Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. But I understand the Senator has objected to that as well.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, now we are dealing with the trade bill which will provide benefits, obviously, to many corporations. We also ought to think of the workers, especially those workers at the bottom rung of the economic ladder. I listened with interest to the Senator from South Dakota. As the Senator pointed out, if we fail to increase the minimum wage, which has not been increased in 6 years, the purchasing power of the minimum wage will near an all-time low. All we are trying to do is bring it up a little bit, which would be generally below what the average has been over recent years. Is the Senator aware that if we fail to act with an increase in the minimum wage, it will be virtually at an all-time low if we don't act this year?

Mr. KENNEDY. I would like to ask the Senator a further question. Does the Senator not agree with me that for years this body--Republicans and Democrats--thought that people who worked 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year should not have to live in poverty in the United States? Does the Senator understand now that the minimum wage is well below the poverty line for working families? Some will say we have an earned-income tax credit. But still the fact is for a single mom, or even for families of three, they are still well below the poverty line. Does the Senator not agree with me, as I believe most Democrats do, that work ought to pay and that those individuals who work 52 weeks of the year, 40 hours a week should at least be at a poverty line, not a living wage even, but a poverty line?

Mr. KENNEDY. Of course, I believe the increase in the minimum wage is a women's issue because the majority of those earning the minimum wage are women. It is a children's issue because so many of those women have children. It is a civil rights issue because great numbers of those who receive the minimum wage are men and women of color, and it is a fairness issue. In looking over the historic increases that have been enacted by the Congress since 1956, the proposal is an increase of $1.50--60 cents the first year, 50 cents the next year, and 40 cents. This represents in the bar chart what the percentage increase would be going back to 1956. It will be actually one of the lowest over the period of the next 3 years. When the Senator propounds his unanimous consent request, we will probably hear those who will say this is new legislation when we talk about an increase in the minimum wage. We haven't had a chance to study it. This is something that sort of takes us by surprise. Will the Senator not agree with me that this issue is as old as the 1930s, effectively, when we first enacted the minimum wage, and that this proposal of $1.50 over 3 years is actually a very modest proposal indeed?

Mr. KENNEDY. If the majority leader will yield, I thank the leader for the excellent presentations he made this evening on this issue, as well as the excellent speech he made earlier today. He mentioned that $3,000 may not mean a lot to Members of Congress who have had four pay increases since the last increase in the minimum wage, but for a minimum wage worker it means 15 months of groceries, 8 months of rent, 7 months of utilities, or full tuition for a community college. This is, as the majority leader pointed out, a family issue. It represents, to those children, the value of work. And it is a fairness issue. I thank the majority leader. I hope there will not be objection to the proposal he is about to make.

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, the Senator, as I understand from his comments, is prepared to debate it, but he is going to object to any consideration to give the Senate of the United States an opportunity to act on it prior to the July recess, as I understand it. Am I correct in understanding the Senator's position, that he would welcome the discussion and debate, but he objects to any action on the bill--the Senator was glad to ensure that there was going to be voting on the questions of the trade bill in support for the cloture earlier today to make sure we were going to vote on a trade bill. But, as I understand the Senator's position, he objected to the majority leader's request to permit the Senate to vote on the issue of the minimum wage?

