Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, Senator DeWine and I are introducing legislation to give the Food and Drug Administration broad authority to regulate tobacco products for the protection of the public health. We cannot in good conscience allow the fuderal agency most responsible for protecting the public health to remain powerless to deal with the enormous risks of tobacco, the most deadly of all consumer products. Last year, a large bipartisan majority of the Senate voted to grant the FDA authority to regulate tobacco products. It was a major step forward in the long-term effort to enact this legislation, which health experts believe is the most important action Congress could take to protect children from this deadly addiction. Unfortunately, the legislation was blocked by a small group of House conferees. We are reintroducing our bill today and we are hopeful that 2005 will be the year when Congress takes the final steps to enact this extraordinarily important health legislation. This bill has majority support in the Senate and strong support amongst rank and file members in the House. Now is the time to make it the law of the land. The stakes are vast. Five thousand children have their first cigarette every day, and two thousand of them become daily smokers. Nearly a thousand of them will die prematurely from tobacco-induced diseases. Smoking is the number one preventable cause of death in the nation today. Cigarettes kill well over four hundred thousand Americans each year. That is more lives lost than from automobile accidents, alcohol abuse, illegal drugs, AIDS, murder, suicide, and fires combined. Our response to a public health problem of this magnitude must consist of more than half-way measures. We must deal firmly with tobacco company marketing practices that target children and mislead the public. The Food and Drug Administration needs broad authority to regulate the sale, distribution, and advertising of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. The tobacco industry currently spends over eleven billion dollars a year to promote its products. Much of that money is spent in ways designed to tempt children to start smoking, before they are mature enough to appreciate the enormity of the health risk. The industry knows that more than 90 percent of smokers begin as children and are addicted by the time they reach adulthood. Documents obtained from tobacco companies prove, in the companies' own words, the magnitude of the industry's efforts to trap children into dependency on their deadly product. Recent studies by the Institute of Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control show the substantial role of industry advertising in decisions by young people to use tobacco products. If we are serious about reducing youth smoking, FDA must have the power to prevent industry advertising designed to appeal to children wherever it will be seen by children. This legislation will give FDA the ability to stop tobacco advertising which glamorizes smoking from appearing where it will be seen by significant numbers of children. It grants FDA full authority to regulate tobacco advertising ``consistent with and to the full extent permitted by the First Amendment.'' FDA authority must also extend to the sale of tobacco products. Nearly every state makes it illegal to sell cigarettes to children under 18, but surveys show that those laws are rarely enforced and frequently violated. FDA must have the power to limit the sale of cigarettes to face-to-face transactions in which the age of the purchaser can be verified by identification. This means an end to self- service displays and vending machine sales. There must also be serious enforcement efforts with real penalties for those caught selling tobacco products to children. This is the only way to ensure that children under 18 are not able to buy cigarettes. The FDA conducted the longest rule-making proceeding in its history, studying which regulations would most effectively reduce the number of children who smoke. Seven hundred thousand public comments were received in the course of that rulemaking. At the conclusion of its proceeding, the Agency promulgated rules on the manner in which cigarettes are advertised and sold. Due to litigation, most of those regulations were never implemented. If we are serious about curbing youth smoking as much as possible, as soon as possible; it makes no sense to require FDA to reinvent the wheel by conducting a new multi- year rulemaking process on the same issues. This legislation will give the youth access and advertising restrictions already developed by FDA the immediate force of law, as if they had been issued under the new statute. The legislation also provides for stronger warnings on all cigarette and smokeless tobacco packages, and in all print advertisements. These warnings will be more explicit in their description of the medical problems which can result from tobacco use. The FDA is given the authority to change the text of these warning labels periodically, to keep their impact strong. Nicotine in cigarettes is highly addictive. Medical experts say that it is as addictive as heroin or cocaine. Yet for decades, tobacco companies have vehemently denied the addictiveness of their products. No one can forget the parade of tobacco executives who testified under oath before Congress that smoking cigarettes is not addictive. Overwhelming evidence in industry documents obtained through the discovery process proves that the companies not only knew of this addictiveness for decades, but actually relied on it as the basis for their marketing strategy. As we now know, cigarette manufacturers chemically manipulated the nicotine in their products to make it even more addictive. The tobacco industry has a long, dishonorable history of providing misleading information about the health consequences of smoking. These companies have repeatedly sought to characterize their products as far less hazardous than they are. They made minor innovations in product design seem far more significant for the health of the user than they actually were. It is essential that FDA have clear and unambiguous authority to prevent such misrepresentations in the future. The largest disinformation campaign in the history of the corporate world must end. Given the addictiveness of tobacco products, it is essential that the FDA regulate them for the protection of the public health. Over forty million Americans are currently addicted to cigarettes. No responsible public health official believes that cigarettes should be banned. A ban would leave forty million people without a way to satisfy their drug dependency. FDA should be able to take the necessary steps to help addicted smokers overcome their addiction, and to make the product less toxic for smokers who are unable or unwilling to stop. To do so, FDA must have the authority to reduce or remove hazardous ingredients from cigarettes, to the extent that it becomes scientifically feasible. The inherent risk in smoking should not be unnecessarily compounded. Recent statements by several tobacco companies make clear that they plan to develop what they characterize as ``reduced risk'' cigarettes. This legislation will require manufacturers to submit such ``reduced risk'' products to the FDA for analysis before they can be marketed. No health-related claims will be permitted until they have been verified to the FDA's satisfaction. These safeguards are essential to prevent deceptive industry marketing campaigns, which could lull the public into a false sense of health safety. Smoking is the number one preventable cause of death in America. Congress must vest FDA not only with the responsibility for regulating tobacco products, but with full authority to do the job effectively. This legislation will give the FDA the legal authority it needs--to reduce youth smoking by preventing tobacco advertising which targets children--to prevent the sale of tobacco products to minors--to help smokers overcome their addiction--to make tobacco products less toxic for those who continue to use them--and to prevent the tobacco industry from misleading the public about the dangers of smoking. Enacting this bill this year is the right thing to do for America's children.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have a modification at the desk and ask that my amendment be modified.

