Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President. In a strong democracy, a variety of views must be available to citizens. Protections are essential so that minority views can be heard. That was the vision of America's founders when they drafted the First Amendment to the Constitution, and it has served the Nation well. Its principles are especially important today. Neither the broadcast industry nor anyone else is entitled to a monopoly over the dissemination of information in our society. The presence of a diversity of voices, each contributing to our national discourse, is essential for the functioning of our democratic society. And the best way to foster that diversity is through competition. Today, however, an increasingly serious problem is being caused by the buyouts of local broadcast stations by national media conglomerates. Competition suffers, and local issues of great importance to individual communities often go unheard. Many of us in Congress are deeply concerned that the remaining diversity of our media will be further be reduced by the Federal Communications Commission's recent decision to weaken media ownership rules. The new rules allow even greater media concentration, in spite of its adverse effect on competition, the diversity of views, and major national, State, and local priorities. I support Senator Dorgan's proposal to reject these rules, because they are not in the public interest, and would seriously weaken the protections in current law that prevent excessive concentration in the broadcast industry. The public has little to gain and a great deal to lose if we allow the FCC to slash the protections that serve them so well. Each weakening of restrictions on media ownership in recent years has been followed by a burst of new corporate consolidation. Mergers have sharply reduced the number of media companies and threaten to erode the diversity and competition that are so important to our Nation. The new rules will greatly increase this problem, by allowing fewer firms to control the flow of information--locally or nationally. It makes no sense for Congress to allow restrictions on the flow of information that is so important to our democracy in this information age. As a trustee of the Nation's public airwaves, the FCC has a responsibility to include the American public in its decision-making process. Yet the commission has largely ignored public comment and debate before it these sweeping changes in the nation's broadcasting rules. The commission agreed to one public hearing on the overall issue, and it refused to publicly disclose the rules before they were voted on. Such secrecy is unacceptable. What possible harm can come from public disclosure? The commission's ``notice and comment'' procedure is intended to allow an informed debate about these important issues of public policy, but in this case the agency used its procedures to keep the public in the dark. Even with incomplete information, the public reaction against the proposed changes has been unique in the history of the FCC. The commission received nearly three quarters of a million comments, and over 99.9 percent of them opposed the increase in media consolidation. As a result, a wide variety of organizations--including civil rights groups, churches, family values groups, and labor unions--have called on the FCC to reconsider the proposal. The National Rifle Association, the National Organization for Women, and many others expressed grave doubt about the wisdom of allowing greater consolidation. Nevertheless, the FCC approved the new rules. I urge my colleagues to send a clear message today to the commission and the public by nullifying these rules and reversing this misguided decision the commission to support the interest of media conglomerates and ignore the public interest. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I am not surprised, but I am always impressed with the spirit with which the Senator respects this institution and an individual Member's ability to raise important matters to make the case which Senator Feinstein and I are making this afternoon.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we live in a dangerous world, and the greatest danger of all is still the danger of nuclear war or the use of a nuclear weapon by a terrorist group. We know that terrorists are still plotting each and every day to find new ways to kill Americans. The United States has a responsibility to do what it can to make this a safer world--not as a lone ranger, not as the world's policeman, but for our national security, and for the principles of freedom and democracy that make our country what it is. We can't afford to let our own policy help ignite a new nuclear arms race. At the very time when we are urging other nations to halt their own nuclear weapons programs, the administration is rushing forward to develop our own new nuclear weapons. This bill contains $6 million for the development of the so-called ``mini-nukes'', and $15 million for the so-called nuclear bunker- buster. They want to speed up the testing of nuclear weapons, and select the site for a new pit facility--a factor for new nuclear warheads. These provisions demonstrate the dangerous new direction of our nuclear weapons policy. They continue the go-it-alone, damn-the- torpedoes approach to the delicate balance of international arms control in today's world. By passing this amendment, we can demonstrate that we are not embarking on this reckless new nuclear policy. It makes no sense for us to tell other nations to ``Do as we say, not as we do.'' We must do a better job of leading the way in reducing reliance on nuclear weapons and honoring our commitments to international arms control. The House bill takes this approach, because it prohibits the use of funds for the development of low-yield nuclear weapons and nuclear bunker busters. There's a reason why arms control has been such a key element of our foreign policy and defense policy over many decades. Last month, an infuriated gathering took place in Hiroshima to honor those who died there in 1945. The world knows the massive devastation that a nuclear weapon can unleash. Since 1945 nuclear weapons have never been used again in war. Yet, this year on the anniversary of those tragedies, the Bush Administration's Strategic Command held a secret meeting in Nebraska at Offut Air Force Base to discuss the plan for a new generation of nuclear weapons. They barred congressional staff from the meeting. Their nuclear policy is being discussed in the dark, without telling the American people or our allies what the policy is. The administration disbanded an advisory committee to the National Nuclear Security Administration with membership that ranged from James Schlesinger to Sidney Drell. Obviously, the administration is not interested in what some of the best minds in our country and the world have to say about nuclear policy in today's world. It's wrong to begin a new nuclear arms race by designing, building, and testing new weapons. The administration wants to lift the 1993 statutory ban imposed on developing ``mini-nukes.'' But these weapons are far from the type of small, surgical-strike weapons that the name suggests. They will not keep us safer or more secure. Mini-nukes are a dream come true for rogue regimes and terrorists, and a nightmare for every other nation on Earth. Just one of these weapons, carried by a terrorist in a suitcase, can devastate an entire city. A five-kiloton weapon would be half the size of the Hiroshima bomb. Some claim that these weapons are needed against deeply buried, hardened bunkers. But current technology will allow such a warhead to burrow only fifty feet into the ground or less. Detonating even a one- kiloton weapon at that depth would create a crater larger than the World Trade Center, larger than a football field. It will spew a million cubic feet or radioactive dust into the atmosphere. Imagine what a five-kiloton blast would do. Not only is the Bush administration developing their new nuclear weapons, it's also rushing to test them. As Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Fred Celec said in 2003, if you, ``design a new nuclear weapon . . . you will probably have to have a nuclear test.'' In fact, the administration coupled its request to design their nuclear weapons with a request to speed up the time it would take to test them. No one questions the safety of our nuclear stockpile. This accelerated test readiness is not needed to preserve our existing arsenal. The only reason for rushing to achieve the shortest possible testing time is to test new kinds of nuclear weapons. Consistent with this goal, the administration has also requested funds to design a large-scale production facility for plutonium pits, which are factories for new nuclear warheads. The administration wants a facility able to produce 500 of these pits a year, a level that far exceeds what is needed to maintain the current stockpile. The administration claims that it is reducing its current nuclear stockpile from 7,500 tactical warheads to less than 2,200. But while they plan for these reductions, the Department of Energy continues to ask for funding sufficient to support the stockpile levels set by the START I Arms Control Treaty in 1991 a level set before the fall of the Soviet Union. If we build 500 plutonium pits a year, it will far exceed the number needed for the current stockpile, even if we make the reductions planned by the administration. The numbers don't add up. We are escalating the nuclear arms race, not reducing it. These actions demonstrate the administration's contempt for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the foundation of all current global nuclear arms control. The Non-Proliferation Treaty, signed in 1968, has long stood for the fundamental principle that the world will be safer if nuclear proliferation does not extend beyond the five nations that possessed nuclear weapons at that time--the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, China, and France. It reflected the worldwide consensus that the greater the number of nations with nuclear weapons, the greater the risk of nuclear war. The Non-Proliferation Treaty has clearly prevented a worldwide nuclear arms race. Since the treaty was signed, only five additional nations acquired nuclear weapons, and out of them South Africa later got rid of them. Israel, India, and Pakistan never signed the treaty. North Korea signed it in 1985, but withdrew from it last year. The Bush administration's policy jeopardizes the entire structure of nuclear arms control so carefully negotiated by world leaders over the past half century, starting with the Eisenhower administration. The history of those years is still vivid in our minds. I was 13 years old on that fateful day in August 1945, when a B-29 bomber named ``Enola Gay'' dropped the first nuclear weapon, ``Little Boy,'' over Hiroshima. More than four square miles of the city were instantly and completely destroyed. More than 90,000 people died instantly. Another 50,000 died by the end of that year. Three days later, another B-29 dropped ``Fat Man'' over Nagasaki, killing 39,000 people and injuring 25,000 more. In 1957, when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, it became clear that two oceans could not protect us from a nuclear attack at home. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 showed the entire world how close it could come to catastrophe, and gave supreme urgency to nuclear arms control. In 1968, the Non-Proliferation Treaty was signed in Moscow, London, and Washington, DC, and went into full effect in 1970. For the next 20 years, the United States and the Soviet Union negotiated a series of landmark treaties to keep the world from blowing itself up. Some say these efforts on arms control have not prevented the spread of nuclear weapons. But look at the past 15 years; South Africa, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and the Ukraine--the world's third largest nuclear power--renounced the use of nuclear weapons and joined the Non- Proliferation Treaty as non-nuclear states. Britain and France ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Even though the U.S. Senate did not ratify this landmark treaty, every signatory and ratifier has obeyed the spirit of the treaty and not tested nuclear weapons. The United States and Russia have removed thousands of nuclear