Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is a health amendment. It is related to the broad disparities that exist in health care in our society, which recently the President of the United States has recognized, and also our majority leader. I will take a moment or two to demonstrate these very significant health disparities. This amendment is intended to support and expand some of the existing programs which are in effect and a number of which have been cut very deeply in this omnibus appropriations bill, to restore funding to the appropriations, and then also to meet some of the current needs. Just very quickly, we have nearly one in four African Americans and one in three Hispanics who are uninsured compared to 16 percent of all Americans. The mortality rate for African Americans is 1.6 times higher than for Whites, a ratio that is actually identical to the ratio in 1950. That has not changed since 1950--the last 50 years. The African- American infant mortality rate is twice that of Whites. Diabetes afflicts Hispanics twice as much as Whites. Minorities are less likely to get heart medicines or cardiac surgery or even essential pain medications. African-American men suffer prostate cancer twice as often as White men. This is the reality. And I could go on. There are very dramatic and significant disparities. Take, for example, the health disparities in HIV/AIDS. This chart shows the rate per 100,000 of the population. It is 81.9 among Black Americans, 34.7 among Hispanics, 9.4 among American Indians/Alaskans. And it is 8.4 among the White population. There is a tremendous disparity. What we have seen is that the minority HIV/AIDS initiative faces a devastating cut in this omnibus bill. It is an 85-percent cut. Do we hear that? An 85-percent cut. In 2002, there was $381 million available for the initiative. In the omnibus, it is $50 million. This amendment would put it at $540 million. It would take the $380 million and adjust it to the increased demands we are facing. It is absolutely intolerable that we have seen this dramatic reduction in terms of outreach for services, for prescriptions, for caring among minority populations. I think it is one of the glaring deficiencies of this particular program. Before continuing, I must make a brief comment on today's Washington Post article on the front page where they say the AIDS panel choice wrote of a ``gay plague''--a ``gay plague.'' ``Views of White House Commission Nominee Draw Criticism.'' I would have thought, with all the debate and discussion we have had here on the floor, going back to the debate and discussion on Ryan White, and how we have debated and discussed the NIH budget and other issues relating to minority health, that we could have moved beyond this kind of serious stereotype of characterizing those with HIV or AIDS as part of a ``gay plague.'' Most of us thought this country had gone well beyond that kind of horrible insensitivity. I believe this appointment should be withdrawn. It is an insult to gay Americans, to those who have worked so hard to treat people with AIDS with sensitivity and support. Removing one individual is not enough. We must maintain and expand our commitment to deal with the disease. When it comes to AIDS in the minority community, this appropriations bill is missing in action. This amendment also provides some assistance to the NIH Center on Minorities and Health Disparities to try to make sure that the center, which coordinates a national research agenda on minority health is going to be adequately funded. It also provides a very small and modest increase in the HHS Office for Civil Rights. Many members of the minority community are being excluded from treatment, care, and attention. It is difficult to think that is the case, but that is happening all over this country. The HHS Office for Civil Rights has more than 1,000 complaints on its desk that are being unanswered. We provide a few million dollars, from $33 million up to $48 million, to be able to deal with this. Finally, one of the most important provisions in all of this pertains to programs that are directed to try to help meet the deficiencies in training minority health professionals and support historically Black schools. I just want to point out that in the Clinton year of 2000, funding was $93 million; in 2001, it was $109 million; and in 2002, it was $115 million; but the Bush request for this year is $10 million-- $10 million. There has been an increase in the revised omnibus, but it still shows a blatant and flagrant failure to understand the serious problem in the declining numbers of minority health professionals. These series of programs and the centers of excellence that enable many minorities to make it to schools of professional training--in nursing, dentistry, and medicine--those programs would have effectively been closed down. And the scholarship programs which have been available to minority students effectively would have been drastically reduced. It does seem to me, after all we have heard in the debates over the period of the last 2 weeks, on issues of affirmative action, on issues of civil rights, that the one area on which we could all come together is these extraordinary disparities in health care that have been out there. These are the same disparities that have been around for the last 50 years and, under this omnibus bill, programs that help to alleviate the disparities are being cut back or abandoned in a very significant and important way. This amendment restores those funds and adds additional funding to it to make sure we have realistic levels of assistance to reduce disparities. It does seem that even though we have had debates that have been divisive over recent times, on issues of affirmative action and other judicial issues, we as a Senate ought to be able to come together and say that whether you are going to get care and attention on a particular sickness or disease should not depend on the color of your skin. That is what is happening. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 more minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, that is what is happening. In too many instances we are finding that those whose skin is not white are being denied medical care. They are being denied the services which are so essential to individuals to improve their kind of health conditions. This is an area we can do something about. We will have broad debates on other kinds of policy issues, but in terms of reducing the disparities and having support for the tried and true programs, this amendment will advance that cause. I hope we can accept it and move on. Mr. President, I withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Mikulski's amendment to prohibit arbitrary, ``one-size-fits-all'' privatization quotas for Federal agencies. Under the amendment, agencies would still be able to compete, convert, and contract out Federal activities, but on a case-by-case basis, with the goal of maximizing quality and cost- efficiency. Under the OMB quotas, Federal departments and agencies are encouraged to privatize five percent of their jobs now, and 50 percent by next year. The administration's current policy will lead to the privatization of 850,000 jobs, nearly half the Federal workforce. Fair competition and contracting out can be effective when used in the right way. But, this quota system imposes a blanket mandate on all Federal agencies, without taking into account individual agency needs. Agencies are not all alike. It may be appropriate to contract out the construction of military equipment or the mowing the lawn. But, many Americans will have serious concerns about contracting out the food inspections conducted by the Department of Agriculture, or the tax audits performed by the Internal Revenue Service. It makes no sense to impose the same privatization policy on every agency. The Government has a responsibility to provide its services efficiently and effectively and with accountability. Under the administration's quota system, a broad range of sensitive and critical activities could be privatized without accountability, including some that could put our national security at risk. Those who safeguard our borders and those who repair our planes, ships, and tanks should be held accountable for their work. Despite the growing reliance on private contractors, Federal agencies today do not have a method in place to hold contractors accountable. Many of us have deep concerns about privatizing so much of the Federal workforce in the absence of reliable and comprehensive measures to determine the quality of the tens of billions of dollars of work performed by private contractors. There are no mechanisms to track the quality of service contracting. Some agencies served by contractors today do not even know which services are being provided by contractors. In addition, privatization under the administration's current quota system can occur without competition. Many Federal jobs will be lost, with no opportunity for the Federal employees to compete and demonstrate their efficiency. Currently, when Federal jobs are opened to competition, Federal workers are hired more than half the time. It makes no sense to privatize work that Federal workers can do more efficiently. The administration's proposal gives an unacceptable preference for private contractors over public workers. The administration's proposal will reduce the standard of living for large numbers of Federal workers, since contractors have incentives to reduce costs by offering inferior compensation. According to the Economic Policy Institute, one in ten contractor employees earns less than a living wage. When work is privatized, displaced Federal workers are likely to lose their health benefits and their security for the future. Several groups have voiced their opposition to the administration's plan. The Federal Managers Association, which represents the executives, managers, and supervisors in the Federal government, has stated its support for the Mikulski amendment. As the association states, the amendment will ``provide Federal agencies and departments with the ability to use competition to truly benefit the American people and not require competition for the sake of fulfilling quotas.'' Even the Commercial Activities Panel, comprised largely of contractors, opposes the privatization plan because it believes that such decisions require informed judgements and analyses that consider the specific needs of each agency. The Mikulski amendment will preserve the high standards which make Government responsive to the needs of our citizens, and I urge the Senate to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Since President Bush assumed office in January 2001, the economic well-being of America's families has significantly deteriorated, and a major cause of this crisis for so many families is the economic policy of the Bush administration, which has neglected the basic needs of working men and women, lavished extravagant tax breaks on the wealthiest taxpayers, and allowed corporate abuse and excess to go