Mr. KENNEDY. I have cleared that both with the majority leader and minority leader. Mr. President, my amendment as modified increases the education funding by $5.4 billion paid for by the corporate tax loophole closure and now includes no additional deficit reduction. The amendment does three things. No. 1, it will make immediately available the Pell grant increase to $4,500. No. 2, it provides for the protection of the GEAR UP Program, the TRIO Programs, and vocational education. No. 3, it will ensure 60,000 math and science teachers every single year. That is effectively what this amendment does.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I inquire, I believe in the order of matters it is appropriate now to consider amendment No. 177, and there is a 15-minute time limit on it. Am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I call up the amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, during the last few days, we have voted on various education amendments. I want to direct the attention of our Members to some of the facts as we are coming to the final consideration of this amendment. Fact No. 1: The chairman's mark in the 2006 budget, if you look on page 5, you will see education, training programs, and you see that there will be cut $2.5 billion now, $4 billion in the second year. According to the best estimate we have, from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, cumulatively over 5 years this will be $40 billion. Those who are opposed to our amendment will say, you have a $5 billion higher education trust fund. But as the chairman of our committee pointed out, that basically is a phony mark. The chairman of our committee, Mr. Enzi, says that chairman's mark contains a $5 billion reserve for new initiatives coupled with approximately $5 billion in spending cuts. In order to get the $5 billion in reserve funds, you have to effectively have these cuts plus the reconciliation cuts. What we are talking about basically are very dramatic and significant cuts in education. This amendment does two basic things. First, it will ensure that we will reach $4,500 in Pell grants. Second, it will fund the cuts that are proposed by the President in terms of TRIO and GEAR UP so that we will help the needy children in that area. Third, it will ensure that we are going to provide funding for vocational education, special skills, the adult education program, so we are going to have a continuing upgrade of American skills. That is one important part of this amendment. The second important part is the part of the amendment that gives attention to where the United States is in terms of a global challenge. I personally believe that the greatest challenge we are facing today is globalization, and the challenge we ought to respond to is to make sure that our people will be able to deal with the global challenge. And that means investing in math and science. This amendment will fund education for math and science teachers in a similar way that we did at the time we were threatened with sputnik in 1957. With this amendment we will effectively get 50,000 to 60,000 more math and science teachers every year. We have seen what has happened to the United States in the area of math and science. In 1975, we were third in the world in terms of math and science and engineering degrees. By the year 2000, we were 15th in the world, and we are going down. This budget resolution will drive us down further. This amendment provides a stopgap to that and the opportunity to make significant gains. That is what this is about. We know that the Chinese are graduating three times as many engineers as the United States will this year. India is graduating three times as many computer scientists as we are. If we just think that we can go along with business as usual, we are missing an enormously important opportunity and responsibility. We need this kind of investment. We need it so that we will be able to compete globally in terms of the economy. We need this investment so that we will be able to compete from a national security point of view. Investing in our young people is an essential part of our national security. We cannot tolerate the kinds of cuts that are included in this legislation. This amendment addresses that. Those on the other side will say we have increased education funding by all these percentages in recent years. We have increased funding in education, but it is still totally inadequate. The fact is, most of the increase has been the result of action on this side. I wish we had been able to meet our responsibilities. If you look at what is happening currently in terms of high school dropouts, these are three of the large high schools in Los Angeles--it is difficult to see, but you should be able to see the trend lines-- Roosevelt High School, Garfield High School, and Huntington Park High School. You see the dramatic dropout that is taking place across the country. That is happening in our high schools. Talk to any principal, talk to any school board, talk to any of those involved in education--they know what is not happening; that is, getting a good education. Finally, for every 100 ninth graders, 68 of those graduate from high school out of every 100; 40, when they graduate, will enroll in college. Only 27 will stay enrolled as sophomores, and only 18 graduate from college on time out of the 100. Money is not the only answer. Money in a number of instances isn't the answer. But investing in resources is an indication of our national priority. It does seem to me that we can afford the $5.4 billion which is offset and paid for with the close of tax loopholes in a proposal that also includes $71 billion in tax reductions for individuals. That is what this whole proposal is about. That is what this budget is about: the question of priorities. This is a $5.5 billion investment in our children, offset--not increasing the deficit--with the closing of tax loopholes which has been accepted by the Senate in a proposal that is already providing $71 billion in tax reductions. It does seem to me that this is more of an expression of the values of the American people. Five billion is a lot, but we know that investing in our young people, investing in math and science, is key to our future. It seems to me to be something that the American people should and will support. I hope this amendment will be accepted.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to proceed for 1 minute.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California and others.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 84, submitted earlier today by myself, Senator McCain, Senator Dodd, and others.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Medicaid provides a critical safety net for 53 million Americans--low-income children, parents, disabled and elderly citizens who have nowhere else to turn for health care. Medicaid now provides health care for 1 in every 5 children. It pays for one-third of all births in this country, almost 40 percent of all long-term care expenses, a sixth of all drug costs, and half of the States' mental health services. It also is the largest payer of services for AIDS patients. What does it say about the leadership of this Senate that it proposes to cut $15 billion from Medicaid? That program provides health care for 25 million children, 13 million low-income adults, and 15 million disabled and elderly Americans. These cuts are proposed at the very same time the budget once again proposes large new tax cuts tilted toward higher income households. Our colleagues say they have no choice but to make these cuts to Medicaid because of the large deficit. But the large deficit was created by the large tax breaks for the rich, not by Medicaid. The budget is a blueprint of Congress' priorities for the Nation. This Congress once again shows that it cares more about those who have the most than it does about those who have the least. How can we possibly continue to give tax breaks each year to the wealthy, and reduce health benefits for the poor to pay for them. Those are not the values we stand for. In fact, the budget cuts in the Senate resolution are even deeper than the cuts proposed in the administration budget. Even if the Finance Committee adopts every cut the President proposed to Medicaid, they will still need to come up with an additional $7 billion in cuts to meet the target in this bill. We need to maintain the Federal commitment to medical care for the poorest of the poor. If we weaken the Federal commitment, these men, women, and children will go without care, or show up at the emergency room door. We know that lack of access to care causes harmful consequences. We cannot abandon our responsibility to provide for those among us who are less fortunate. This budget will force the States to pick up costs that the Federal Government should be covering. It will result in a massive shift of responsibility from the Federal Government to the States. We already have shifted much of the cost of the elderly to the States, costs that should be covered by Medicare. More than 40 percent of all Medicaid expenditures are used to fill the gaps in Medicare. Medicaid pays for their long-term care, their prescription drugs, and their cost-sharing. Medicaid is the largest source of long-term care today. The more than 7 million persons who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid are among the most vulnerable. Seventy percent of them have incomes below $10,000. Nearly one in four live in long-term care facilities. They are twice as likely to have Alzheimer's disease, and more likely to have diabetes and stroke than others on Medicare beneficiaries. They are a small proportion of the Medicaid population, but their costs are among the highest. Medicare will start paying for prescription drugs for the dually eligible next January, but the states will see little or no relief. In fact, because of the so-called ``clawback'' formula in the prescription drug law, many states will end up sending the federal government more money for picking up these drug costs than they