300 to $3,750. That is an increase of $1,450. Last year, it was requested that it be raised by $100. The Congress raised that to $250. Look what the administration has requested for this year: zero; virtually zero in their budget in terms of the Pell grants. This is at a time when you have 640,000 more children living in poverty, and hundreds of thousands of those children are going to be eligible for the program, which means there is going to be a further withering away of the Pell grant program. That is fundamentally wrong. If we are talking about trying to improve K through 12--and we intend to do so--then we are going to have to have better qualified children who will have an interest in going on to college. Some of those young people will not come from wealthy families. There ought to be a system that is available to them, where if they are of limited income they can get the Pell grants, they can get some loans, they can get a work study program, they can work during the course of the summer, and they can put together a package so they can go to a fine public or private university. It was the intention of this Congress over a long period of time to say to the young people of this Nation that college was going to be available and affordable. It goes back to the 1860s and the Morrill Act, when we had the land-grant colleges. It was repeated at the time of the GI bill in the post-World War II period. It was repeated in the early 1960s, when we had grants and loans. At that time, the grants were about 75 percent, the loans 25 percent, and the system worked. But we have seen since that time increasing numbers of young people from working families, who have the skills, the talent, and the intellect to be able to go on to college, are denied that opportunity because the Pell grant just does not provide the resources and support. That is enormously important. We have seen where the administration has failed to fight for increased funding for K through 12. We are saying that the administration is failing to fight for those young people who want to go to our colleges. This, we believe, is absolutely wrong. We are going to go to battle and fight for that. Let me just review, very quickly, the recent experience on Pell grants. In fiscal year 1996, the House Republicans cut President Clinton's request for a $2,600 maximum Pell grant by $180, to $2,420. Congress later enacted a $2,470 maximum award. So even though it was cut during the negotiations, in the final negotiations, the macro-negotiations with the administration, they were able to get a very modest increase. In 1997, the House Republicans again cut President Clinton's request for a $2,700 maximum Pell grant by $200, to $2,500. Due to the pressure, again, from the President, the House Democrats enacted a $2,700 maximum award. In 1998, a bipartisan year, President Clinton proposed and Congress enacted a $3,000 maximum Pell grant. In 1999, fiscal year 2000, the House Republicans proposed a token increase over the Clinton request for Pell grants by $50 in 1999 and $25 in the year 2000. In 2001, President Clinton proposed a $3,500 maximum Pell grant, which was recommended by House Republicans. Led by House Democrats, however, the maximum Pell grant was later increased to $3,750, providing a $450 increase over the previous year and the largest increase in more than 25 years. Again, in 2002, President Bush proposed a $100 increase for the maximum Pell, the smallest increase in 7 years. The President proposed the smallest increase--this is last year--in 7 years. With a bipartisan effort, Congress enacted a $250 increase, raising the maximum level to $4,000. And because of anticipated enrollment increases, the budget fell short and would have resulted in an actual cut in the Pell grant. In fiscal year 2003, President Bush proposes to freeze the maximum Pell grant at $4,000. However, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that this will result in a cut of the maximum award to $3,900. When we are talking about trying to give a helping hand to young people of talent, ability, and intellectual capability to go to the fine schools and colleges of this country after they have gone through the high schools, many of these young people need the kind of financial package which includes some grants, some loans, work study, and other programs. For those in this body who don't understand what a difference $100 can make, if you increase fees by $100 or $200 in most community colleges, you will find a reduction in the number of applications of 5 or 10 percent; $200 to $300 will reflect a reduction of young people being willing to commit to that kind of indebtedness. That is what this is about. We have tried to show, and we are going to address, the issue of the summer funding programs later on when we have the supplemental. We have been trying to show in the past weeks the failure to invest in K through 12. We thank the appropriators for the increase of $1 billion they have provided to make sure the Pell grant is not going to fall behind. But as we are thankful to the appropriators for not falling further behind, we are mindful that this administration has requested absolutely zero in this budget. They are proposing $600 billion in tax cuts that will affect the wealthiest individuals and zero in terms of education for Pell grants that offer educational opportunities. Those are the choices being made. We on this side of the aisle find that that is an intolerable and unfair choice for millions of hard-working families and their children who have the ability. They don't get the grant unless they are able to be accepted into the schools and colleges. We are demanding excellence of those children who go from K through 12. Then when they want to continue their education, what happens? We have an administration that says: Zero. We want to give the American people the assurance that those of us on this side are going to work with our colleagues and others who are interested, but we will not stand for this kind of indifference in terms of support for young people to attend schools and colleges with Pell grants.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield.