Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. No. The Senator has not understood correctly. I will stand by the record. There was never a conditioning of reporting this out for an agreement. I have been either chairman or ranking member for some period of time. I know those words are stated. But there was never a conditioning of reporting out based upon getting agreement. I would not have accepted that. This is too important. There was not a difference. You will find that the language we have included with regard to biologics basically is a restatement of what Senator Frist said. If it isn't, I am glad to make that kind of adjustment. What we did say--as we say in virtually the passage of all legislation--is that we will authorize technical corrections to be made by the staff. If you have an agreement in principle, you do not have a difference. We have an agreement in principle. If this language isn't carried forward--and it is language which I believe should be--give us the language, and we will work on it tonight. But I think to delay something that is as important as this is not justified. This subject matter is too important to families in my State, as I am sure it is in Arkansas. That is why I am surprised the Senator from Arkansas is standing with the Senator from New Hampshire and urging delay of this legislation, because it is of such importance. I welcome the fact that he supported it, but we want to get on with this legislation. And I think the sooner we can get on it, the better. If the Senator wants to work with us and be the agent for the other Senators and work through the evening, we would welcome his intervention in doing that because we want to get on it. I would be glad to yield to the Senator from Michigan. Then I would be glad to yield the floor and let the Senator speak.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I certainly agree with the remarks of my colleagues. My bill provides pension plan participants with written notice 30 days before a plan blackout begins, and prohibits blackouts from continuing for an unreasonable time. This important disclosure to pension plan participants is within the jurisdiction of the HELP Committee.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, this amendment is relevant. But under the strict rules of the Senate, it would not be considered germane, although I think a commonsense evaluation or review of the amendment's purpose and what the underlying bill is about would certainly appear to I think most people to be an important strengthening provision if we are interested in corporate responsibility and protection for workers. It is certainly relevant, but under the technical rules it is not germane. But I think anyone who knows what this bill is really all about understands what is happening in these circumstances. This would certainly be a very strengthening provision in the underlying provisions. We were unable to get the opportunity to have the consideration because we were foreclosed from that opportunity at the end of last week and we are getting objections this week. I think that is unfortunate. As I understand it, the most current support for this is overwhelmingly among Republicans and Democrats alike across this country. They understand. It doesn't take a lot of debate or discussion to understand what accountability is all about. Under the existing laws, they can only have accountability, not for those who are at the CEO level, who are really the ones making these judgments and decisions upon which workers are relying, but they would only be able to sue lesser figures in the corporate ladder. Therefore, this is not an effective remedy for workers. We are trying to provide an effective remedy for workers who are being shortchanged. It makes eminently good sense. It is eminently fair. It is eminently responsible. It is eminently relevant. But there has been objection to it. I want to give assurance to the Senator that we look forward to offering this amendment at another time at the first opportunity.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to yield for a question.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I have heard objection. We tried to get this amendment up during the period of the last week and were closed out. It is a simple amendment. It is an amendment that can do more to protect workers' interests than many other proposals. I think we ought to have some accountability for those who willingly mislead, willingly and knowingly mislead workers, and then benefit from insider information. It would just give them a cause of action, a specific case, no punitive damages. It would be a factual situation which would have to be decided in the courts of law. But it does seem to me to offer a real meaningful opportunity to protect workers and the savings of workers from the kind of gross abuse we have seen currently here in the Senate.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, there are many important provisions in the legislation before the Senate to increase corporate accountability. I had hoped to offer an amendment to make workers' retirement plans whole again when the corporate executives cheat. After the collapse of Enron--the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history-- the President and many Republicans in Congress suggested that it was an isolated example of corporate wrongdoing. Since that time, the nation has witnessed a continuing series of corporate scandals which have demonstrated otherwise. The lack of corporate responsibility in the United States has undermined the credibility of our markets and devastated the retirement savings of millions of Americans. This widespread abuse of corporate power has also jeopardized our nation's economic recovery and hurt the legitimacy of our fundamental institutions. We must take bold action this week to ensure that corporations are made accountable and that workers and investors are protected against these abuses. In the past month, we have seen a jury criminally convict the Arthur Andersen accounting firm for engaging in the obstruction of justice to cover up the Enron debacle. We have seen WorldCom admit that it wrongly reported its true financial condition by nearly $4 billion. Just last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that Merck recorded $12.4 billion in revenue from a subsidiary that it never actually collected. In response to these scandals the President gave a speech last week, which the White House likened to the words of former President Teddy Roosevelt. Unlike our nation's great trust-buster, the President failed to lay out a comprehensive plan to restore America's confidence in our economic system. Hard-working Americans and their families have suffered immensely as a result of these scandals and the failure of the Administration to take decisive action. Workers have lost their jobs, their health benefits, and their retirement savings. Today, over 47 million workers rely on 401(k) plans and the stock market for retirement security. We can't wait for the next report of corporate fraud, the next round of layoffs, and retirement losses before we take serious action. This wave of corporate scandals is undermining the confidence of investors in the U.S. economy. Mutual fund investors have lost about $700 billion in just the last 15 months. In May of this year, new investments in stock funds declined by nearly two-thirds from the previous month. As foreign investors lose confidence in the transparency of U.S. corporations, these investors are pulling out of the U.S. market and the value of the dollar is now falling against foreign currency. With an unemployment rate of 5.9 percent, America's workers can ill afford to have their economic prospects dimmed by corporate corruption. Its time--in fact its long past time--to pass tough new laws to prevent future abuses of corporate power. We must reform our accounting system, enact criminal penalties for corporate wrongdoers, and pass new protections for workers. Senator Sarbanes' accounting bill