would have spent without the drug bill. What kind of relief is that? We can all agree that we need to improve Medicaid. We have an opportunity to improve the program, but that is not what this budget does. This budget is not driven by policy--it is driven by an arbitrary number that was picked by the leadership as their deficit reduction target. The Federal Government needs to maintain its commitment to health care, not try to weaken it and dump the costs on the states. We need to help the states provide health care, not cut federal funding and put a bigger burden on them. But that is exactly what this budget does. Some on the other side describe these cuts as minor, or as reductions in growth, or as necessary Medicaid reforms. Don't believe a word of that. Nothing is further from the truth. There are no policy reasons for these cuts. They are large, harmful cuts that are being made so that they can say they are reducing the deficit. But if you look at the numbers, this budget doesn't reduce the deficit--it increases it over the next 5 years. Despite these harmful cuts in Medicaid, they add yet another round of tax breaks. Where is the fairness in that? It is Robin Hood in reverse steal from the poor to give to wealthy. Our colleagues say we need to cut Medicaid because it is growing too fast. The reason is obvious. It is growing because over the past 4 years, more people are losing their jobs and their health care, falling into poverty, and finding themselves with no option but Medicaid. That is what is responsible for Medicaid's growth. Over the past 4 years, the number of uninsured has climbed from 40 million to 45 million, and it is expected to continue growing for the foreseeable future. The number of uninsured would have been much greater without Medicaid. During the same time period that the number of uninsured increased by 5 million, the number of Americans on Medicaid grew by 9 million. If Medicaid had not been available to them, we would be facing 54 million uninsured. Is that the kind of policy the Nation wants to promote? Medicaid enrollment grew 40 percent over the past 5 years, and it is projected to grow another 5 percent this year. Enrollment growth is causing Medicaid's rising cost, not inefficiencies, or fraud, or abuse. In fact, the cost of private employer-sponsored health insurance has grown at twice the rate of Medicaid. The percentage of Americans with employer-sponsored health insurance fell, but the number of Americans on Medicaid grew, and that growth was largely caused by the bad economy, the continuing decline of employer health insurance, and the soaring cost of prescription drugs. Cutting costs is the wrong prescription for Medicaid. This amendment will give us time to assess Medicaid fairly, and base any changes on sound policy, not arbitrary budget cuts. These cuts will have a real impact on real people. Millions may lose their only hope for health care if we allow these cuts to stand. Emergency rooms will have more and more patients with nowhere else to turn, and the Nation's health care safety net will continue to fray. That is not the kind of budget we ought to be approving. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Smith-Bingaman amendment. Our goal on Medicaid is to improve it, not dismantle it.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support the Sarbanes amendment, which will prevent one the greatest failings of this President's Budget--its elimination of more than $2 billion from critically needed economic development and social service programs and the proposed consolidation of 18 valuable Federal programs into a single block grant under the so-called ``Strengthening America's Communities Initiative.'' I am heartened that so many of my colleagues have come together in opposition to these cuts--55 Senators wrote to the Budget Committee in an important show of bipartisanship 2 weeks ago. Under the President's plan most American cities can expect at least a 35 percent cut in assistance from the Federal Government to help secure investment, house the poor, provide health care to the uninsured, and counsel the abused. If the administration dislikes helping cities, they should have the decency to say so, instead of this charade where they try to hide massive cuts under the cloak of streamlining. Their proposal insults the intelligence of mayors, community development officials, and social service agencies across the country-- by cynically suggesting that somehow these cuts are going to make life better and be helpful to cities across America. What makes these cuts so objectionable is they come at a time of great stress and difficulty for Americans who live in poverty. 1We are the wealthiest nation on earth. We are blessed with great abundance. Yet despite our great wealth, too many of our fellow citizens remain in the shadows, the prisoners of persistent and increasing urban and rural poverty. The numbers are alarming. Today, nearly 36 million Americans live in poverty, and 3 million more working Americans live in hunger or on the verge of hunger today than in 2000. One out of five American children goes to bed hungry each night. We have it in our power to eliminate so much of this poverty. At the very least, we shouldn't do anything to make it worse which is exactly what this ``Strengthening America's Communities'' plan from the White House would do. In the powerful words of the Gospel, ``To whom much is given, much is required.'' We need to pass the Sarbanes amendment, so that the work of tens of thousands of public officials, health officials, educators, community development experts toiling to improve living conditions in our cities isn't made any more difficult. Mayors across the country on the front lines every day are struggling to create new jobs and attract capital investment. They are struggling to educate and house the children of the poor, and they are not fooled by this administration's misleading slogan ``Strengthening America's Communities,'' because they know it is the exact opposite. My friend, Mayor Clare Higgins of Northampton isn't fooled. She recently wrote me urging Congress to save Community Development Block Grants, one of the very few tools she has to meet Northampton's needs and one of the biggest programs on the President's chopping block. Most recently, Northampton invested $300,000 of these Federal funds to acquire the Interfaith Cold Weather Emergency Homeless shelter--the only cold weather shelter serving Hampshire County. It is a collaborative effort between area church groups and ServiceNet Inc., a local human service provider. Without these funds, there would be no cold weather shelter in Hampshire County. Mayor Higgins wrote: Without CDBG funds, the City will be unable to develop a planned senior center, public services that provide emergency food, homeless services, child care and after school programming, literacy skills and health care would not be funded; the City's ability to promote and develop affordable housing will be severely limited, parks and playgrounds will not be improved, and the City's ability to provide funding for the redevelopment of the former Northampton State Hospital will cease. Mayor Tom Menino of Boston--the former head of the U.S. Conference of Mayors--isn't fooled. He knows what's at stake and recently conducted an analysis of the budget cuts on his city. Since 1998 alone-- Mayor Menino stated at a recent press conference-- the City of Boston has permitted almost 5,000 new units of affordable housing and permitted more than 12,000 other units. We have invested a total of $7.8 million in CDBG funds in 19 large developments that have created a total of 1,175 apartments including 517 units for the formerly homeless. He went on to say that this budget for housing, community development, and social services threatens to ``throw the nation into the dark ages.'' That doesn't sound like he believes his community will be ``strengthened'' by the Bush administration's cuts. Mayor Menino believes the President's budget will mean the loss of $8 million in Community Development Block Grant funding for Boston and the loss of $5.5 million in Community Services Block Grant funding. On any given night in the City of Boston, there are nearly 6,000 homeless men, women, and children in the city. Shelters in Massachusetts have been overflowing for 6 straight years, with 4 beds available for every 5 adults. Yet the very support he has relied on to help build 133 units of affordable housing for homeless people, to help 500 low-income homeowners rehabilitate their properties, and to provide 130 first-time homebuyers with their down payments is now in grave danger. How exactly is the mayor supposed to strengthen Boston when the support he needs to do it is getting the axe under this budget? Other local officials tell the same story. A letter I recently received from Elizabeth Cohen, Executive Director of Rape Crises Services of Greater Lowell, says: Dear Senator Kennedy: We need your help . . . We use CDBG Funds to support multilingual sexual assault support services. We are the only program in the Greater Lowell area and the only agency to have certified rape crisis counselors who speak Spanish and Khmer. With the elimination of this funding, we will