unchecked. Today, nearly 8.6 million Americans are unemployed--2.6 million more than when President Bush took office. Due to the lack of available jobs, the number of long-term unemployed--those out of work for more than 6 months, has now soared to nearly 2 million--a 70 percent increase from last year. Long-term unemployment has increased in every month since March 2001. It is clear that Congress needs to do more for these Americans, who have worked hard, played by the rules, and are suffering because of the economic downturn. The new law enacted earlier this month provided needed assistance for many of the unemployed, but it does nothing for the 1 million long-term unemployed who have run out of their State and Federal unemployment benefits and still have not found jobs. These Americans are struggling to make ends meet. Many have depleted their savings and refinanced their homes. A tragic number are facing foreclosure. In Massachusetts, nearly 170,000 workers are unemployed. Ninety thousand of those workers will be helped by the new law. But more than 30,000 of those hardest hit by the recession have run out of all of their State and Federal benefits and are still out of work. The unemployment trust fund now contains about $25 billion. It was intended for just this kind of situation. We now have an opportunity to extend unemployment compensation to families across this country who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, but have not yet found a new job. They deserve this lifeline during this difficult time, before they are able to get back on their feet. The issue is fundamental fairness. At other times in recent years, Republicans and Democrats have come together to provide this urgently needed support. The first President Bush signed into law three benefit extensions for those who had run out of their State and Federal benefits. The same is true of the recessions of the 1970s and 1980s. Congress recognized each time that benefits were insufficient to reach the workers who were hardest hit. We acted to give them a safety net. It's time to live up to this standard now and provide unemployment benefits for these 1 million workers. These benefits are their lifeline, and Congress should act as soon as possible to provide the assistance they deserve.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin, and by the Senator from Ohio, Senator DeWine, to provide urgently needed help in the international battle against AIDS, TB, and malaria. AIDS killed 3 million people last year, TB almost 2 million, and malaria killed more than 1 million, mostly children in Africa. These terrible diseases end lives, destroy families, undermine economies, and threaten the stability and progress of entire nations. AIDS, TB, and malaria rob poor countries of the workers they need to develop their economies. They lose teachers needed to combat illiteracy and train their workers for modern challenges. Africa has lost 7 million farmers needed to meet the food needs of entire nations. These diseases plunge poor nations into even deeper, more desperate poverty. We must carry the fight against AIDS, TB, and malaria to every corner of the globe. And the Durbin-DeWine amendment would help the United States and the world to meet this extraordinary challenge. While we still seek a cure to AIDS, we have learned to help those infected by the virus to lead long and productive lives through the miracle of prescription drugs. But this disease knows no boundaries. It travels across borders to infect innocent people in every continent across the globe. We have an obligation to continue the fight against this disease at home. But we should also share what we have learned to help those in other countries in this life-and-death battle. And we must do all we can to provide new resources to help those who cannot afford today's therapies. As we sought to enforce child labor laws at home, we also worked to protect children abroad. As we developed new ways of promoting children's health and public health, we have shared these lifesaving discoveries with other countries in need. And once again, we are called upon to open the doors between nations to do all we can to halt the spread of AIDS, TB, and malaria, and to treat those infected by these deadly diseases. Twelve years ago, this country demonstrated its commitment to the care and treatment of Americans living with AIDS by passing the Ryan White Care Act. Since that time, community-based care has become more available, drug treatments have been developed that nearly double the life expectancy of HIV positive individuals, and public campaigns have increased awareness of the disease. Yet, advances such as these remain largely the privilege of wealthy nations. AIDS inflicts a particular toll on developing countries. Globally, 40 million people have HIV/AIDS, and the overwhelming majority live in poor countries. Sub-Saharan Africa is the most affected region, where nearly all of the world's AIDS orphans live. Governments can make the difference in battling this epidemic. Where governments in poor countries have been provided resources to fight the spread of AIDS, infection rates have dropped 80 percent. But these countries cannot turn the corner on AIDS on their own. Their governments must be provided the technical assistance and resources to carry out anti-AIDS campaigns. They need financial help to afford expensive antretroviral drugs. And drug companies must do their part to make these drugs more affordable to the poor. The challenges are great, but not insurmountable. The