is critical to reforming our public accounting system and ensuring transparency and accountability for corporations in the United States. The legislation creates an independent oversight board; it restricts the non-audit services than an accounting firm can provide to the public companies that it audits; it holds corporate executives responsible for the accuracy of corporate financial statements; it requires corporate insiders to report stock sales and corporate loans to the SEC; and it provides additional resources to the SEC to improve its investigation and enforcement capabilities. We all owe a debt of gratitude to our colleague, Senator Paul Sarbanes, for shepherding this legislation through the Banking Committee and bringing it before the Senate. In addition to these accounting reforms, we must hold corporate executives accountable when they mislead workers and undermine their retirement security. At Enron, executives cashed out more than a billion dollars of stock while Enron workers lost nearly a billion dollars from their 401(k) retirement plans. Thousands of Enron workers lost virtually all of their retirement savings. Enron executives got rich off stock options even as they drove the company into the ground and systematically misled workers about the true financial state of the company. Ken Lay now has a pension of nearly half a million dollars a year for life. Many Enron workers have nothing at all. These are all statements that were made by Mr. Lay. Ken Lay's lies encouraged workers to buy Enron stock at $49. He ``never felt better about the prospects of the company.'' He predicted to employees a ``significantly higher stock price,'' saying it was ``an incredible bargain'' as it was going down. Mr. Lay has a pension of nearly half a million dollars a year. At WorldCom, the workers lost more than half of their retirement savings as the stock dropped from $60 to just 6 cents. Workers across the country also lost big as a result corporate wrongdoing at WorldCom. The brave firefighters and police officers of New York City lost $100 million from their pension fund. Over 20,000 workers have been laid off in the last few weeks because of the actions of WorldCom executives. Yet, those same executives made out like bandits. Former WorldCom CEO Bernie Ebbers is guaranteed a million and a half dollars for the rest of his life while WorldCom workers face a bleak financial future. Sadly, Enron and WorldCom are not just isolated tales of corporate greed that hurt America's workers. At Kmart, 22,000 workers were laid off. At Lucent, 16,000 workers were laid off. At Xerox, over 13,000 workers were laid off. At Tyco, almost 10,000 workers were laid off. At Global Crossing, over 9,000 workers were laid off. These corporate debacles reveal a much deeper crisis of corporate values. In America, people who work hard all their lives deserve retirement security in their golden years. It is wrong--dead wrong--to expect Americans to face poverty in retirement after decades of working and saving. For far too long, corporate executives have been obsessed with their own compensation instead of the long-term health of the companies they lead. Executives, like those at Enron and Wordcom, should not put their own short-term gain ahead of the long-term interests of workers and shareholders. They must not be rewarded for doing so. At Enron, workers were systematically misled by Enron executives about the financial situation of the company. For years, Enron, like many other companies, pushed its workers to buy company stock with their own 401(k) contributions. Until the bitter end, Enron executives continued to promote Enron stock to workers in a series of e-mails. On August 14, Enron CEO Kenneth Lay told workers that he ``never felt better about the prospects for the company.'' On August 27, Lay predicted to workers a ``significantly higher stock price.'' And on September 26, Lay called Enron stock ``an incredible bargain.'' Even as they promised the moon, Lay and other executives were cashing out their stock for a billion dollars. If Enron and WorldCom scandals teach us anything, it's that we must stop rewarding corporate misbehavior. Our amendment--it is cosponsored by Senator Gregg of New Hampshire-- makes it clear that executives who give workers misleading information about the company stock in their 401(k) plans face serious penalties. The amendment is the civil law parallel to the Leahy criminal provisions, which punish executives for defrauding investors. The amendment is also the ERISA civil law parallel to the Biden amendment, which increases the ERISA criminal penalties. When executives lie and mislead workers about company stock, they must face real penalties. Under current pension law, Enron executives, like Ken Lay, and Arthur Anderson, cannot be held responsible for workers' losses in their 401(k) plan. The amendment makes a corporate ``insider''--an officer or director or the independent public accountant--responsible under pension law if the insider misleads workers about the company's stock. America's workers need this amendment to hold Ken Lay and other executives engaged in wrongdoing accountable. The amendment empowers workers to seek restitution when executives knowingly abuse workers' pensions. If workers lose their retirement savings due to deliberate corporate mismanagement, then they should have the right under our laws to hold those top executives accountable in a court of law, and recover what they lost. This right could make the difference for a family between an impoverished retirement and a comfortable retirement that they earned. The economic health of our nation depends on reigning in the abuses of corporate power which we have witnessed in recent months. Restoring the credibility of accounting standards, as the Sarbanes bill would do, is critical to restoring confidence in our markets. At the same time, we must also restore basic fairness to our system. When corporations like Enron fail because of executive wrongdoing, corporate executives get golden parachutes but workers are left with a tin cup when it comes to their retirement. Corporate criminals must be made to pay for their misdeeds. We see from this chart what has happened: Ken Lay, $457,000 a year for life, retirement savings were decimated, 4,200 layoffs; former WorldCom CEO, Bernard Ebbers, $1.5 million a year, retirement savings decimated, 20,000 layoffs; Richard McGinn, $12.5 million lump sum pay for Lucent, retirement savings decimated, layoffs for 16,000; Charles Conway, $9 million lump sum pension, retirement savings decimated 22,000 layoffs. This has to stop. Today we have a critical opportunity to protect workers and investors against future abuses of corporate power. We must not let these hard-working Americans down. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily lay aside the pending amendment in order that I may offer the Kennedy-Gregg amendment, which I send to the desk at this time.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am happy to yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. We have had two speakers from the other side. I ask unanimous consent to follow the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. KENNEDY. I guess I just yielded the floor. I yield to the Senator and ask recognition afterwards.