have to cut back on these services, which will result in 100 Khmer- speaking clients being unable to have a counselor in their language . . . As you know, immigrants and refugees already have many struggles when they move to a new city or new country. Having to deal with the trauma of sexual violence on top of the difficulties in housing, education, food and school can paralyze a family . . . Please don't let the President take away this funding for Lowell. I ask the Senate, does this sound like we are strengthening communities with this budget? In Lawrence--one of Massachusetts' and the Nation's poorest cities-- CDBG funds have been used to amazing effect to leverage nearly $110 million of investment in the remedation and redevelopment of an abandoned industrial brownfield site known as the Lawrence Gateway Project. The city has invested nearly $6 million of its CDBG funds in the project and formed a model partnership with GenCorp, a private company that has invested $75 million so far in the redevelopment. Today, Lawrence is continuing to use its CDBG funds to meet debt service payments on loans made to clean the properties. Without these Federal funds, the partnership with GenCorp could not exist, and the City would not be able to do anything about this 15- acre, fenced-in, desolate property, which would stand as a stark reminder of the city's industrial past rather than as a symbol of the kind of innovative development needed to build a stronger future for the city. How will we be strengthening Lawrence by eliminating one of the best ways they have to create investment partnerships with private businesses? In addition to the community development block grant, the Sarbanes amendment will also preserve the community services block grant. These funds strengthen communities by funding local agencies, which provide services such as literacy, child health care, after school activities, low-income housing, food stamps, emergency shelter, and other support. In Worcester, Patsy Lewis of the Worcester Community Action Council sent me a letter on just how devastating the President's plans to eliminate this program are. Simply put, Patsy wrote, they would have to reduce or close their GED classes and partnerships for at-risk students in the public schools. The agency may even be forced to close. Perhaps the President can explain how a community can be ``strengthened'' by eliminating GED programs. Another person who isn't fooled about the effect of the President's devastating ``Strengthening America's Communities,'' budget cuts is Steve Teasdale, executive director of the Main South Community Development Corporation in Worcester, which is doing incredible work attacking poverty in one of Massachusetts most economically distressed neighborhoods. The Main South Community Development Corporation was formed in 1986, when concerned citizens came together to revitalize the neighborhood surrounding Clark University, which was reeling from the economic and social devastation wrought by the loss of Worcester's industrial base. The obstacles in Main South's path are considerable: Between 1960 and 2000, the population of the neighborhood fell 35 percent from 5,600 to 3,700. The housing stock fell by 29 percent. Over 40 percent of the population lives below the poverty line--and 17 percent have incomes lower than 50 percent of the poverty level. At 11.4 percent, unemployment is double the city's rate of 6.3 percent. Over half of neighborhood households are headed by single parents. The challenges confronting the community are great, and Federal funds made available through the community services block grant, the community development block grant, and HUD's section 108 loan program have been absolutely essential to the extraordinary successes of Main South in recent years. CDBG funds were used at the outset to match a challenge grant from the Ford Foundation that provided for the creation of the entity, and enabled Main South to attract outside investment. The result is numerous accomplishments for the neighborhood. Since 1988, Main South has acquired and rehabilitated 246 units of low and moderate income housing--137 of which had been abandoned, and 78 of which were fire-damaged, many from arson. The new homes added $500,000 annually to Worcester's tax rolls. In addition, as a direct result of Main South's housing rehabilitation, over $20 million of investment has flowed back into the community. Three ongoing private developments represent another $40 million of capital brought into the area. Because of this Federal support, Main South has been able to be a true partner to Clark University, providing greater educational opportunity to neighborhood families--through a homework center, computer training classes, and career placement services. In fact, because of the success of the partnership, Clark University lets neighborhood high school students take college classes and provides full tuition to neighborhood students who make the grade academically. This is extraordinary. All of this has been made possible by the commitment and dedication of concerned community leaders--and the relatively modest sums of Federal support that are in danger with this budget before us. Now Main South is taking on its greatest project, the Kilby-Gardner- Hammond Neighborhood Project. This partnership between the Boys and Girls Club, the City, Clark University, and Main South will revitalize 30 acres of distressed industrial property consisting of over 40 vacant, trash-strewn lots. It aims to transform the neighborhood through the construction of a $7 million new Boys and Girls Club, between 70 to 80 affordable housing units, and a new outdoor track and field complex for Clark University students and neighborhood children alike. It is a transformative project, with a total investment impact of $30 million, much of that made possible by Section 108 loan guarantees that this budget would eliminate. Without Section 108, Teasdale and Main South would never have been able to acquire the properties to put this project together. This fact alone should cause us to reject the administration's ``strengthening communities'' proposal--because it will do nothing of the sort. The question has to be asked, [Teasdale recently wrote] is what would happen in these neighborhoods if such funding was severely restricted or cut back. The answer can only be assumed to be that the current problems in these areas would get worse as capital investment once again withdraws to safer havens and the social service needs of the resident populations are stripped away. Crime, substance abuse, lack of recreational and educational opportunities for the youth of these areas and the incidence of poverty can all be expected to increase if CDBG funding is no longer available. The long-term social and financial costs associated with such cut backs would be deeply damaging and although the immediate impact would be most severely felt in our poorer urban communities the resulting social distress would eventually affect everyone. Steve Teasdale and the leadership of the Main South Community Development Corporation know more about the day-to-day challenges affecting our poorer urban communities and the difficulties associated with urban economic revitalization than any of us, because they live it every day. I ask my colleagues to consider his words and vote for the Sarbanes amendment, so we can save these critically important poverty prevention and economic development programs. The Senate has a moral obligation not to make it harder for communities to solve the complicated issues of poverty and community development they face. Without the Sarbanes amendment, that is exactly what the Senate will allow to happen.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Byrd for standing up for the future of our Nation's national passenger rail service system with this amendment. For the past 4 years, this administration has acted in a thoroughly cynical way on Amtrak. Each year they have requested less funding than the railroad needs to operate and improve its services, and then they pillory Amtrak when it falls short of truly impossible goals. David Gunn, the CEO of Amtrak since 2003, has stated numerous times to Congress and administration officials that to put Amtrak on solid financial footing and increase ridership, key capital improvements are desperately needed, and would cost an estimated $1.8 billion a year. In fact, Amtrak's 5-year strategic plan calls for $1.8 billion this year, but the Bush administration simply refuses to request it from Congress, because they are bent on destroying the railroad. Compared to the railroad investments made by our major economic competitors like Japan and Germany--each of which invests nearly 20 percent of its total transportation budget on rail or between $3-4 billion each year--Mr. Gunn's request for $1.8 billion--or 2 percent of the Federal Government's transportation budget--doesn't seem outrageous. Amtrak operates a nationwide rail network, serving over 500 stations in 46 States. It has over 22,000 miles of track and 20,000 employees. Amtrak's request for $1.8 billion doesn't even come close to rivaling the amount the Federal Government spends on highways and air travel. Last year, we