weapons from alert status, reduced the number of weapons, and coordinated in protecting nuclear materials from theft. Without this amendment, we turn our backs on five decades of progress in reducing the threat we and the world face from nuclear weapons. Some in the administration argue that in today's world the yield of the nuclear weapons in our current arsenals is so immense that our enemies know that we will never use them. They argue that these massive nuclear weapons have no deterrent value against many of today's adversaries and that we need smaller, more ``usable'' nuclear weapons to make deterrence more credible. In fact, if we start treating nuclear weapons as just another weapon in our arsenal, we will increase the likelihood of their use--not only against our adversaries, but also against ourselves. We would be dangerously blurring the line between nuclear and conventional weapons, and tear down the firewall between these weapons that has served us so well in preventing nuclear war in the entire half-century since World War II. As Secretary of State Powell said last year, ``Nuclear weapons in this day and age may serve some deterrent effect, and so be it, but to think of using them as just another weapon in what might start out as a conventional conflict in this day and age seems to me to be something that no side should be contemplating.'' It is difficult to believe that these new types of nuclear weapons serve any rational military purpose. As we saw in the first Persian Gulf war and again in the war against Iraq, precision-guided conventional and stand-off weapons serve us incredibly well. How could low-yield nuclear weapons be any more effective than the precision- guided conventional weapons? And their radioactive fall-out would be far more dangerous to our ground troops and to civilian populations. Our goal is to prevent nuclear wars, not start them. I urge my colleagues to approve the Feinstein-Kennedy amendment, and say ``no'' to any such fateful step on the road to nuclear war. I wanted to thank my good friend and colleague from California for her presentation earlier this afternoon and also for her eloquence when we addressed this issue earlier in the session. She has reminded us in this body about how this administration has been evolving its whole nuclear policy with very subtle changes, moving us in a very dramatic and different direction than has been generally embraced over the period of the last 50 years. What she has commented on, and what troubles me and, I think, increasingly Members of the Senate at these hearings that have been held, by and large under security conditions and not in the broad daylight for public debate and discussions--I think, hopefully, as a result of these discussions and the understanding we have developed here, and has been particularly well developed--I think in the House of Representatives by many of those on both sides of the aisle, I might add, Republican and Democrat alike, who have examined this in considerable detail, they have reviewed this and made a very strong recommendation we not move in this direction. I don't think anyone can say our House colleagues have been negligent in assuring that we were going to develop the kinds of defense systems and also the defense capability to ensure the protection for our national security. As shown on this chart, we review very briefly the half century of arms control. Going back over the period of time, in 1963 there was the Partial Test Ban Treaty, and there was the Nonproliferation Treaty in 1970. We also see the SALT and ABM Treaties, and also SALT II. These are all efforts by both Republicans and Democrats to move us away from the real dangers of nuclear confrontation and nuclear war. As we remember, a number of years ago we talked about the ``nuclear winter'' as well. We have seen enormous progress that has been made and great leadership by both Republicans and Democrats. Many of our colleagues in the recent past, such as Senators Richard Lugar and Sam Nunn, with the development of the Nunn-Lugar provisions, tried to get those countries that have been willing to sign on and move us away from the dangers of nuclear proliferation, to get help and assistance from the United States to help them achieve that goal. Now we have a very different direction. Finally, we have these statements made by the administration. Fred Celek said: If a nuclear bomb could be developed to penetrate rock and concrete and still explode, it will ultimately get fielded. I have a bias in favor of the lowest usable yield because I have advised the use of that which will cause minimum destruction. We are basically talking about an effort that recognizes a very important part of our history--Republicans and Democrats--to move us away from nuclear proliferation, and the United States has been a leader. Other countries have been willing. That has been the result of 50 years of work of Republicans and Democrats. Now, in a world of increased tension, in many respects as a result of terrorism, we are finding ourselves in a situation where the administration wants to alter that policy in terms of development and testing. Mininukes--and there is really no such thing as a small nuke; a nuke is a nuke. It is no different by nature, disposition, and its capability. Those who have served in the military are familiar with a great deal of information regarding nuclear weapons. Our present Secretary of State wrote a book and included the comments I stated. As a former military officer, he understands this. At a time, frankly, when we are unsurpassed in terms of our military capability, why in the world do we want to develop small conventional systems which will trigger other countries to do that. That could compromise what we have today in terms of our military and our Armed Forces. There is one modern military force in the world, and it happens to be the United States. We have to keep it that way. Why put at risk that advantage with the proliferation by other countries of small useful nukes--I think that is unwise--as well as the dangers it would pose in terms of the growth of terrorism. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator be good enough to yield for one or two questions?