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all I thank our majority leader for his leadership in the development of this legislation, which is true bipartisan legislation. It is the United States Leadership on HIV/ AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act to deal with the AIDS pandemic that is most evident in the continent of Africa, and also expanding it through India, central Asia, China, and so many parts of the Third World. I am grateful to him for his persistence in making sure that this legislation would pass just a few moments ago. I thank him and I thank the cooperation of our Republican leader as well, making sure the Senate would go on record, as it did a few moments ago, in favor of this extremely important legislation. At the outset I want to acknowledge the very strong leadership of my friends and colleagues in this body who have been very much involved in shaping and helping develop this legislation: Senator Kerry, my colleague from Massachusetts, who had introduced very similar legislation with members of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senators Biden, Boxer, Daschle, DeWine, Dodd, Durbin, Feingold, Frist, Hagel, Helms, Leahy, Lugar, Santorum, Sarbanes, Smith of Oregon, and Wellstone. This is truly not only bipartisan, but it is also a real reflection from all different philosophies, of the recognition that the United States has an important opportunity--in many respects, a responsibility--to take action. I am grateful to all those Members for their support of our legislation. I also thank a number of our colleagues, Senators Edwards, Feinstein, Frist, Harkin, Jeffords, Mikulski, Murray, and Reed, who are strong supporters of this program. We, in America, know the pain and the loss that this disease cruelly inflicts. Millions of our fellow citizens--men, women, and children-- are infected with HIV/AIDS, and far too many have lost their lives. While we still seek a cure to AIDS, we have learned to help those infected by the virus to lead long and productive lives through the miracle of prescription drugs. But this disease knows no boundaries. It travels across borders to infect innocent people in every continent across the globe. We have an obligation to continue the fight against this disease at home. But we should also share what we have learned to help those in other countries in this life-and-death battle. And we must do all we can to provide new resources to help those who cannot afford today's therapies. We must carry the fight against AIDS to every corner of the globe, and the legislation passed this afternoon is a step in that direction. The United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2002 provides new legal authority and funding to our nation's strongest health care agencies to join the global battle against AIDS. It promotes models of community-based care that reach the real people affected by this disease; better access to the research and therapies needed to prevent transmission of this deadly disease; and most importantly, funds research and treatment models to prevent transmission of HIV/AIDS from mothers to their infants including the family support service necessary to stem the orphan crisis. Governments can make the difference in battling this epidemic. When governments in poor countries have been provided resources to fight the spread of AIDS, infection rates have dropped 80 percent. With this legislation, the United States will do its part to support countries to turn the corner on AIDS on their own. I am pleased that the administration increased funding for the fight against the global AIDS epidemic, and together with this legislation, we can truly lead the international community in the fight against the greatest public health threat of our times. I have a summary of the legislation that I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record. I think it will help people better understand the aspects of the legislation that can really not only make an immediate lifesaving difference to millions of our fellow human beings in Africa but to those other Third World countries as well.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I would like to address the Senate on an issue of continuing importance and consequence to families all over this country, and that is what is happening in the schools of our country and what we can look forward to as we are approaching the return to school in late August and September. This has not been a good summer for many families who have children struggling in the high schools of this country. Not long ago, we made a bipartisan commitment to the children of this country. We committed that no child would be left behind. I think we have a continuing responsibility to families in this country to give them an idea about the progress we are making in meeting that commitment. When we all supported the No Child Left Behind Act, it was a commitment that no child would be left behind. However, we are finding out that because of state budget shortfalls and declining local revenues, school districts around the country have cancelled or severely cut summer school. Hundreds of thousands of students will not graduate, will not be promoted, or worse--will be socially promoted, unprepared academically, because of the cancellation of summer school. For example, the New York Times reported on July 4 that because of budget cuts, this year the number of students attending summer school for enrichment rather than promotion will be reduced to 60,000 from 140,000 last year. Summer school provides students with a second chance to improve their reading and math. A math teacher stated, ``What is good about the summer school is that there are fewer kids.'' A reduced budget means fewer teachers and bigger classes in summer school. That has been true, Madam President, in schools across the country. And I'll include in the Record the various summer school reductions and cuts which have occurred since the end of the school year. On June 2, 2002, the Orlando Sentinel reported that due to state budget cuts, schools in Volusia, Orange and Seminole counties in Florida have slashed summer offerings to the bare bones. Other schools statewide, such as those in the Tampa Bay region, have cancelled traditional summer-school programs. Schools in Volusia County tapped federal funds to tutor struggling elementary-school students over the summer. This year, the district dramatically scaled back high school offerings due to nearly $1 million in state cuts over the past two years. Orange County reduced its summer-school budget by $8 million, scaling back high-school offerings and eliminating classes for struggling middle-schoolers. Seminole County cut summer school funding by about $600,000 this year and will hold SAT prep course classes at only four high schools, instead of at all high schools. On May 31, 2002, the Associated Press reported that state budget cuts in Indiana are forcing school systems to pay more for summer school programs or eliminate some programs. Last year, the state reimbursed school systems for about eighty percent of the costs of all summer classes. This year, they will pay no more than sixty-nine percent or less. School districts will now have to pick up more costs, and some teachers who planned on a summer job will have to look elsewhere because their classes have been canceled. Superintendents across the state were notified of the reductions in a May 15 letter from the Indiana Department of Education. The plan cut the summer school appropriation by $3.2 million, from $21.6 million to $18.4 million. Administrators in the Greater Clark schools in southern Indiana notified parents about ten days ago that no enrichment classes would be offered to elementary school students. The district director of instructional services stated, ``I know the teachers, the parents and the students were disappointed . . . but we just could not afford to offer classes without state support.'' According to the May 29, 2002 edition of The Herald in Rock Creek, South Carolina, due to state budget cuts freezing thousands of dollars, the Rock Hill school district will have to limit enrollment in summer classes. On June 3rd, only 630 students began the summer sessions--220 less than last year's 850 students. The number of instructors and the sites for the classes will be downsized because of fewer students. Cuts totaling $2.4 million will also come from teacher training stipends, school and department allocations and library book spending. On May 29, 2002, the Associated Press reported that Enid, Oklahoma school officials canceled a federal summer school program because of reductions in state funding to the district. The district will have problems paying the costs of the program due