invested $34 billion for highways, and provided airlines with $14 billion to subsidize air travel. Yet despite Amtrak's clear and compelling needs, the administration has proposed only $900 million in each of the past 2 years, forcing Congress to scramble to provide a ``barebones'' budget of $1.2 billion needed to prevent the railroad from shutting down. As a result, instead of being able to focus on a long-range plan of restructuring and reform, Amtrak has been forced into a permanent plan of crisis management. They have been forced into accepting short-sighted capital investment deferrals and bookmaking wizardry simply to keep the railroad afloat. They haven't had any choice, and they are barely holding on. As anyone in the transportation industry will testify, repairs delayed only become more costly in the future. Yet that is what Amtrak has been forced to do because of chronic underinvestment. Despite these hardships, Mr. Gunn and his Amtrak team have had some successes, and we should acknowledge them. First, they were able to increase ridership by 4 percent during fiscal year 2004, for a total ridership of over 25 million nationwide. In addition, measured against domestic airlines, Amtrak has moved into 8th place in total ridership and 1st place in terms of on-time performance. After undermining Amtrak's efforts to make critical capital investments and improve services in recent years, the administration now simply proposes to eliminate funding altogether. In fact, the administration's budget itself advises that Amtrak will be forced into bankruptcy, and some sort of restructuring will take place. What we see again and again from this administration is the call for reform, without the resources to achieve it. It doesn't work in education, and it won't work with the Nation's passenger rail system. If the administration's plan--bankruptcy were--to happen, all of Amtrak's assets its stations, its track, its railroad cars, its locomotives--will be sold at fire-sale prices to pay off its creditors. Among the assets that could be permanently removed from the Nation's transportation network are: 2,141 railroad cars; 425 locomotives; 20 high-speed train sets; 97 miles of high speed track in Michigan; 62 miles of track between Hartford, Connecticut and Springfield, MA; 104 miles of high speed track in Pennsylvania; and the 363 miles of Northeast Corridor track connecting Washington, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston. Make no mistake, if these assets are pulled from the Nation's passenger rail system, no one will be able to put it back together again. Travel will be permanently undermined, to the detriment of our economic competitiveness, the quality of our environment, and our national security. The administration suggests that perhaps the governors will step in. But what will they step into? The States individually, and collectively, don't have the resources to acquire an operate the system. Even if they did, they haven't been consulted about such a proposal. Not a single State has come forward to express any interest in assuming the financial or legal responsibility for operating an interstate rail service. Can you imagine if the administration had proposed to eliminate the FAA and suggested that perhaps the Governors should take it over? This budget is a serious danger to the stability of our nation's transportation system. The Senate should reject the Bush administration's mindless plan of forcing Amtrak into bankruptcy. A safe, reliable, and efficient national transportation system demands that Congress act responsibly on passenger rail issues, even if the administration continues to refuse to do so. What if we have to shut down the national air traffic control system, as we did after 9/11, or if key parts or our Interstate system are compromised by terrorist attacks, as they may well be? Shouldn't the mere possibility of one or more of these crises force us to recognize the importance of maintaining a viable national rail network? The Senate should reject the administration's irresponsible passenger rail bankruptcy plan, and pass the Byrd amendment to ensure that America's transportation network remains strong and flexible for the future.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, Senators Murray, Cantwell, Corzine, Kerry, Lieberman, Sarbanes, Mikulski, Boxer, Lautenberg, Durbin, Schumer, Levin, Feinstein, Harkin, Dodd and I are re- introducing the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. In doing so, we reaffirm our strong commitment to equal rights for men and women. Adoption of the ERA is essential to guarantee that the freedoms protected by our Constitution apply equally to men and women. From the beginning of our history as a nation, women have had to wage a constant, long and difficult battle to win the same basic rights granted to men. It was not until 1920 that the Constitution was amended to guarantee women the right to vote, and still today discrimination continues in other ways. Statutory prohibitions against discrimination have clearly failed to give women the assurance of full equality they deserve. Despite passage of the Equal Pay Act and the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s, discrimination against women continues to permeate the workforce and many areas of the economy. Today, women earn less than 76 cents for each dollar earned by men, and the gap is even greater for women of color. In the year 2000, African American women earned just 64 percent of the earnings of white men, and Hispanic women earned only 54 percent. Women with college and professional degrees have achieved advances in a number of professional and managerial occupations in recent years-- yet more than 60 percent of working women are still clustered in a narrow range of traditionally female, traditionally low-paying occupations, and female-headed households continue to dominate the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. The routine discrimination that so many women still face today makes clear that the Equal Rights Amendment is needed now more than ever. Passage of the ERA by Congress will reaffirm our strong commitment to genuine equality for all women in this new century. A bolder effort is clearly needed to enable Congress and the States to live up to our commitment of full equality. The ERA alone cannot remedy all discrimination, but it will clearly strengthen the ongoing efforts of women across the country to obtain equal treatment. We know from the failed ratification experiences of the past that including the ERA in the Constitution will not be easy to achieve. But its extraordinary significance requires us to continue the battle. I urge my colleagues to approve the ERA in this Congress, and join the battle for ratification in the states. Women have waited too long for full recognition of their equal rights by the Constitution. I ask unanimous consent that the text of our joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, Senators Murray, Cantwell, Corzine, Kerry, Lieberman, Sarbanes, Mikulski, Boxer, Lautenberg, Durbin, Schumer, Levin, Feinstein, Harkin, Dodd and I are re- introducing the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. In doing so, we reaffirm our strong commitment to equal rights for men and women. Adoption of the ERA is essential to guarantee that the freedoms protected by our Constitution apply equally to men and women. From the beginning of our history as a nation, women have had to wage a constant, long and difficult battle to win the same basic rights granted to men. It was not until 1920 that the Constitution was amended to guarantee women the right to vote, and still today discrimination continues in other ways. Statutory prohibitions against discrimination have clearly failed to give women the assurance of full equality they deserve. Despite passage of the Equal Pay Act and the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s, discrimination against women continues to permeate the workforce and many areas of the economy. Today, women earn less than 76 cents for each dollar earned by men, and the gap is even greater for women of color. In the year 2000, African American women earned just 64 percent of the earnings of white men, and Hispanic women earned only 54 percent. Women with college and professional degrees have achieved advances in a number of professional and managerial occupations in recent years-- yet more than 60 percent of working women are still clustered in a narrow range of traditionally female, traditionally low-paying occupations, and female-headed households continue to dominate the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. The routine discrimination that so many women still face today makes clear that the Equal Rights Amendment is needed now more than ever. Passage of the ERA by Congress will reaffirm our strong commitment to genuine equality for all women in this new century. A bolder effort is clearly needed to enable Congress and the States to live up to our commitment of full equality. The ERA alone cannot remedy all discrimination, but it will clearly strengthen the ongoing efforts of women across the country to obtain equal treatment. We know from the failed ratification experiences of the past that including the ERA in the Constitution will not be easy to achieve. But its extraordinary significance requires us to continue the battle. I urge my colleagues to approve the ERA in this Congress, and join the battle for ratification in the states. Women have waited too long for full recognition of their equal rights by the Constitution. I ask unanimous consent that the text of our joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself one-half-hour.