Mr. KENNEDY. I saw the photograph that the Senator has of Hiroshima. I have a chart that gives us a for instance. If we use a 5-kiloton earth-penetrating nuclear explosion in Damascus--this is just a for instance, obviously--and they had the traditional winds that flow from the east to the west, it gives the general flowline of where the radioactivity and the dust would flow, but we can see roughly it would go from Syria, across northern Israel through southern Lebanon, just north of Haifa. The best estimates would be 230,000 fatalities and 280,000 casualties. This is a 5 kiloton bomb. I have heard the Senator from California talk about the fact that this is a mini-nuke, but she has just again restated very clearly that there is really no such thing as a mini-nuke. We are talking about weapons that have such a massive, distinctive, unique, and special quality that they have such an extraordinary danger to all of those who are directly affected, and those who would be indirectly affected well into the future. So we are looking at these casualties the Senator mentioned, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We can also look at what the casualties would be with the 5-kiloton earth penetrator that went down to 30 feet in depth. We are talking about major devastation that this country, as Senator Feinstein has said so eloquently, has never accepted--through Republican and Democratic control; this has not been a partisan issue over a long period of time. Let me just ask the Senator a final question that is the question I think all Americans are wondering about: whether we have security of our current nuclear capacity. This is raised in discussion and debate. Why should we ever take a chance, in terms of what we do have, in terms of a current capability? I have seen and read and heard the directors of the laboratories that have responsibility for this repeatedly indicate their sense of assurance. They are skilled, committed individuals who have dedicated basically their lives to ensure the deterrent capability of our capacity, in terms of nuclear weapons. They give the assurance to us that we can give to the American people that we have the capability and it is current. I am just interested, as someone who has spent a great deal of time on this, because this is an issue that has been talked about a great deal even during the course of this debate, whether the Senator believes she can give assurances unequivocally to the American people from what we do have--from her knowledge of the lab directors--that we are able to give them the assurance that our nuclear stockpile is current and capable and ready to meet the test if called upon.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from West Virginia for being typically courteous to the Members offering this amendment and also being courteous to the consideration of this issue which is of central importance not only to this appropriations bill but also in terms of the whole question of security for our country. We don't find too often where our colleagues and friends wait their time here on the Senate floor and are so willingly generous to give up some time. I don't intend to take an undue period of time, but it is typical of the Senator from West Virginia, his courtesy and his respect for the institution, to permit us to make a presentation on an extremely important matter. I thank him very much.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I would like to do so. This is an amendment offered by Senator Feinstein and myself dealing with the development and testing of nuclear weapons.

Mr. KENNEDY. If I could inquire quickly of the Senator, as I remember, we had the support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at that time in 1998 when we considered the comprehensive test ban treaty. We did not ratify it, but it was supported. I don't know, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, of any request by the Joint Chiefs of Staff that they have made, any representation to the Armed Services Committee that they believe our nuclear capability and capacity is in any way threatened today. We do have the testing capability. It takes anywhere from 24 to 36 months to move ahead on the tests. I don't know that we know of any requests made by the Joint Chiefs or any chiefs or the Secretary of Defense specifically suggesting our capability regarding our nuclear weapons is anything but robust and capable now. It is very important we know as we debate this issue. I would be interested in the Senator's answer to that. Second, I understand what has been done with the separate amendment which prohibited the development and testing of mini-nukes, as well as a number of provisions in the Spratt amendment in the authorization committee. When we get a conference report, as a member of that conference, the conferees understand that issue will be resolved. The Spratt amendment will no longer be in effect. So on the one hand the authorization committee will eliminate the Spratt amendment, which would have actually prohibited the development of anything below the 5 kiloton. Now we are on the second phase of this appropriations process in terms of the Department of Energy, and the Senator is saying the money in here cannot be used for this development. But it is clear, as the Senator from California has pointed out, from the Nuclear Posture Review, the debate on the authorization, and the elimination of the Spratt amendment, the continued effort to put the money in mini-nukes, this is the dangerous direction the administration is moving. I hear what the Senator has said and the assurances the Senator has given to Members, but I wonder why we cannot have more clarity regarding the legislation. Finally, I will add with regard to the scientists and what they were able and not able to pursue. As the Senator knows, we had the most extraordinary upgrading of weaponry, particularly in the Iraq situation, particularly on the precise guidance and precision bombs. We will not take the time in this debate to review it, but there has been absolutely extraordinary progress made in the area of conventional forces. The scientists have been working effectively. That has enhanced our capability. I am interested whether the Senator knows of any Joint Chiefs who believe the nuclear weapon stockpile would require additional testing?