to a cut of $672,000 from the state for the 2001-02 school year. Enid's free, month-long summer program was scheduled to start June 3rd. 400 students would have received assistance, up from 366 last year. Fifty-five employees were to have worked in the program. We have also found out that in the fall schools and universities will face great challenges--and I will include in the Record a series of articles from the last few weeks. Overall, states are being forced to eliminate programs and positions in public schools in order to deal with growing budget cuts. As school budgets are being cut back, there is an increase in the number of students in the classes, there's a reduction in the number of teachers, and a reduction in the number of professional development programs. All of the indicators are going the wrong way. On June 27, 2002 The Contra Costa Times reported that the West Contra Costa school district will cut department budgets by ten percent and will eliminate twenty-seven jobs and two after-school programs. The budget also includes $4.2 million in cutbacks, with savings found in the elimination of school clerks, administrators, library assistants and professional development workers. On June 25, 2002, The Kansas City Star reported that Johnson County, Kansas plans to vote on a quarter-cent sales tax meant to generate revenue for schools and cities. Across Kansas, school districts are facing tight budgets because of the state's $700 million budget shortfall. If approved, the tax would provide $45.3 million in three years for the county's six school districts. Educators are worried because the passage of the sales tax is the difference between adequate and excellent schools. The proposed $20 per student increased state aid to schools is not even guaranteed, nor would it even total costs. On June 19, 2002, The St. Petersburg Times reported that Pinellas County School Board (Florida) members are committed to raising teacher salaries over the next three to five years up to the national average. Currently, teachers in Pinellas are earning on average $39,000 a year compared to the national average of $45,800. Low salaries only feed the dwindling morale of teachers disheartened by recent budget cuts and increased responsibilities. Unfortunately, no one knows how salary increases will be funded, and the only option appears to be a tax hike for voters who may be unwilling to pay. On May 29, 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune reported that the Jordan School District in Utah could be forced to layoff 250 teachers if lawmakers force public schools to absorb half of the state's tax revenue shortfall. The school board has already raised the district's average class size to balance next year's budget following the Legislature's March decision to cut statewide public education funding by $20 million. That cut reduced sixty teaching positions in Jordan. Jordan and the state's other thirty-nine districts have already sliced their budget proposals for the 2003 fiscal year, which starts July 1. But, districts fear they will face additional reductions after lawmakers meet in July to adjust the state's budget to accommodate another shortfall, projected at $173 million. If public education were cut in proportion to its share of the state budget, it would be reduced by $83 million, and Jordan's share of that would be $13 million, which would cause at least an additional two-student increase in class size. Granite will drop 157 teaching positions. Davis is considering cutting twenty-one teachers. When we passed the No Child Left Behind Act, we said we were going to ensure accountability, we were going to make sure we had well-qualified teachers, afterschool programs, and supplementary services. And all the indicators are now going in the wrong direction. State universities are also experiencing huge budget cuts, as decreasing financial aid and increased tuition make college less affordable. According to recent reports in Illinois, college tuition is increasing while the state's college financial aid program is facing severe cutbacks. Under the state budget that took effect on July 1, 2002, funding for the state's need-based Monetary Award Program will be cut by $38 million. Just several days earlier, on June 27, 2002, the University of Illinois Board of Trustees decided to increase tuition by ten percent to fill a $90 million budget hole. State officials estimate that as many as 12,000 students across the state will not be eligible for the Monetary Award Program this year, and thousands more will learn that the grant aid they will receive under the program this year will be less than the grants that they received in previous years. Of the 12,000 fewer students receiving the grants, about 7,000 are fifth-year students. Those students would lose their grants altogether, under a plan proposed by state lawmakers and Governor George Ryan to save the state $20 million. An estimated 5,000 students at Illinois State University and another 550 students at Illinois Wesleyan University could be forced to take out more loans, work extra jobs, or forego attending school. Cutbacks will hurt students like Kimberly Williams, 21, a Columbia College business management student. She said the assistance commission is still trying to determine if she is eligible for an award, even though she has received them in the past. If her award is less, ``I'll either drop classes or I'll take out more loans.'' She is already $10,000 in debt. In Indiana, The Indianapolis Star reported on July 4, 2002, that at state-supported universities this upcoming year the average tuition bill will jump 14.2%. Last year the tuition increased by an average of 7.1%--still more than twice the rate of overall inflation. Tuition hikes were forced to make up for tighter state spending on higher education. In Florida, The Bradenton Herald reported on July 4, 2002, that Florida State University trustees raised tuition for the fall semester to reflect: five percent for in-state undergraduate students and twenty percent for out-of-state students. The University of Florida and Florida A&M University have approved similar increases. The tuition increase is expected to bring in $10.5 million in additional revenue for FSU. What we are also seeing is an excellent report that was released last week by the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Aid. Its findings follow--they are enormously alarming. More children are and will be attending college. Enrollment in higher education institutions was over fifteen million last year, and is expected to increase to nearly 17.5 million by 2010. The number of high school students qualified to attend college is also expected to grow by twenty percent over the next decade, and most of that increase will be among low-income and minority students. The demand for college-educated workers has grown, and today's high- skilled job environment demands a college degree. In 1950, eighty percent of jobs were classified as ``unskilled''; today eighty-five percent of all jobs are classified as ``skilled.'' Financial barriers to attending college are on the rise for low- and moderate- income students. Too many students are being forced to borrow too much--and work too much--to finance the rising costs of college. Debt levels are sky-rocketing for low-income college students and their families, causing financial hardships in repaying student loans. At the same time, state budget crunches continue to drive up college tuition at public universities, forcing shut the doors of college opportunity for too many. Due to the cost of college, this year more than 400,000 students from families who make less than $50,000 a year will graduate from high school, qualified and prepared to attend 4-year colleges, but will not be able to fulfill that dream. Half of low- and moderate-income students who do attend college will have to live at home while attending school to lower the cost of college. Sixty-five percent of students will have to work part-time--an average of twenty-four hours a week--while attending college to cover costs. Excessive student work takes a heavy toll on academic performance, often delaying graduation by two years or more. The college attendance gap between affluent and poor students is widening. In 1979, the most affluent students in the nation were four times more likely to have a bachelor's degree than poor students. Today, the most affluent students are ten times more likely to have a degree. We must not sell students short. We must do all we can to increase aid to college students to ensure that more students can afford to go to college. I believe, as others do, that education is a national security issue. In many respects, it is as basic and as fundamental as the defense of this country. If we are not going to have well-qualified recruits, if we are not going to have men and women in the service who are going to be able to take advantage of the new technologies in terms of defending our country, we will not be able to preserve the values and the systems that we hold so dear. Education is a national security issue. That is why it is obviously key to our position in terms of global competition. From the Advisory Committee Report, we can see that looking at the students coming out of our high schools, we find in so many instances that many of these students are coming from very moderate, limited economic means. We find their opportunities to continue on to higher education and to get the skills they need are being vastly diminished. What do we see in the future? We see that those families-- particularly low income families--have not benefitted much from the economic expansion of the 1990s. They are barely holding on. Those in the lower income are actually falling further behind because we have had no increase in the minimum wage for the last six years. They have been falling further and further behind. Now, what is happening to these families? What has happened to the kids who are going on? We are finding increases in tuition for colleges and universities all across this country, ranging from nine percent, ten percent, twelve percent, fifteen percent. And looking into the future years, they will continue to go up. We find that student aid has remained absolutely the same. The children are working more jobs. They are working minimum wage jobs. And they are working longer hours with less time for their schoolwork. They are now forced to borrow more and more resources in order to be able to continue. One of the interesting ironies is that as they earn more money, it counts against their ability to get loans and grants in the future. It is an extraordinary circumstance. Children take one job, two jobs, and they get additional earnings which they will have to reflect on their financial statements in their ability to get additional income, which may very well reflect a lowering in terms of their scholarship assistance. It is a no-win situation. That is happening. We find that hundreds of thousands and millions of American children are being left behind. That is what this Advisory Committee report has stated. We have a basic and fundamental responsibility. If we are concerned about our national security, if we are concerned about our economy, if we are concerned about our democracy, then we have to ensure that children are going to be able to continue to develop their skills and academic backgrounds. They make a series of recommendations in terms of the enhanced Pell programs. Those programs have been evaluated, attested to, tried, and demonstrated as being effective. We shouldn't have to fight that fight every year in the Senate. There is not an American, I believe, who doesn't understand that the GI bill paid back anywhere from six percent to eight percent more in dollars to the Federal Treasury for every dollar invested in America. That is true in terms of education investment today. That is something we hear in this institution, and in terms of the administration refusing support. The fact that the administration has requested virtually zero in terms of Pell grant increases last year is a failure and an abdication of leadership in terms of meeting the responsibility for educating the children in this country.

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Madam President. I see my friend and colleague on the floor. He has a resolution, on which I am honored to join with him. I look forward to taking a moment of the Senate's time to address this issue, which both of us take a great sense of pride in doing.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we thank our leaders and we thank our colleagues for giving Senator Kerry and me a moment to bring to the attention of the Senate and to the American people once again the extraordinary sense of loss that the Williams family feels, the incredible sense of loss that people in Boston feel, the incredible loss that those who love baseball feel and those who served in the Marine Corps feel at the loss of Ted Williams. His stories on the baseball field have been well documented, although they bear repeating. For example, his extraordinary lifetime average of over .406: When we think today of all the various baseball records that are being broken, every single one is being broken almost annually in so many different areas, but no one has even coming close to his. We know he was on a level of excellence in terms of that sport that I don't think will be replicated again. His service in the military was, as my colleague pointed out, exemplary service to our country. Then the service as well to the Jimmy Fund, the Dana-Farber program--the Jimmy Fund that was just getting started. People didn't give a great deal of attention to the fact of children's cancer, but now you can't travel anyplace in this country, or probably in the world, and not find people who haven't heard of the Jimmy Fund or the Dana-Farber Center as an extraordinary place of excellence that has given great focus and attention and, most importantly, hope and life to hundreds of thousands of children, including one of my own who had serious cancer, osteocarcinoma, and was able to benefit from the extraordinary research and the gift of life that that center provides. The time Ted Williams would spend down in that center without any kind of fanfare, greeting and welcoming children, giving them a new sense of hope, was a real reflection of his humanity. This is an extraordinary American, someone of whom baseball is proud, Boston is proud, all of Massachusetts is proud. We salute his family, we salute him, and we thank our Ted Williams for all the good things he has done for baseball and for our country.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, Senator John Kerry and I will bring before the Senate a resolution in honor of Ted Williams, one of the great sports heroes, military heroes, and a great patron for the Dana- Farber Center that looks after children who are afflicted with cancer.