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Americans are a strong and generous people, but this is a weak and selfish budget. It gives more to those who already have the most and further deprives those who have the least. It gives the rich and powerful what they want while denying our families, our communities, our Nation what they need. Our national budget should reflect the generosity of spirit and the commitment to fairness and opportunity that characterizes the American people. Instead, this budget lacks the courage of American convictions. It betrays our most fundamental beliefs as a nation. As religious leaders of many faiths wrote Congress, this budget turns its back on our Nation's oldest and most enduring values of compassion, justice, and honesty. It demands an unequal sacrifice and so is unworthy of who we are as children of God. As Americans, we are known for our rugged individualism. We are stirred, even today, by the heroic images of pioneers pushing westward to build new lives for themselves and their families. But we are also good neighbors. The settlers traveled to the West in wagon trains because they knew that the survival of their families depended on strong communities working together for the common good. They lived by the Golden Rule, not only as a moral mandate but as a necessity. That is our American heritage, neighbor helping neighbor, all of us contributing to our communities and to our Nation to make us stronger. But this budget turns its back on those values. It assumes that Americans are selfish, that they prefer more tax breaks for wealthy individuals than greater opportunity for everyone. It assumes that Americans are selfish, by cutting back on access to higher education and training instead of enhancing our strength and competitiveness so that more of our citizens can fulfill the American dream in the global economy. It assumes that Americans are selfish, by increasing investments in defense without also increasing our commitment to reducing child poverty in America. It assumes that Americans are selfish, by borrowing billions more each year from Social Security to cover President Bush's distorted priorities instead of paying back the trillions of dollars that the White House has already taken from Social Security to pay for its tax breaks for the wealthy and the corporations. It assumes that Americans are selfish by providing $70 billion more in tax breaks, primarily benefitting the wealthiest taxpayers, while cutting billions from Medicaid that would go to provide health care for our poorest citizens. The tax cuts on dividend and capital gains income provided for in this budget will give billionaires an average annual tax break of over $35,000 while families with incomes under $50,000 will receive only $6 per year in tax savings. To assure continuing opportunity for our citizens, we must strengthen our commitment to education and health care. Without these commitments we weaken the American middle class, and the challenge of poverty will continue to grow. In just the past 4 years, middle-class families have seen their health insurance premiums jump 59 percent, college tuition rising some 35 percent, housing going up some 33 percent, and gasoline up 22 percent. At the same time, their jobs, the middle class jobs, are being shipped overseas and the new jobs created in today's economy make it harder and harder to provide for their families and plan for their future. The newer jobs provide lower wages, less health care, and fewer opportunities to save for a good retirement. The answer to this challenge is not to lower our wages but to raise our skills. We must invest more in education and job training. Just a week ago we had the debate on the floor of the United States Senate about increasing the minimum wage. We thank all of our colleagues on this side of the aisle for voting for it, and thank the handful of those on the other side voting for an increase in the minimum wage. Britain has now raised its minimum wage to $9.75 an hour, and it will be $10.29 an hour in the year 2006. It has seen a decline in unemployment, a steadying of its inflation rate, and has moved over a million children out of poverty. Nonetheless, we refuse to give hard-working Americans an increase in their minimum wage at a time when those who have opposed our minimum wage are talking about more tax breaks for the wealthiest individuals in the dividend tax rate they are going to propose in this budget. A week hasn't even gone by since they said no to those interested in a raise in the minimum wage, and it is yes to those who are going to get a nice tax break. When it comes to equipping our citizens for job opportunities for the future, this budget actually cuts back on our national commitment to education for the first time in a decade. The cuts in education over the next 5 years will total over $40 billion. Look at this chart, ``The Proposed Education and Training Budget.'' ``Cumulative Cut of $40 Billion Over the Next 5 Years.'' The United States responded to the challenge of the Industrial Revolution by developing our high schools. Then came World War II, and what was our response? We had the GI bill. What the figures show is that every dollar that was invested in those veterans of the greatest generation was returned sevenfold into the Federal Treasury. Then we were faced with the sputniks in 1957. What did we do, cut back on education? Cut back on training? Absolutely not. We went from about 2 cents out of our Federal dollar to 5 cents out of our Federal dollar. Now we are in a downward spiral in terms of supporting education over the period of the next 5 years. This is cumulative some $40 billion. We ought to be investing in our young people, providing them with continuing education and providing them with continuing skills. This budget cuts back on education and cuts back on the skills. This chart reflects this budget that is before the Senate. They are advocating increased tax breaks for wealthy individuals, and this chart indicates where those tax breaks are going to come from. I have shown in the past these budget cuts in a favorite proposal, No Child Left Behind. We will hear from the other side: We have increased it 20, 30, 40 percent over a period of years. But these are the number of children who are going to be left behind in the Bush budget that is before us at the present time. Don't ask those of us who are opposed to this budget, who think it doesn't reflect the best of our national priorities. Go and ask the head master at your local school. Go ask your school board. Go ask your teachers. Go visit the classrooms. Find the overcrowded classrooms. Ask your children if they are being challenged, whether they are getting the supplementary services? They will tell you they are not. It is amazing. When we passed the No Child Left Behind, we thought included in that legislation was that at the end of 12 years every child in America was supposed to be proficient. That is in the legislation. Every child in America was supposed to be proficient. How are we going to have every child in America proficient when you are leaving out almost half them a year when we are supposed to have the No Child Left Behind? When we passed Social Security, we didn't say we are going to leave out 20 or 30 percent; we said all seniors are going to be eligible. When we passed Medicare, we didn't say we are going to just do it for 80 percent or 70 percent; we said it is all Americans. I liken this to if President Kennedy said we are going to go to the Moon and we went to the Moon and left the astronauts there. Included in going to the Moon was getting the astronauts back down. Not in the No Child Left Behind. We are leaving out all of these children. This budget continues it. Again, money isn't the only answer in education, but it is a pretty clear reflection of what a Nation's priorities are. In this legislation, we are cutting back on student loans. Tiny increases to the Pell grants will mean college is still less affordable next year for 673,000 young Americans. Cuts are out there in the Gear-Up Program, in the TRIO Program, Upward Bound Programs--initiatives that will open up college doors for millions of young Americans--cuts in vocational education, cuts in adult education. Cuts in job training means that millions of our citizens will be unable to obtain the jobs they need to provide for their families and their communities. Just look at what is happening now in America. This is the national average of what is happening in our schools across the country. Out of every 100 ninth graders, 68 of these 100 will graduate from high school. Out of every 100 ninth graders, 40 of them will enroll in college, and 27 will stay enrolled as a sophomore. Out of the 100 ninth graders, 18 will graduate