Mr. KENNEDY. If the only question, then, is an issue of timing and upgrading the testing to reduce it from 2 years to 18 months or 2\1/2\ years, I don't think we would have an amendment here. We know that alone does not show the thrust of what we believe will be permitted with this policy. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate the distinction the Senator has made. She gets to the nub of the issue: The question, in other words, is whether we have an adequate stockpile--more than an adequate stockpile, as the Senator has pointed out. I thank the Senator. This is an issue of enormous importance and consequence. I share the view of the Senator that we have many different, important issues that are before Congress this year: Obviously, the overarching issues, the conflict in Iraq and the war on terror, and how we are going to deal with those, as well as other priorities to which we are committed. But the issue in terms of the security, even as we are thinking about the nature of terrorism, I think she would agree with me, is also related to the whole issue of the battle against terrorism, as well, in terms of what the potential may be in the future with the development of these, what they call mini-nukes, and what that means in terms of the proliferation issue. I thank the Senator for her comments.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join Senator Snowe in introducing the Women's Pension Protection Act of 2003, and I commend her for her commitment. Retirement security is essential for all Americans, but too often we have failed to meet the needs of women on this basic issue. Women live longer than men, but they continue to earn far less in wages over their lifetimes. Women are much less likely to benefit from the private pension system. Just as women receive less pay and less recognition of their contributions in the workplace, they also receive fewer retirement benefits. Women's lack of retirement security is based in the unfair treatment they face in the workplace. Women still earn only 76 percent of the wages of men, and this gap in pay leads to hundreds of thousands of dollars in lower pay over their careers. Women are twice as likely as men to work in part-time jobs without benefits. They are much more likely to spend time out of the workforce to meet their family responsibilities. All of these factors translate into seriously inadequate retirement income for vast numbers of women. The realities of this injustice are grim. According to the most recent Census data, fewer than 20 percent of women age 65 and over are receiving private pension income--and these women are receiving an average of only $4,200 a year in such income, compared with $7,800 for men. Minority women are in even more desperate straits--only 15 percent of African-American women and 8 percent of Hispanic women receive pension income. As a result of these lower wages, longer lifespans and unfair pensions, nearly one in five older single women are living in poverty. Almost twenty years ago, we modified federal pension laws to provide greater protections for women in their retirements. The Retirement Equity Act of 1984 required defined benefit pension plans to pay survivor benefits, unless the spouse waived this protection. The time has come to extend and expand these protections. In many cases, the amount a spouse receives as a survivor benefit is often far too little to provide adequate support. The existing protections do not cover 401(k) and other defined contribution plans--which are now the only retirement assistance for over half of the American who have private pensions. Under the legislation we are introducing today, women will have greater retirement security. They will have greater say in the management of their husband's 401(k) funds. Widows will have more generous survivor benefits. Divorced women will have a greater ability to receive a share of their former husband's pension after a divorce. Our legislation offer long overdue improvements in the private system, so that retirement savings programs are more responsive to the realities of women's lives and careers. Congress must do all it can to strengthen women's retirement security and end the many inequities that affect women in our current pension laws. I urge my colleagues to support the Women's Pension Protection Act.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes. I have difficulty in following the logic of the Senator from Illinois saying, look, Massachusetts is eliminating the supplementary services and, therefore, this is a crisis situation. I want to get additional funds. But make no mistake about it. We have section 1116 here. This is what his amendment does; it effectively suspends 1116. That is taking, out of the $12 billion we have in title I, $1.2 billion out of required teacher training. You can say the States might still do it or local communities. We say it is important enough that, of the $12 billion, at least 10 percent has to be provided for that. We are saying between 5 percent and 15 percent is going to have to be spent in supplementary services-- required. Not under the Durbin amendment. We require that. You vote for the Durbin amendment and you are eliminating the requirement of $1.2 billion of required services today, that is required under that act, under the Durbin amendment. Under the existing 1116, there are requirements for the development of new curriculum. That is eliminated. Under the Durbin amendment, you are going to get $3 billion, what I call a slush fund. Senator Durbin says local people can make up their minds and do a good job. We had that battle. We know what works. We know you need well-trained teachers. That is what 1116 provides. We know you need supplementary services. That is what 1116 provides. We know you need the new curriculum reform, and that is what 1116 provides. At the end of his amendment, he says: Look, at the end of the day, if the State wants to, they can--nothing in this section is to be construed to prohibit a State. As one who is committed to this, I don't want to see less money committed to training teachers in struggling schools; I want to see more. The Durbin amendment will mean less. I don't want to see less assistance for supplementary services; I want to see more. Under the Durbin amendment, you will get less. The list goes on. Could I have 20 seconds? Section 1116 is the heart and soul, in terms of the educational reforms. That is why there is such strong support from the civil rights community. I have listed the organizations in the civil rights community that take strong exception, who agree with the Senator from New Hampshire and myself and believe it is better to have these resources committed to the neediest and poorest children, rather than just giving a slush fund to the community.