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, this amendment of the Senator from Kentucky is what we call around here and everywhere a poison pill amendment intended to prevent serious action on corporate accountability. Just as a few Republicans sought to stop campaign finance reform with similar amendments, now they are trying to block action to make executives accountable. The lack of corporate responsibility in the United States has undermined the credibility of our markets and devastated the retirement savings of millions of Americans. This widespread abuse of corporate power has jeopardized our Nation's economic recovery and hurt the legitimacy of our fundamental institutions. We must not call for the obstructionism of Senate Republicans. Instead, we must heed the call of the American people and insist on bold action this week to ensure that corporations are made accountable and that workers and investors are protected against these abuses. The Leahy amendment, which my Republican colleagues seek to block, was unanimously approved by the Judiciary Committee in April. It includes critical measures to strengthen the ability of Federal prosecutors to detect, prevent, and prosecute corporate fraud. It makes acts of document shredding and corporate fraud punishable by 10 years in prison. It lengthens the statute of limitations for victims of security fraud. Finally, the bill directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review criminal penalties for obstruction of justice and corporate fraud. Today, Americans are outraged by the endless corporate scandals, and Congress must act to hold corporate crooks fully accountable and to restore confidence in our markets. Defeating the ``poison pill'' amendment offered by Senator McConnell is the first step toward that goal. Senator McConnell's amendment would put America's workers in double jeopardy. The amendment puts new requirements on workers' representatives, despite the fact that these officials currently face disclosure and reporting requirements which surpass those of public companies. This amendment would subject small local unions with annual receipts of only $200,000, which are already subject to labor reporting requirements, to the same SEC reporting requirements as large public companies which typically have resources in the millions. The reality is that union finances are already more heavily regulated than those of most public companies. The Department of Labor under current law can investigate and audit union financial records at any time, including conducting random audits. There is no comparable requirement for public companies today. There are many other examples of current labor laws requiring much stricter disclosure by unions than the SEC requires of publicly traded companies. Unions have to list every employee who receives more than $10,000. But the SEC does not require this of companies. Unions have to provide more detailed information regarding their loans than do public companies under SEC requirements. Unions have to provide more detailed lists of their investment today than do public companies under the SEC requirements. The list goes on and on and on. For over 40 years under labor laws, union officials have been required to certify the annual financial reporting of their unions under penalty of perjury. The McConnell amendment certification requirement ignores the safeguards that already exist under our labor laws. Union officials are already subject to criminal penalties, which include jail time for willfully failing to file reports, or knowingly making false statements, or willfully concealing documents. Union officials who violate these provisions are subject to jail time as well as substantial fines. It is misguided to apply SEC requirements and penalties which were designed for publicly traded companies to not-for-profit groups such as unions. Even the Department of Labor recognizes this. Don Todd, Deputy Assistant Secretary in charge of the Department's Union Reporting Office, wrote last August regarding SEC requirements that the Department of Labor does not have the expertise to provide more than a very general overview of this complex area of law. Why in the world would we want to force the labor unions to comply with SEC filing requirements when the relevant oversight agency doesn't understand this area of the law? The bottom line here is that the Republicans fear corporate responsibility. They know the American people are outraged by the endless series of corporate scandals that are hurting workers, retirees, and our economic recovery. Rather than admit the scope of corporate corruption and the urgency of criminal penalties for corrupt executives proposed by Senator Leahy, the Republicans are seeking to poison the well. If we allow this, the American people will never forgive us for passing up this unique opportunity to bring accountability to corporate executives. Corporate criminals must be made to pay for their misdeeds. I urge my colleagues to vote against the McConnell amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. As I understand it, the matter before the Senate now is the McConnell amendment; am I correct?

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

Mr. KENNEDY. According to the statute, it can conduct those audits randomly, as I understand. Does the Senator agree with me that these audits can be done randomly? According to the statute, it says right here, in section 601(a): The Secretary shall have power when he believes it necessary in order to determine whether any person has violated . . . any provision of [the legislation] . . . to make an investigation and in connection therewith. . . . And they may enter such places to inspect such records and accounts in question. Does the current underlying legislation permit the SEC to conduct random auditing of public entities?

Mr. KENNEDY. The point I am making is, at the current time, the Department of Labor can conduct an independent audit at any particular time on any occasion, according to the Labor-Management Reporting Act. Beyond that, it has the provision: Every labor organization shall file annually with the Secretary a financial report signed by its president and treasurer or corresponding principal officers containing the following information. . . . And it lists all of that information. It already exists.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a pleasure to join Senator Snowe in introducing the Women's Pension Protection Act of 2002. In this new millennium, women still work in a world of ``less'' and ``fewer.'' Less pay and fewer benefits, especially retirement benefits. Less job security and fewer opportunities for advancement. Less respect for their work and fewer rewards for their contributions. A major challenge of our time is to protect women's retirement security. The legislation we introduce today meets this important goal by giving women greater say in the management of 401(k) funds, giving widows more generous survivor benefits, and granting divorced spouses expanded opportunities to receive a share of their former spouses' pension after a divorce. The challenge of retirement security is overwhelmingly a women's issue. The Older Women's League's annual Mother's Day Report concludes that women's pension problems are rooted in the realities that shape their lives: the reality of the wage gap, the reality of caregiving responsibilities, and the reality of jobs that offer few benefits, especially pensions. Almost 40 years after the Equal Pay Act was passed, women still earn only 73 percent of what men earn. You can't save what you don't earn. And the impact of the wage gap extends far beyond the years that women participate in the workforce. Over a lifetime, the wage gap adds up to an average of $250,000 less in earnings for a woman to invest in her retirement. The result is that one in four older women are living in poverty. Women represent less than half of the paid workforce, but comprise almost two-thirds of those working in minimum wage jobs. This should not come as a surprise to anyone, but women are 96 percent of all childcare workers, 97 percent of receptionists, and 90 percent of secretaries. Because so many of these jobs are non-union, part-time, and low wage, women are much less likely to be covered by a pension plan than men. At the same time, women are much more likely to spend time out of the workforce to tend to family caregiving responsibilities. In fact, the average woman now spends 12 years out of the workforce over her work life. That is time that she is not earning a pension, vesting in a pension or contributing to Social Security. This absence from the paid workforce translates into inadequate retirement income and an increased financial dependency on their spouses at retirement. A woman who drops out of the labor market for as few as five years, can end up with as much as 30 percent less in her defined contribution plan. Although the pension laws are gender neutral, pension policy unintentionally discriminates against women. Women continue to be less likely to be covered by a pension plan and less likely to receive