on time. This is what is happening in the United States of America with K-12. We don't say we have all the answers, but we have some. We know you have to have a well-trained teacher in the classroom. We know you have to have a small enough classroom so the teacher can teach the children. You know you have to have parental involvement. You know you have to be able to test children to find out why they are falling a little bit behind so you can get them supplementary services so they can catch up. We know what needs to be done. You have to give some of those limited English speaking students some additional help. You have to be sensitive to the needs of special needs children. We know what needs to be done, but this is what is happening now in the United States of America. What does this budget do about it? Virtually nothing. It cuts back on further support. The Bingaman amendment addresses this issue and provides some help and relief in terms of the children. We will come back to the issues on education, but I want to say another word about what this budget does with regard to Medicaid, which is a lifeline for 50 million poor women, children, elderly, and the disabled. In fact, a third of all newborns in America and their mothers rely on Medicaid for care. The Republican Party and the Bush administration say they are for a culture of life, but this action makes that an empty claim. Cutting Medicaid is one of the most damaging actions to a culture of life any administration could take. This budget fails to reduce by a single person the 45 million Americans who are without health insurance today. The number is growing when it should be a high priority for Congress and the administration to ensure that no American goes without adequate health care. I don't know about the rest of our colleagues, but when I travel around my State of Massachusetts, people say: What in the world are you doing in the Senate in terms of health care, coverage, and cost, and the cost of prescription drugs? When are you going to deal with it? You are taking care of the large corporate interests with your class action bill, and you have taken care of the credit card companies with the bankruptcy bill. Now you are considering a budget that is cutting back on the education and cutting back on the lifeline to many of the neediest people in our society and cutting back on Medicaid. It cuts back on children, it cuts back on the disabled, and it cuts back on the disabled who have been wounded, actually, in Iraq. They will depend upon the Medicaid Program because of their disability, and this program is being cut back. Still we see these reductions. This budget freezes the fund for health research at the National Institutes of Health. We are in the period of a life science century with what we have seen in terms of mapping of the human genome, the sequencing of the gene, all of the possibilities that are out there at the present time, unlimited possibilities. If we saw the potential cure for Alzheimer's, we would empty two-thirds of the nursing home beds in my State of Massachusetts. We are at the brink of that. What does this budget do? It cuts back on those kinds of possibilities. It makes no sense whatsoever. It cuts back on our commitment for disease prevention, for controlling the flu, the epidemics, minority health care, for children's hospitals. We are training the pediatricians--this budget cuts back in that support. It cuts back in rural hospitals, the training for nursing, and the bioterrorism preparedness. We worked in the area of bioterror preparedness to get our homeland security--to be able to detect it. We need to get support for the public health services and contain it. That is where you need the hospitals and the teams to be able to do it. You have to build up that infrastructure in order to be able to retain it, and you have to be able to treat the people affected by it. What we have seen in this legislation is the reduction in terms of those extremely important elements in our battle to deal with bioterrorism. I thank the budget chair and the ranking members for including a provision in this reserve fund for using information technology that may be very helpful to us in terms of getting a handle on the issue of health care and health care costs, and also for the work that was done with regard to the pension system which we are dealing with at the present time. I believe this budget fails the basic test of fairness and equity for the American people. It certainly does with regard to the education programs in this country. I want to add a word of strong support for the Bingaman amendment which we will be considering very shortly, particularly the aspects of the Bingaman amendment that relate to school dropouts. Dropout prevention is such an incredibly important program. We have areas in the country where we have as high as 30 or 40 percent in dropouts. That program has effectively been eliminated. The champion for that dropout prevention program is the Senator from New Mexico. I admire his perseverance and his commitment. Where we have dropout prevention programs, it makes a great deal of difference in keeping children in school rather than having them drop out into a life that lacks meaning and purpose. He has made this effort not only in the dropout program but also in the Gear-Up and in the TRIO Program. Let me mention very quickly what the Gear-Up Program really says. About 82 or 83 percent of our children in Boston are participating in the Gear-Up Program, which takes a whole class of children of the cities, and ties them, in effect, to our schools and our universities and our colleges of higher learning. We bring the colleges and the students together by the classes to provide help and assistance to the class itself, so the class has a sense that it is moving along and moving along together. It has had an extremely important and significant result. It has had a very important impact and result on the children that are part of the whole class that is moving up, to think that there are other children or young people and students who are in colleges that will work with them, spend time, volunteer, work with them on whatever their particular needs are. And it has had a dramatic impact on children in college who have benefited, who have a sense of what it means to get back to these students. Nonetheless, we see those programs--the Gear-Up Program and the TRIO Program--heavily undermined. The Bingaman amendment provides extremely important help and assistance. Finally, on the education. We passed last week, under the excellent direction of our friend and colleague Senator Enzi, the career and technical program Perkins legislation, which had such extraordinary support in providing skills to individuals. The graduates in my State, even though we have one of the highest unemployment rates of any of the industrial States, are in excess of 90 percent. It has been that way for a very significant period of time. Better than 90 percent are passing the general academic tests. These young people are getting good academic training and are acquiring skills which are necessary in the new economy. What are we saying to them? After we have a vote in the Senate of 99 to 0--not a single vote in opposition--we are effectively undermining that program in a dramatic way. The Bingaman amendment addressed that. Before this budget debate is completed, I intend to offer an amendment that puts this Nation on the road and on the pathway of eliminating child poverty in this Nation. Let me show where we are with child poverty. The United States has the highest child poverty rate in the industrial world at the present time. It has grown over the last 3 years to an absolutely unacceptable rate. Over the last 3 years, the number of children now in poverty has grown by 1.3 million. This is completely unacceptable for this Nation. This chart shows one in five American children now live in poverty. It is particularly endemic in terms of the national average now at 18 percent; 30 percent Latino, 34 percent for African Americans. The children are much more likely to live in poverty than adults or the elderly. Adults 18 to 61, 11 percent; seniors 65 and older, 10 percent; children 18 years and under is 18 percent. This is a matter of national urgency. It is a matter of national disgrace. I intend to offer an amendment for a 1-percent surtax on the taxes being paid by millionaires to be designated to battle the problems of child poverty in this Nation, with the goal of cutting it in half in the next 10 years. We will have an opportunity to do that. I thank Members on our side, the Senator from North Dakota and our colleagues, for raising many of the issues on health and education in the course of the discussion and debate. Hopefully, some of these amendments will be favorably considered. If a budget is to reflect a nation's priorities, this budget needs a great deal of strengthening. I look forward to the debate and, hopefully, to the acceptance of some of these amendments.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I believe I have some time left. Do I? I ask if I would be able to have 3 minutes. I don't think I used all my time. Perhaps I yielded it back.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask to reclaim 3 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would ask my friend and colleague from North Dakota--we heard about how plush the Medicaid Program is and that there are no alternatives left. It is my understanding in this particular proposal there is a $70 billion tax cut. Am I correct, there is approximately $70 billion that will be included in this budget? So there are questions of priorities, that there will be $70 billion in tax cuts at a time when we are listening to those talking about the pressures that are on the States in terms of Medicaid. I am wondering whether the Senator would agree with me that we have seen a loss of health insurance for 5 million American workers, a growth in poverty among children--nearly three quarters of a million more children fell into poverty between 2002 and 2003, and 4 million more Americans fell into poverty in the last four years, and the States are hard pressed. Would the Senator not agree with me that all of us are strongly against the kind of asset protection frauds that take place? That isn't what we are talking about here. My understanding of this is that there are going to be some real cuts for people and real benefits for people. I was interested in what the Senator from North Dakota felt about these priorities.