epidemic is in its early stages. In most regions of the world, the prevalence rate is still less than 1 percent of the population. But we cannot delay. It only took 10 years for the HIV/AIDS population to double in the Russian Federation. And in South Africa, the rate increased from 1 in 100 people to 1 in 4 in one decade. The Durbin-DeWine amendment would help the United States and the world to meet the extraordinary challenges of AIDS, TB, and malaria. By supporting this amendment to increase the funding for bilateral AIDS prevention, care and treatment, as well as the United States commitment to the Global Fund, we will be helping to address the global public health crisis and maintain international stability. I thank Senator Durbin and Senator DeWine for offering the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, our colleague in the House of Representatives, Frank Wolf, recently returned from a visit to Ethiopia and Eritrea. His report on the trip describes the dire health and humanitarian crisis in these countries. Congressman Wolf states that, without urgently needed support, an additional 11 million people may perish because of the famine exacerbated by drought, because of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and because of the lingering effects of those countries' 2\1/2\ year border war. These issues are extremely serious, and the international community can and must do more to help alleviate this crisis. I believe that Congressman Wolf's report will be of interest to all of us in the Senate, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have yet to see the Senator's amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains on either side?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the overall budget figure we are considering is $10 million less than what was effectively agreed to last year in a bipartisan way, and which the Appropriations Committee marked up. This would take $6 billion of that, which is the amount the President signed into law under the authorization. This figure was effectively supported by a 79-vote majority here in the Senate when we debated the authorization. It had strong bipartisan support. With all respect to the previous amendment, it is not targeted on the neediest children in this country. President Bush, to his credit, aroused the Nation to give focus and attention to the neediest children in this country, that they should not be left out and should not be left behind. We made a commitment with the No Child Left Behind Act that over a period of 12 years, every child in this country would reach proficiency. Now, unless we are going to pass this amendment, we are going to only include 354,000 more children--and not meet what the administration had committed itself to, and what the President had committed himself to, and what I think the bipartisan membership committed itself to. That is to include the 2 million children. We will still have a long way to go. Mr. President, this is about education. This is about teachers. This is about parents. This is about local schools. This is about local school boards. This is needed across the country. There isn't a school district in this country that does not have a financial crisis. This will be a lifeline to those children who are going to need these resources. The States are $90 billion in debt. A third of that comes from education. So we are seeing enormous cuts in the support of children, and the neediest children. This will continue the strong commitment we made to accountability, to reliability, to better teachers, smaller class sizes, and afterschool programs. I hope the Senate will accept the amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. We will have a chance to vote in a few minutes. One will be for the Gregg amendment. And I hope our colleagues will vote against it. Then we will have an opportunity to vote for the amendment I have introduced with a number of our colleagues that will add some $6 billion and achieve what the President had actually committed; that is, to begin the real downpayment in reaching all the children who need the Title I funding. If you accept the Gregg amendment, that will result in reducing funding for Head Start by $104 million; NIH by $410 million; highways by $501 million, NSF by $64 million. I see our ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. He talked about a 1.3-percent cut. I have indicated what the 1.3 percent would be over the year. But as the good Senator from West Virginia knows, we are talking about a budget that is only 9 months. So the 1.3 will mean deeper cuts in each and every one of these programs. If you vote for that, that is what you are voting for in the Gregg amendment. Secondly, on the Gregg amendment, it is basically the block grant program that will go for any education purposes. I remind my colleagues what the President of the United States said, and I agree with him. This is in his report from the Department of Education: President Bush emphasized his deep belief in public schools, but even a greater concern about too many of our neediest children being left behind. That is President Bush. That is what we are trying to get at. The Gregg amendment doesn't even address that issue. It doesn't say, look, I will take $5 billion; I will just put it toward title I. He says it can be used for anything. President Bush says he is concerned about the neediest children being left behind. Then this amendment really makes very little sense. I see my friend from Florida. How much time do I have totally?

Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to yield a minute to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have 2 minutes. I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. I have difficulty in understanding the argument of my good friend from Pennsylvania. We debated the No Child Left Behind legislation for 7 weeks. On May 3, the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, voted for an $18 billion increase in No Child Left Behind. This is $16 billion. This comes as no surprise to any of the Members who are debating the issues of Title I. President Bush galvanized the Nation in giving attention to the neediest children in this country. He recognized that there are 11 million children who have been left out and left behind. He talked about a partnership between the Federal Government, the students, the States, the local communities, and the parents; that we were going to work together to enhance academic achievement and responsibility, and that there was going to be tough accountability. We supported that in a bipartisan way in this Senate, in the House of Representatives, and all across this country. All this amendment does is make sure we are going to have a real downpayment to that commitment by ensuring that at least 2 million more children will be included in the No Child Left Behind legislation. Four million will still be left out. Four million will still be left behind. This amendment is just a downpayment on that pledge made in the No Child Left Behind Act. If my colleagues support this amendment, we are still under the overall caps that were agreed to. For anyone worried about the budget, I say this is a better investment in the future of our country than the $670 billion that the Republicans and the administration are supporting in tax breaks. This is what the American families want: Invest in their children, invest in education. That is what our amendment does.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Dayton, Durbin, Edwards, Kerry, Corzine, and Landrieu be added as cosponsors of my amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thought, since it is my amendment, we would have the opportunity to go last, if that is agreeable to the Senator. Can we have order?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. I want to have a chance to review the amendment. Mr. President, we have had a very good discussion with seven or eight of our colleagues who have spoken. Senator Reed wants to speak. Senator Clinton, Senator Corzine, and Senator Stabenow also want to make comments. This has been an important debate. I agree with the Senator from New Hampshire that the issues of ensuring protection at home and education are the Nation's top two priorities. We do not differ, evidently, on those issues. We have important differences on how to assist in education. I will mention a couple quick responses to the Senator. My first response is about the unspent figures, about $4.5 billion. Most agencies, not all, but most agencies have unspent funding. The reason the funds are not spent is because we are in the middle of the school year. Do we understand that the funds that will be in this omnibus bill will be for the next year, for July? That is when they will be committed. We have unspent money because we are only halfway through the school year. The districts have already obligated these funds. Anyone who does not believe that there are severe fiscal challenges in local school districts has not talked with their local school board, principals, students, or the teachers in communities across this country. That is number one. Second, I welcome the fact the Senator from New Hampshire wants to effectively take credit for the increases we were able to agree on in the No Child Left Behind legislation. As he remembers very well, when the bill was first introduced, it was $500 million. It ended up at $1.5 billion because we insisted on it. I am glad we worked that out in a bipartisan way. I am glad he is prepared to say that is part of the Bush commitment at this time. We ought to understand exactly what the history has been. When he talks about the increase over the last 2 years, he is talking about the increase which the Democrats were able to get, with the agreement of the Republicans, in the last year of the Clinton proposal. The Senator makes a fair point in terms of the funding of Title I under the previous administration. I would have liked to have seen this funding higher, but it was not higher. We have to recognize all that was being done in the area of education during that period of time, which was extremely important, to respond to many of the challenges in the areas of title I. Under the previous administration, what did they have? They had no school left behind. To do what? To provide funds at the local school level. To do what? To establish standards, which were eventually adopted in the No Child Left Behind legislation. There was basic school reform in the good legislation of Goals 2000 that was passed. We had the school-to-work program, that has not been referenced, but has been very important in terms of opening opportunities for students moving out of high schools. There was expansion of the TRIO program, which also is a program which targets the disadvantaged. We also had expansion and improvement of Head Start. We had AmeriCorps, which was a new educational opportunity. We had the GEAR UP program, which built upon the concept that rather than just looking for individuals whose education ought to be furthered by special individual help and assistance at the university, to look instead at the idea of helping a whole class, moving a whole class forward. A very interesting and new concept, particularly to tie universities to school districts with disadvantaged children. A great deal was done in that time. There was also the HOPE scholarship, the lifelong learning scholarship. There was a lot of educational activity during that period