pension benefits. And even when women earn pensions, their benefits tend to be only a fraction of what men receive because of pension formulas that penalize them for moving in and out of the workforce. Only 13 percent of women age 65 and over receive a pension, and among that small group the median annual pension is only $3,000. These challenges are made even more acute by the fact that women live longer than men and have a greater need for retirement income than men. We need to make our pension system fairer, especially for women. Married women often count on their husband's retirement benefits to support them in old age, then outlive their husbands and frequently their husbands' retirement income. Over the last twenty years, reform of the Federal pension law has seen some improvement with changes that allow a widow to continue receiving defined benefit pension payments. The Retirement Equity Act of 1984 requires defined benefit pension plans to pay survivor benefits unless a spouse waives this protection. But this protection does not extend to 401(k) and other defined contribution plans. The Women's Pension Protection Act offers simple, common sense improvements in our private pension system to ensure that retirement savings programs better respond to the realities of women's working lives. This bill will help women like Joan Mackey of Salem, New Jersey, who testified recently about the difficulties she has faced in trying to collect survivor benefits from her former husband's pension plan. Ms. Mackey's ex-husband wanted her to collect survivor benefits after his death, but because Ms. Mackey didn't know to ask for a widow's benefit at the time of their divorce, the plan now refuses to pay. Sadly, Joan Mackey is not alone. Congress must do all it can to protect women's retirement security and address inequities in our pension laws that primarily affect women. I urge my colleagues to support the Women's Pension Protection Act.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise today to give tribute to the memory of Justin W. Dart, Jr., the greatest warrior in the fight for the rights of disabled persons. After nearly half a century of tireless advocacy for the civil rights of oppressed people in America and around the world, my friend Justin Dart passed away on Saturday with his wife and partner Yoshiko Dart at his side. He was often called the Martin Luther King of the disability rights movement even though he called himself ``just a foot soldier for the cause of freedom.'' Justin received five Presidential appointments, and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, our Nation's highest civilian honor. And without Justin, the Americans with Disabilities Act would never have become the law of the land. Justin's dedication to his vision of a ``revolution of empowerment'' brought together a fragmented community to march for freedom for Americans with disabilities. He taught us that disabled does not mean unable. When President Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act into law and gave the first pen to Justin, he protested the fact that only three disability activists were on the podium, because he believed that the ADA would never have been accomplished without the power of hundreds of people with disabilities who made the difference. When he finally received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Justin sent out replicas of this award to hundreds of disability rights activists across the country, writing that ``this award belongs to you.'' Even in his final words to us he talks of the power and importance of equal rights for all people. Disabled people across the country and around the world owe a great debt to Justin Dart for his love and his commitment to Justice. He is a hero not just to those with disabilities, but to all of us who learned from him and served with him in the great causes he inspired. As President Kennedy once said, ``As the dust of centuries has passed over our cities, we too will be remembered, not for our victories or defeats in battle or in politics, but for our contribution to the human spirit.'' Justin Dart brought the human spirit of the disability movement to life, and his spirit will live on through the lives of those he touched.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, over the period of these past weeks, a number of us have tried to report to our Senate colleagues and to the American people about the state of education in the nation, and of our public school system. We had supported and passed a very important piece of legislation last year called Leave No Child Behind. That was a bipartisan effort. We take a great deal of pride in working together to achieve what I think is most families' number one concern. Perhaps lurking in their minds are questions about terrorism, but if you go beyond that, if they are young couples, they are concerned about education. Perhaps if they are older, they are concerned about prescription drugs and the issue of health care. But the quality of education is something that is universal in terms of the concerns of families across this country. Most parents want their children educated. They want their schools to teach. And the actions that were taken last year gave us a great opportunity to achieve this goal. Over the period of the past weeks, we have tried to point out where we are on this road toward achieving quality education. We have tried to go over the various aspects of the legislation. Our committee is now focused on implementation, and following the administration's proposal as it is drafting the rules and regulations. We want to make sure they are going to be in accord with the law that passed. There is no reason to doubt that will be the case, but it takes careful review. Our constituents want us to make sure that is the case. Secondly, as we saw during the course of the debate, money in and of itself is not going to provide reform. But reform without resources is no reform at all. Last year we had education reform, and we had resources. But we are now in a situation, as we are looking forward to this fall--and it is not that far away; many children will go back to school in August; and we are almost to the 1st of July--that at the present time we have to ask ourselves, how did we end up last year, and what can we look forward to this coming year in terms of our public school system? This morning I would like to talk about what is happening in the public school system to a very special group of children--Hispanic children--that are emerging as an enormously important force. Hispanics are already an important force in every aspect of American life. Last week our Committee released ``Keeping the Promise: Hispanic Education and America's Future.'' When we talk about the words, ``no child left behind,'' we mean no child left behind. No child in any part of our country being left behind. This excellent report, which was co-authored by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and our Democratic Hispanic Education Task Force, is an excellent report that is available to our colleagues in the Senate and also to the American people, to tell us about what is happening. The news is not good. We are committed on our side of the aisle, and we hope we will be joined by others, to try and do something about it. Because if we are truly going to be committed to leaving no child left behind, we do not want to see Hispanic children being left behind. But that is what is happening. We have legislation that has the title, ``No Child Left Behind,'' but it is irresponsible to not live up to our commitment. Look at what is happening in the schools across the country. When you look at the state of education, you'll find that we are leaving Hispanic children behind. The fact is, we have seen, over the period of the recent years, an important growth in terms of those Hispanic children. The number of Hispanic school children has grown by 61 percent since 1990--a rate faster than any other community. If we look at the growth in the immigrant