Mr. KENNEDY. Five or 6 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, a budget is supposed to be a reflection of our Nation's priorities. Unfortunately, when it comes to education, what we are saying in this national budget is we will spend 2 cents out of every Federal dollar on education. Do you hear me? If we went to any group of Americans across this country and asked them, what do you think your priorities are, what do you think we ought to spend on education, I bet 9 out of 10 would say, out of every dollar we ought to spend more than 2 cents. Under this budget, it is 2 cents out of every dollar. That is basically what this Budget Committee has given us. This is against a background where the U.S. is falling further and further behind every other nation in the key ingredients. If you look at where the U.S. was in 1975 in terms of math and science, the U.S. was third in the world. If you look at the year 2000, we are 15th in the world. Why is it that after World War II, when we had the return of service men and women who fought for this country, 5 cents out of the Federal budget went to education? Why is it that when the Russians challenged us with Sputnik, we went to 5 cents out of every dollar in education? Now we are going to 2 cents. We are challenged globally, not only economically with the outsourcing of jobs and the rush of low- paying jobs, but we are going to be challenged in terms of national security as well, make no mistake about it. We are talking about investing in the young minds of this country. What we are finding is a continued deterioration in that commitment. You can go back and fiddle around with all of the statistics and percentages you want--we are not, as a nation, investing in math and science in the education of our young people. In this budget, under the Republicans now, we find that there is ample opportunity to give another $70 billion in tax breaks, but they will not provide that kind of investment in our children in terms of their future in math and science and other education. That is the issue. Senator Conrad pointed out that this is paid for. Yes, this will also provide a reduction in our deficit. The question is: Do you want to invest in education of the young people of this country? We are seeing where we stand. We need this amendment because this amendment will make a difference. It makes a difference in a number of different areas. We just voted in the Senate 98 to 0, in terms of the Perkins legislation, to provide additional skills opportunities. I listened last week, when we wanted an increase in the minimum wage, to my friend from Wyoming say that what we need in this country is to give people skills. I believe we ought to provide that opportunity. But under the administration and this budget program, there is a cutback. My friend from New Hampshire says: Oh, no, this isn't really a cutback. This budget is really an accumulation of our recommendations to the Senate. The fact is they have accepted completely the President's budget in terms of cuts. They say we will accept what the President recommended in terms of cuts, and those cuts are there in education. There are cutbacks on training, skills, and on school dropout programs. Is there anyone in this body who has visited a school and has talked to teachers or parents or school boards or principals who does not understand what we are facing in this Nation in terms of the school dropouts, cutting back on education, trying to provide additional technical education to the children of this country? The Senator from New Hampshire points out all of the increases we have seen in the Pell grants in recent years. He and I must have different books because I have the Department of Education Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Summary. I have it right here. Under Pell grants, if you look at that, a third of the way down, it talks about 203, 204, and 205 requests, and they virtually are identical. Anybody in this Chamber who visits their local schools will find out the challenges that are presented to those schools. This Nation better figure out it better have more than 2 cents out of every dollar going to education. That is absolutely essential. The Bingaman amendment will make an important difference, and I hope this body is willing to accept it. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join with Senator Gregg in championing this important legislation to give fire fighters, police officers, emergency medical personnel, and other first responders the basic right at long last to fair representation in the workplace. Every year, tens of thousands of police officers and fire fighters are injured on the job. Even apart from the extraordinary tragedy of the loss of over 400 fire fighters and police officers on a single day on 9/11, hundreds of fire fighters and police officers lose their lives in the line of duty each year. This bill is a needed bipartisan effort to protect our Nation's public safety officers and the communities they serve. Providing such protections is the least we can do for them in light of the sacrifices they make every day for our country. For more than 60 years, the Federal Government has recognized the right of employees to bargain collectively with their employers. It encourages labor and management to work together to improve wages and working conditions and increase productivity. Collective bargaining has led the way on many important changes in today's workplace, such as health and pension benefits, paid holidays and sick leave, and workplace safety. Our legislation will ensure that first responders will also have this fundamental right. Granting this right to first responders also benefits the public in essential ways. It creates safer working conditions for public safety employees and increases public safety. It saves money for states and local communities by providing more cost-efficient public safety services. And it gives a voice on the job to the courageous public servants who put their lives on the line each day to protect and serve us. First responders are well aware what it takes to create safe working conditions, and they know what it takes to enhance public safety. This legislation gives first responders the opportunity to discuss on-the- job safety issues with management, and a meaningful role in establishing policies and practices to protect the public. In addition to improving public safety, this bill will save money. Experience has shown that when first responders are able to discuss workplace conditions with management their departments can provide more cost-effective services. Extending collective bargaining rights to all public safety employees will encourage innovation, efficiency and partnership in public safety departments, and produce lower costs for the States and local communities they serve. Our legislation accomplishes its goals in reasonable and moderate ways. Most states would not be affected, because their laws already permit collective bargaining between public safety employees and employers. Under this bill, states that do not do so may choose to establish their own collective bargaining system, or they may ask the assistance of the Federal Labor Relations Authority in establishing bargaining procedures and regulations. This approach respects existing state laws and gives each state the authority to decide how it will comply with this legislation. The benefits of this bill are clear and compelling. Public safety workers are one of the largest sectors of the workplace that do not yet have the basic right to form a union and bargain with their employers over wages, hours, and working conditions. It is a matter of basic fairness to give these courageous men and women the same rights that have long benefited so many other Americans. They deserve a voice in the life and death discussions about their work. They have earned that right, and I urge Congress to act quickly to guarantee it.