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I will take 30 seconds and the Senator from New Hampshire 30 seconds. Madam President, I ask the membership just to read the amendment: None of the funds made available may be used by the Department to enforce section 1116. Section 1116 requires, out of the $12 billion, 10 percent to be used for training teachers for struggling schools. It requires 10 percent or more to be used for supplementary services for children. It provides flexibility for children in the poorest areas to have some choice for public school choice. It provides also about $800 million for new curriculum. Why in the world do we want to have $3 billion of the $12 billion in a slush fund? We know what works--good teachers, good curriculum, good supplementary services. That was the bill that came out of our committee. That is what this will undermine. Just read the last three sentences. It says nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a State or local agency from implementing. That is an option. It isn't a requirement. I hope the amendment will be defeated.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, there is no one in this body who believes more deeply than I do in necessity of full funding of the No Child Left Behind Act. I remember at the beginning of the debate on the No Child Left Behind Act there were those who believed we were putting money into communities without any direction and without accountability and, therefore, we were not seeing results. And, there were those who believed strongly that we ought to have reform. The No Child Left Behind Act brought together both the reform and the resources. I will continue to fight for increases in education resources, but this amendment, I believe, moves this whole debate in the wrong direction. Let me explain my view to the Members. This amendment says: None of the funds made available in this Act may be used by the Department of Education to enforce any requirement under section 1116 of part A. . . . With what does section 1116(A) deal? It deals with new curriculum. It deals with professional development. It deals with supplementary services. Let's just take those as an example. They would be emasculated by the Durbin amendment. If we read further back in the Durbin amendment on page 2, it says: Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a State, a State educational agency, a local educational agency, or a school from implementing the requirements of section 1116 [of the No Child Left Behind Act]. This amendment makes education reform optional. It is not optional today. There is $12 billion in funding for the title I education program. What is not optional is that 10 percent of that will be used for professional development; for training in struggling schools. The Durbin amendment eliminates that as a requirement, $1.2 billion out of the $12 billion eliminated in teacher training. $12 billion overall is not adequate for title I, but the Durbin amendment eliminates $1.2 billion of that that is dedicated for better teachers. This amendment makes that optional, means that it will just be there as a slush fund. No. 2, the No Child Left Behind Act requires between 5 and 15 percent of title I funding be spent on supplementary services, afterschool instruction. That is $600 million to $1.8 billion that is being spent today in supplementary services for the neediest children in this country. That is wiped out by the Durbin amendment--eliminated. The Durbin amendment eliminates any requirement that we are going to have teacher training under title I--not the other teacher training in the other titles but teacher training under title I--which many believe is the most important training, because it is taking the title I teachers who are in the classrooms and providing the neediest children with the instruction to upgrade their skills. We talk about afterschool programs and the President failing to provide for afterschool. The Durbin amendment is eliminating more of that kind of protection. It is unbelievable to me--unbelievable to me. Third, we have under title I, 5 to 15 percent--again, $600 million to $1.8 billion--that has to be used for upgrading curriculum and public school choice. That was the essential part of the No Child Left Behind Act. Let States and local communities develop the curriculum, let well- trained teachers teach the curriculum, provide new examinations to find out whether those children were being uplifted, and provide supplementary services, which is extra tutoring for children who are behind. Under the Durbin amendment, there is no assurance title I will be used for these kinds of vital functions: Upgrading teacher capability, upgrading the curriculum, and supplementary services. That is $2 billion or $3 billion out of the $12 billion. That, to me, is a slush fund. I happen to be opposed to block grants. We have tried them, and they did not work. Nonetheless, that is going to be the effect of this amendment. Beyond that, it takes away the funding that exists in a similar way for public school choice that will be available even today. Mr. President, I yield myself another 2 minutes. That is why the Citizens Commission on Civil Rights opposes the Durbin amendment. That is why the Harvard Civil Rights Project, Chris Edley, is opposed to the Durbin amendment. That is why the Education Trust, which is a grassroots organization made up of minority parents, is strongly opposed to the Durbin amendment. We need to have this battle and struggle. I differ with my friend and colleague, the Senator from New Hampshire, on the amounts and needs in the local schools and the local community. I differ with him in terms of the national priorities in getting additional funds. Even though we differ in those areas, I agree with him that we cannot take a step backward now when we are beginning to see progress made in these areas. The final point I would like to make is, I am proud that in my State of Massachusetts we have made very significant progress in the areas of academic achievement and accomplishment. We basically started in a bipartisan way almost 10 years ago. We are tested now with what they call the MCAS. It is a very strenuous kind of test, similar to the National Assesment of Education Progress test, which is a very rigorous kind of test. After almost a 10-year period, what we have are the results in Massachusetts. According to this recent Boston Globe article, ``Scores show broad gains on MCAS. More Massachusetts high school students passed the MCAS graduation test on their first attempt and scores climbed in every grade, every subject, and every racial group in statewide results released. About 75 percent of the class of 2005, or 52,000 students, passed both English and math portions of the 10th grade test. That was significantly better than the 69 percent of students in the class of 2004 and 68 percent of the students in 2003.'' I will not take the time of the Senate to go into every kind of subgroup by ethnicity, but Black, Latino, White, with disabilities, limited English proficiency, regular education--the whole group has moved up. That is because the State has effectively embraced the identical kinds of requirements that are in the No Child Left Behind Act. The Durbin amendment steps us back from that kind of a commitment. We ought to commit ourselves to the long road. We ought to get the resources that are necessary. I believe the Durbin amendment is an abdication of this institution to meet our responsibilities to ensure that there is going to be an investment, even with the money we have, in a way that makes a difference in terms of children's lives. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 5 minutes?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, do we have a time agreement on this amendment?