student population from 1970 to 1995, that population has grown from 3.5 million to 8.6 million. If we look at the growth in limited English proficient students, we see, again, the dramatic growth by 105 percent and these are children that are attending our public schools. So, we have seen the growth in the numbers. It is interesting, a great deal of that growth has been in different areas of the country. We have had an over 250 percent growth in the population of Hispanic children in Arkansas, Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee; a growth of over 140 percent in Iowa, Kentucky, Nebraska, Minnesota, Nevada, and South Carolina. Many of those school districts have not had the opportunity of developing either bilingual or language support programs to help these children develop their English and other academic skills. They need help and we can't set them adrift. As a result, we find many of these communities are not serving these population. The results are coming in, and they are enormously distressing. Across the country, Hispanics--Hispanic children in the Nation's largest Hispanic serving school districts--are trailing Anglo students in reading achievement by an average of 30 points. In math, they fall behind by an average of 27 points. We also have the rather startling statistics that on average across the country we are spending $1,000 less per student in economically disadvantaged schools than in schools with large concentrations of high-income students, in terms of investing in those children for education. Again, not that money is everything, but we're finding out that students are being shortchanged, not only in terms of investment, but in terms of qualified teachers instructing Hispanic students in many classrooms. Those teachers who are working in some of the most difficult circumstances often need training and support to help those students, and may not be qualified in terms of technical training. We want to make sure they are going to get that training. But these are dedicated people working in very difficult circumstances. The fact is, they lack those kinds of professional qualifications. The number of unqualified teachers working with Hispanic students in predominantly minority schools is twice the national average. We have unqualified teachers, we are not investing in these children, and we are seeing the results. The fact is, you can say there must be other circumstances contributing to it. Sure, there are circumstances. But the good news is, when you invest in these children, you find that they make progress towards meeting high standards. We have seen examples of that. In Miami, the gap in math between Hispanics and Anglos has been narrowed by 6.7 points--faster than the progress made in the state of Florida. In the most recent years Houston has narrowed their achievement gap in math by 6.5 points over Texas. The gap has been narrowed very significantly in recent years, and that is because we have invested in those programs, have invested in an infrastructure to serve Hispanic kids in those districts, and that has made a difference: extra academic assistance for those children; supplementary services; afterschool programs; upgrading the skills of their teachers; and reducing class size. As a Nation, we are moving away from that. Instead of moving in the correct direction, we are moving in the wrong direction. We have a responsibility here. When we look at the budget submitted by the administration in key areas of investment in quality teachers, in recruitment and professional development and retention of teachers, we find there is an empty promise. We had a significant increase that was worked out by the Democrats and Republicans last year, some $742 million. The increase this year is effectively zero. We have to ask ourselves: Don't we need to invest in quality teachers? The answer is yes. Are there results if we do not? The answer is yes. How is it reflected? By the deterioration in the quality of education that is reaching a major constituency. We can ask: Does the administration understand what is happening out there in terms of children, in terms of limited English proficient and immigrant children? Last year we had an increase of $219 million in programs to serve those children, empowering local communities to implement proven, effective programs to help in the successful transition of these children into American Society. What do we have this year? Zero. Don't we take into consideration the results of what is happening across the country? Last year we saw a downpayment. This year ``no child left behind'' ought to be a priority instead of some of the tax breaks for the wealthiest individuals. That is the result. We have zero. We have zero in terms of the quality of teachers, zero in terms of helping these children move into the education system. This is one of the most discouraging aspects of the President's budget. Let's look at the dropout rate by ethnic group. What every educator will tell you, if these children are 20 to 30 points behind in terms of a particular grade level and they slip one grade and perhaps two, you can predict, as certain as we are standing here, that child is ready to drop out. One-third of Hispanic high school children are enrolled below grade level. What has been happening in recent times? We find out we are not investing in these children. We are not giving them the teachers, not getting the smaller class sizes. What is the result? We see a dropout rate by ethnic group. Over four million Hispanic immigrant children-- 800,000 migrant children. We made a commitment in that bill last year to help States, as many of these children are moving among the States, to assist the States in terms of following records and coordinating their academic efforts. Without that, we see what happens: a 44 percent dropout rate for the children of immigrant students. Many of these are legitimate immigrants who come here whose children are American citizens. These are American citizens that are going to be a part of the American dream. They are dropping out at 44 percent, Hispanics at 28 percent, which is four times the rate of Anglo students. Our leader on this issue has been the Senator from New Mexico, Jeff Bingaman, who has made the most compelling case about trying to develop a program to identify the dropouts, to figure out what can be done, model programs that can assist school districts. Last year we had a very modest program. Unfortunately, this is one area where we could not get the administration to agree. We did have inclusion of a dropout prevention program--a very modest program of $10 million. But this year, zero. Here we go, with a 44-percent dropout rate, and now we see how we are going to respond to that. The administration says zero. It is not important; it is not on our national priorities. This is going to mean, we all ought to understand, when we are out here making statements and speeches about the conditions and what are the tests and what others show, the challenges out there in terms of Hispanic children, they are going to slip and fall further and further behind. Unless we are going to address these issues, this promise about no child left behind is an empty promise. I want to mention one of the most distressing and disturbing developments we have seen with the cutbacks taking place. This is with regard to Los Angeles County. They are reducing their school year by 17 days because they haven't got the resources to hold classes for 187,000 of the children just in Los Angeles County. We have the facts about different communities that are under a similar situation, and that replicates this. So, Mr. President, I think this is the result of a really almost indifference by the administration in terms of this commitment. I see my friend from Nevada who is also a key figure in the whole issue on the dropout prevention. He has spoken eloquently about this. I am so grateful for his work. I hope he will continue to take that interest in this issue. We cannot let this continue to fester.