of time. I think it is fair to say that we did not see the expansion in Title I that we have seen in recent times; but in the area of prioritizing education, no administration can compete with what was achieved in the Clinton administration, quite frankly. Many of us are proud to be a part of it. Nonetheless, when we take all of that apart, let us get to what the facts are. I have in my hand a report by the Center on Education Policy. This is not a Democratic report. This is not a Republican report. This is a board of some of the most distinguished educators across the country, and this is what it says, effectively: We have found that the fiscal crisis in most States, coupled with the prospect of limited Federal aid, threatens the successful implementation of this ambitious law, the No Child Left Behind Act. There it is. At this time, we have more than 6 million children who qualify for assistance under Title I who are not assisted without this kind of amendment. With this amendment, we would include 2 million more of those children. Without this amendment, maybe 354,000 of those children are helped. So are we going to try to reach out to children who are being challenged educationally in every community, as the Senator, my friend from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, has pointed out, which is a major kind of reform in terms of advancing teacher training, involving the parents, developing good curriculum and working with afterschool programs, or are we going to cast them adrift? We have the framework. We will lose the opportunity. Those are the facts concerning the number of children who still remain to be covered. That is the essential part of where we are in the funding. Now I will say a word about the Gregg amendment, and then I will yield. This puts $5 billion in a block grant which will go to the States. As far as we are reading it now, it is not directed toward the title I program. If I am wrong on that, I hope to be corrected because we just received this amendment. What our amendment does is, it deals with the title I program. It also deals with Pell grants, but it is primarily for title I, the neediest children. The primary purpose of President Bush's program was title I, but the Gregg amendment is not a title I program, it is basically a block grant to the States. It does not focus on or require that it be spent on title I. It provides for a 1.3-percent across-the-board cut in addition to the 1.6-percent cut, which is almost double the amounts that previously would have been cut. If this program is supported, this will mean 248,000 women, infants, and children will be turned away from the WIC program. It eliminates 8,600 children from the Head Start program. It means 250,000 fewer veterans being treated, 1.6 million fewer visits by veterans to outpatient clinics. Eighty-eight thousand fewer families would receive housing assistance. And the list goes on. This omnibus bill is $10 billion less than what was basically agreed to in the previous Congress. My amendment says $6 billion of that will be used now. It will still be $4 billion less than what was agreed to last year, even with this amendment. It is effectively replicating what 79 Members of the Senate voted for. Some say, well, that does not really make much difference because it was an authorization. It evidently made a difference to the Senators from Maine and Connecticut who offered the amendment and to the 79 Members who voted for it and went back to their constituents and said they voted for it, said: This is what we believe in. I take their votes seriously. That was for $18 billion. This would be a total of $16 billion. I hope the Senator's amendment will not be agreed to.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself one more minute. Is the Senator, therefore, suggesting, as we look down the line in terms of the national budget--and what the budget is going to be--that we have the choice of having the $6 billion to take care of 2 million more children, who we promised we would take care of in title I, and perhaps reducing the President's tax cut by $10 billion this year? That could be done, as the Senator said. We could say: Look, we, in the Senate, say, OK, we think it is more important to provide funding for the children and to reduce the President's tax cut by the $6 billion that would be affected this year. We have that choice, do we not?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator again and appreciate his comments. I hope he will continue.

Mr. KENNEDY. So the Senator is absolutely correct.

Mr. KENNEDY. Let me have a chance to review it.

Mr. KENNEDY. Thirty seconds.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for one more observation and indicate whether she agrees, and I hope I have the attention of the Senator from Maryland. I will read these words. It will take less than a minute. The security of the Nation requires the fullest development of the mental resources and technical skills of its young men and women. The present national security emergency demands that additional and more adequate educational opportunities be made available. The defense of this Nation depends upon the mastery of modern techniques developed from complex scientific principles. It depends as well upon the discovery and development of new principles, new techniques, and new knowledge. We must increase our efforts to identify and educate more of the talent of our Nation. That was President Dwight Eisenhower in 1958. Those words are the same words that we need today when we are talking about the defense of our country as well, and that had virtually unanimous support in this body at that time in 1958. That is the same principle we are trying to support with this amendment today.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. KENNEDY. As the Senator remembers, the legislation actually is a guarantee that all of those children, the whole 10 million, will reach what we call proficiency.