Mr. KENNEDY. I am not asking the Senator to yield. When the Senator from Illinois finishes, I would like to get recognition in my own right.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, there is 20 minutes under the control of the Senator from New Hampshire; am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. It is a privilege to join Senator Byrd and Senator Specter on this amendment to increase health and safety protections for the Nation's coal miners. Coal mining is difficult and dangerous work. Miners daily face the risk of mine collapse, mine fires, and the debilitating illness called black lung disease. Each year, over 4,000 coal miners lose time at work because of injuries on the job. We all remember the near-tragedy last summer at Quecreek Mine in Pennsylvania, when nine miners were trapped underground for 3 days. Miraculously, they were rescued but many other miners are not so fortunate. Congress passed the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act in 1969 to protect miners from these hazards. One of the most critical parts of the Mine Safety Act is its requirement that mine operators reduce and control the level of dust that miners inhale during their shifts. Since then, we have made great progress in reducing the number of cases of black lung, but this battle is far from over. Over 100,000 former miners and their dependents are receiving Federal benefits today because they or their family members have had black lung. Each year, more than 1,000 workers die from the disease--and hundreds of new cases of black lung are reported each year. This amendment deals with MSHA's proposed regulations on dust levels and dust monitoring. Many of us are deeply troubled by the administration's proposal. The proposed regulation reduces the protections of the Mine Safety Act. It would allow coal mine operators to raise dust levels up to four times the amount now permitted by the act. It would also reduce the number of samples taken in mines to measure coal dust exposure. It makes no sense to roll back the current protections. Instead of increasing the number of inspections and tightening the dust standard, the administration's regulation would allow coal mines to raise the amount of dust miners are exposed to. The new regulation directly contradicts the recommendations of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, under which the permitted level of coal dust would be cut in half. Senator Byrd and Senator Specter have proposed this amendment to require MSHA to consider incorporating the new Personal Dust Monitor technology, once testing is completed. This amendment is supported by both the coal mining industry and by the United Mineworkers. These Personal Dust Monitors have been developed in conjunction with labor and industry. They would be worn by individual miners at all times and could measure more accurately than any existing technology how much coal dust each miner is exposed to. MSHA itself has acknowledged the role of Dust Monitors in miner safety. It has extended the current rulemaking period in order to include comments based upon Dust Monitor testing. This amendment would go one step further, by requiring MSHA to consider reproposing the rule to incorporate Personal Dust Monitors as part of the required safeguards in the Nation's mines. Incorporating these technological advances into the rules on coal dust monitoring is a very important step. The Nation's miners risk their lives every day to provide critical domestic sources of energy, and we need to do all we can to protect their lives and health. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment to use all available technologies to protect the Nation's hard-working coal miners.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, all of us who knew and worked with Arthur Helton lost a dedicated friend, impassioned human rights activist, and inspiring humanitarian in the bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Iraq last month. I extend my heartfelt sympathy to Arthur's wife Jacqueline and their family during this difficult time. His never-failing spirit, his unique dedication, and his selfless and compassionate approach to all he did will be profoundly missed. Arthur Helton's extraordinary commitments to human rights and to those in need constantly shone through in the caring and courageous life he led, and will continue to do so in the legacy he leaves behind. At the time of his death, he was attending a meeting with the United Nations envoy to Iraq on ways to improve the plight of the Iraqi people in the wake of the war and condition in which they live. Throughout his brilliant career, Arthur was always an advocate in the forefront of the ongoing struggle for refugee and human rights, and it is no surprise that he was there at the heart of the action in Iraq at that tragic moment when the guerrillas and terrorists made their murderous move. As an attorney with the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, Arthur came to the aid of 2000 Haitian refugees detained in Florida in 1982, obtaining their release and finding volunteer attorneys for each of them. Most recently, he held the position of Director of Peace and Conflict Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City. There was no limit to his vision. The beautiful life he lived was always an inspiration to all of us who care about respect for human rights in every land on earth. Time and again, Arthur Helton gave to all of us in Congress invaluable advice on these all-important issues. We were always amazed by his dedication and his expertise, and we were grateful for the unfailing wisdom of his counsel. His death in Baghdad is a great loss for all of us, and for the cause of refugee and human rights he served so passionately and well. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the following commentaries on the life of Arthur C. Helton.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Do I understand correctly that it is the position of the Republican Party that rather than giving an opportunity for the Senate to express itself, the President has announced that if this particular provision is turned over--effectively if we vitiate what the administration is attempting to do on overtime--they are prepared to veto legislation which is vital for the education of the children, K- 12, legislation which provides important help and assistance for those young students who are trying to continue along in terms of higher education, and effectively emasculate or undermine, as well, the funding that is necessary for the National Institutes of Health? This administration evidently is saying it is more important to deny nurses, firefighters, and policemen overtime than to provide the funding which is essential to educate the children and to provide for essential health needs. Is that the understanding of our leader as to the position of the majority on this legislation?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senator has been very generous with his time. I bring two matters to the attention of the Senator and ask whether he agrees; I have listened to the exchange between the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from South Dakota. This chart I have points out that middle-income mothers are working 55 percent more hours today than 20 years ago. This chart shows 1979 up through 2000. We have seen this dramatic expansion of the number of hours that women are working in the workforce to provide for their families. At the same time we are seeing this dramatic increase, we are finding out that there is a reduction in terms of overtime. As the Senator pointed out earlier, we are finding out that American workers--this column on the chart indicates the number of hours Americans are working in relation to other industrialized nations. So workers are working harder, they are working longer hours, they are more productive, and all they are asking is to be able to get decent pay. But the question I ask the Senator is in relation to this particular chart. This is enormously interesting. Workers without overtime protections are more than twice as likely to work longer hours. If you take those workers who do not have overtime protection, they work more than twice as long as those who have the overtime protection. If you take away this kind of protection, the word ought to go out to workers that they are going to have to work longer and harder for less pay because that is what is happening today. And that is what is happening for 40 hours a week. And for 50 hours a week, you work three times as long if you don't have any overtime protection than if you have it. It is very clear that the Business Roundtable and others are correct as they understand that by eliminating the overtime pay it is affecting the bottom line. Earlier I heard the Senator talking about what is happening in terms of the police and the firefighters. I bring this chart to the attention of the Senator and see whether he agrees. This is from the National Association of Police Organizations. The Bush proposal would deny overtime: Under such regulations, America's State and Local law enforcement officers, already strained by countless overtime hours ensuring community safety against terrorist threats, could lose this basic benefit accorded to them for their efforts. This is from the International Union of Police Associations: The alterations would also provide a strong disincentive for agencies and municipalities to hire additional first responders, as they seek ways to operate under the growing constraints of historic financial burdens. The implementation of these rules would mark a critical step backwards for our public safety. . . . I just wanted to reaffirm what the Senator said in his excellent comments about the impact this would have on women, the impact this would have on first responders, and the real threat and danger this poses to the hardest working men and women in industrial society. They are the American workers and they have the most to lose. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if I could ask one more question of the Senator, the Senator is very familiar with the fact that our Republican friends refuse to permit the Senate to have a vote on increasing the minimum wage. If we don't increase the minimum wage, it will be the lowest in terms of purchasing power in the history of minimum wage. Republicans won't permit that. They oppose the Davis-Bacon provision which permits construction workers to be able to have a decent income. They have effectively also withdrawn--listen to this--the tuberculosis standard in OSHA which is so essential in order to protect people who have contamination in their lungs. We have seen the pensions of working families collapse over the period of the last 3 years. What in the world has this administration got against working families? This seems to me to be symbolic of their attitude about working families: Let them eat cake. Let them eat cake. As the Senator has pointed out time and time again, it is the working families who have been the backbone of our economy historically when things have gone well and it is the working families who have taken the brunt when we have had mismanagement of the economy. Does the Senator share my view? Is that a fairly good indicator of the kind of contemptuous attitude the administration has generally with regard to working families?

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator from West Virginia was here at the time we had the debate on the No Child Left Behind Act and remembers it very clearly. I remember one of the finest education talks I have heard in the Senate was where the good Senator from West Virginia reviewed for the Members of the Senate his personal experience--it was shared by a few others--in terms of the value of education as a young person when he was growing up in the State of West Virginia. As he remembers the debate on the No Child Left Behind Act and the debate we had the year before when we were looking at the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, there was a general recognition in this body that just providing resources without reform was not meeting our responsibility to the children of this country. But if we were going to have reform, we were going to have to have resources. As I remember the discussions we had with the President of the United States on this point, this was a simple concept, but a rather basic concept, one which gathered broad bipartisan support and was the keystone of the whole No Child Left Behind Act. I am wondering if the Senator remembers at least that general debate and discussion in which this body said, OK, we have not been able to use the resources we have used in looking at title I and elementary and secondary as effectively as we would like to, but we are strongly committed toward reforming our educational system because education is so important to the future of our country, and that was a debate that took place, that resulted in No Child Left Behind, and it is to that issue that the Senator from West Virginia is addressing the Senate, as I hear him this afternoon; that we have put in place the reforms but what is not there are the resources to give life to the reforms. This is what is at the heart of the Senator's amendment, as I understand it and as I interpret it. Am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate what the good Senator has said in his comments. These figures might get complex for people who are watching this debate. Basically, the No Child Left Behind Act said, No. 1, we are going to let the States develop their own curriculums. No. 2, we are going to have well-trained teachers who are going to learn that curriculum and be able to teach the students. No. 3, we are going to have smaller class sizes so a well-trained teacher in the classroom is going to be able to interact with the students in those classrooms. No. 4, we are going to find out how much those children learn over the course of the year by giving them not just robot tests and situations where teachers teach to the test but really inquire about what these children are learning in the classroom. No. 5, we are going to have supplementary services to help those children if they fall behind so they will be able to keep up. That is effectively what we were looking at in the No Child Left Behind proposal. We demanded accountability, as the Senator remembers. We demanded accountability from parents because we gave parents the report cards not only about how the children were doing but how their school was doing. We gave accountability to the teachers that they were going to have to upgrade their skills in the courses they were going to have to teach. We gave accountability to the school systems that unless the school systems were going to perform, if they were going to effectively abandon their children or not perform for their children, that they would effectively be taken over by the State. And we were going to insist on a good quality education. Does the Senator, in his comments today, agree with me that we are getting accountability with the students who are working in America and the teachers who are trying hard and those in local communities who are trying to get the small classes, but we do not have the accountability by the President of the United States and the administration providing the resources to let them do it and that the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia would meet our accountability and our commitment when we voted on behalf of that bill? Would the Senator agree that is effectively what we are trying to do? That is the way I read the Senator's amendment.