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, few people have done as much for America's workers as Dolores Huerta. She is a preeminent labor and civil rights leader who has worked tirelessly and skillfully to enhance and improve the working conditions for farm workers and their families for more than 40 years. She is the heart and soul--and the muscle--of the farm worker labor movement. And I join those in lauding her for all she has accomplished. No injustice and no wrong is too big or too small for Dolores's attention. And we are all so proud of all she does so well. Born in Dawson, NM, on April 10, 1930, Dolores Huerta was raised, in Stockton, CA, in the San Joaquin Valley. Growing up, she saw first-hand the poverty that local farm workers endured. She also saw the generosity that her mother showed in providing free food and housing to local farm workers. Dolores earned a teaching degree from Stockton College, but she left the profession because she could not stand to see her students the children of farm workers come to school hungry and without shoes. Convinced that she could be more helpful to their children by organizing farm workers, she founded the Stockton Chapter of the Community Service Organization in 1955, a Latino association to educate and assist these families. In 1962, Dolores Huerta joined Cesar Chavez in founding the National Farm Workers Association which eventually became the famous United Farm Workers Organizing Committee. As a co-founder of UFWOC, Ms. Huerta's efforts have led to wide- ranging reforms for farm workers and their families. For example, Ms. Huerta negotiated a contract which established the first health and benefit plan for farm workers. In addition, her consumer boycotts resulted in the enactment of the Agricultural Labor Relations Act, the first United States law that granted workers to collectively bargain for better working conditions. Ms. Huerta also fought hard against toxic pesticides which were destructive to farm workers and the environment, and negotiated agreements to ensure that dangerous pesticides were not used in the fields. Ms. Huerta has already been recognized by many for the groundbreaking work that she has done. She has received several honorary doctorate degrees and was honored as one the ``100 Most Important Women of the 20th Century.'' In addition, Ms. Huerta was recently named one of six Women Sustaining the American Spirit. We here in the Senate thank Ms. Huerta for her passion and commitment to children, women and farm worker families. All workers deserve fair treatment and safe working conditions. The American people are better off today because of all she has done, and it is a privilege to be able to offer her this tribute from the United States Senate.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator because we have recognized this IDEA program has been built upon the Supreme Court holdings about responsibility. We have the responsibility to make sure education is going to be available and accessible to children with special needs. That is effectively the Court's decision. So we have said we are going to provide help and assistance. We have failed to do so. As the Senator points out, the fact is, 25 years ago there were 4 million children who were effectively either being kept at home or pushed off in different kinds of settings who never had the opportunity for education. Now we know those children are working their way through. What we have found, in terms of the graduation rates, employment rates, and even the college graduation rates, they have all dramatically increased. And the difference it has made is extraordinary in terms of their lives, living lives of independence and even being taxpayers. My friend from New Jersey is in the Chamber. I want to mention one other area in which I know he is interested; that is, what has happened with the Pell grants. We just have a brief opportunity. We have seen what the cost of education has been, the shrinking buying power of the Pell grants. We know how important this is in terms of children. The average income is $17,000 for those who are eligible for the Pell grants. We found out back in the mid-1970s that paid for about 80 percent of the tuition for children who went to 4-year public colleges less so in private institutions. Now we have seen that purchasing power go down. Does the Senator not agree with me that we, at some time, made a decision we were going to try to make sure that children of ability and talent, from wherever they came, whatever part of the country--despite their families' resources--would be able to gain entrance into a fine school or college in New Jersey or Massachusetts or any other State, that they would be able, with their limited means, to put together the Pell grants, have the Work-Study Program, and with their summer income--the extra work they might be able to do--have an education? Will the Senator comment about what has happened with that Pell grant which has really been the key to opportunity? We will hear a lot of speeches in this body and a lot of speeches being made in America about the importance of education and how that opens the doors of opportunity. Does the Senator from New Jersey not agree with me that effectively we are closing those doors for a very significant number of Americans and, therefore, we are losing, at least for those young Americans, the real hope and opportunity that education provides?

Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate the Senator's comments because this Nation had been committed to that value. We had the land-grant colleges in the 1870s, which was the beginning of the commitment to make sure children with limited means would be able to go to college. We had the GI bill after World War II, and every evaluation shows that those who received the GI bill paid five times as much in taxes as it actually cost. We had this commitment in the early 1960s with the Pell grants and the Stafford loans to put together, and day after day, when we have failed to fund this program, we are increasingly denying that opportunity for millions of Americans. We have a responsibility to invest in the children of this country. The choice is clear: Are we going to follow what the President has suggested, $600 billion more in terms of tax cuts, or are we going to invest in the children of this country in K-12 to help provide help and assistance to those families, the special needs children, and the gifted and talented children, to take advantage of the Pell grants, or to otherwise be denied the education? Mr. President, this is a matter of importance to every family. We want to give them the assurances that we on this side, on the Democratic side, are going to stand with the families. We are going to fight for this funding because it is our priority, their priority, and we will do everything we possibly can to make it a reality. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. Please.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is at a time when the administration is asking for $600 billion more in tax cuts. We cannot help the parents, the small towns, communities, and working families make sure they are going to have a qualified teacher in every classroom in South Dakota, in Illinois, and New Jersey.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is absolutely correct. I think the Senator would agree with me that parents back home just want their children educated. They want a partnership. I imagine in South Dakota and Massachusetts they want a partnership to make sure we are going to have investment in children. It is a question of priorities. The leader has pointed out what was happening in his State. This isn't just something that the Senator from South Dakota has pointed out. Here is an article from the Wall Street Journal. This is not an organ of the Democratic Party. It is a very extensive article about the tight budget posing a threat to the smaller class sizes, which as we have all seen has a direct impact on children learning. The article says: In the prosperous 1990's, cutting class sizes gained importance, fueled by a Clinton-era program providing Federal aid for teacher hiring. But now some districts can't afford smaller classes partly due to unexpected costs of the hiring they've already done, and partly because of the economic slowdown. And it is escalating dramatically. It is an extensive article. I ask unanimous consent to have the article printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator has defined the choice. This is a question of priority which the Senator has outlined, the challenges in his home State, and what the choices are. The administration, whatever we think about the past tax cuts, has now requested of this Congress $600 billion more. The administration indicates that they have two priorities: Low-income children and special needs children. I see both of my colleagues are here on this issue. They have indicated that the President has these two priorities. Look at the special needs children. If we fund the $1 billion each year, as the administration proposed, it would take 33 years to fully fund IDEA. A first grader at the time IDEA was first enacted would be 67 years old by the time the Republicans' proposal fully funded IDEA. That is the program that helps communities with special needs children. That program was fully funded when it passed here and went to the conference when the Republicans ran the Senate. When it came back, it was zeroed out. It was called special interest funding. Then, as a matter of principle, the decision was made by our colleague and friend, the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords. He said that isn't enough. He became an independent because he did not believe meeting our responsibilities to special needs children was a boondoggle or pork spending. I don't think the Senator from Illinois or the Senator from New Jersey believe that either. I want to know if they believe, as I do, that this is a national priority and should be a national priority, and that we ought to be willing to make sure we meet our commitment to those families who have the special needs children and to the taxpayers in those communities to make sure it is adequately funded.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am happy to yield to the leader.

Mr. KENNEDY. There are smaller towns and communities that have children with special needs. When the school districts attempt to provide for children with special needs, suddenly the property tax rates go up in the local towns and communities. Parents feel they are blessed to have children with special needs. They understand the challenges faced in trying to take care of those children. I have never met a parent who does not believe in some way that child gives them an additional sense of purpose in life. All we are trying to say as a nation is we are going to try to help relieve that community from those very special kinds of additional obligations. We are going to provide some help--not all but some help and assistance. Can either Senator explain to me why that is a lesser priority than trying to have this $600 billion tax cut? That is the choice. Are we going to help small towns? They can be in North Carolina the State of our Presiding Officer, or they can be in South Carolina. They can be in western Massachusetts, southern Illinois, or any part of the State of New Jersey. But these local communities are hurting and hurting deeply. We have a lot of lip service, but if we are to follow what the administration has said in terms of funding for IDEA, it is going to take us another 33 years in order to do it.

Mr. KENNEDY. Please.

Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate what the Senator has pointed out. This chart indicates that $742 million was added by the Congress last year for teacher quality. That is effectively zeroed out in terms of this year for teachers, in terms of recruiting teachers and in terms of retaining teachers. This is professional development. I want to remind the American people that we have an administration which says, with the No. 1 domestic priority of education, we are confined to $600 billion in tax cuts that they asked us to verify and make permanent for the future. And here we have virtually zero in terms of increasing the retention of teachers, training of teachers, and professional development. Do the American people really believe this is the first domestic priority for the administration when they don't fund it and they asked the Congress to make permanent $600 billion in tax cuts over the next 7 years?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I have done on other occasions, I want to bring attention of the Senate to where we are in education funding, an issue which is of central concern to families all over this country. I think if we asked the families across America--I know around Massachusetts--they are obviously concerned, particularly in the last few days and certainly in the last few months about the dangers of terrorism. They want to be sure we are going to be able to support our forces overseas. They are very concerned about it. In my State, even with the rosy predictions of some, we still have communities with sizable unemployment. Families have a great deal of uncertainty about their future. But right underneath the surface are two other major issues. One is health care, and that is reflected in the cost of prescription drugs and the availability of prescription drugs, but, second, and equal to that, is the question of ensuring their children will receive a quality education. We addressed that issue in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act last year. We worked together with President Bush. We are proud of the fact we were effective in working together, bridging many of the differences. We were able to get a sizable downpayment for that legislation. We have still left many children behind. Even though the bill is called No Child Left Behind, we are still leaving millions of children behind. Under the administration's proposal, we are going to even leave additional children behind. As this chart shows, as we started the proposal last year, the Bush proposal was 3.5 percent. We were able to effectively get it up to 20 percent. All of us are very familiar with the statements, the comments the President has made about how we all have responsibility. Students have responsibility and accountability; schools have responsibility; parents have responsibility. That raises another issue. In the drafting of the rules, I think all of us understand the first educator for a child is the parents. We have put a special requirement in the legislation to make sure parents will be involved every step along the way in the implementation of the act we passed last year. So it brings us some dismay that the administration has failed to do that, and done this in such a way that the parents are now bringing a suit against the administration because they are being excluded at the local level. That makes no sense. We should welcome parents in at the local level. We should welcome parents into the process of the education of their children. But very quickly, before leaving this chart, I, again, want to show from the 3.5-percent increase, we were able to raise that up to 20 percent. We heard the administration talk a great deal, with the great sense of pride they had, with all the additional resources, and now it is back to 2.8 percent.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have 15 minutes, is that correct, or do we have the whole half hour?

Mr. KENNEDY. It is 27 minutes. I ask unanimous consent I be in control of that time.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. This is the legislation which we have addressed in this body that was passed by a vote of 56 to 42, I believe as an amendment on the Defense authorization bill last year; am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. I see the majority leader on his feet, so I will wait until he finishes, although I would like to perhaps ask him whether he understands any reason that--as I understand, this is a motion to proceed; is that correct? Was this a motion to proceed to the bill included in the majority leader's request?

Mr. KENNEDY. I stand corrected. The vote was 57 to 42 in the Senate. As the Senator knows, we passed this on a UC in 1999 by 57 to 42. It has been reported out of the Judiciary Committee 12 to 7. In a vote on this issue in the House of Representatives, there were 232 Republicans and Democrats alike who effectively supported it. I ask the Senator a final question. This past week we had one of the most extraordinary events that we experience annually, when the police officers gather on the westside of the Capitol. The names were read of 233 officers who died in the line of the duty, a good part of those who died in the terrorist acts. No one asked those law enforcement officials what their race was, what their ethnicity was, what their religion or sexual orientation was. They died. We all take a great sense of pride in their service to this country. We have all taken a great sense of pride in the work of selfless individuals who tried to help the victims during this period: organized blood drives, organized assistance to the families, without asking about their race or religion or ethnicity or sexual orientation. Is the Senator perplexed, as we celebrate both the lives that were lost and celebrate the extraordinary heroism and gallantry of the men and women, does the Senator find it somewhat ironic we cannot in this body make sure we are going to protect those individuals from the vicious acts of bigotry and hatred and prejudice taking place in the United States, acts that have actually escalated in recent years? Does the Senator feel a sense of frustration about why this body cannot come to grips with a reasonable debate and discussion, as we have in the past, and have action, either for or against this? Does he not share the concern of many families, and the 500 religious leaders from all of the great faiths that urged this body to pass this legislation expeditiously, and share the frustration they are feeling as religious and moral leaders? Does the Senator feel we have an important responsibility to get to this legislation and consider it and take action and do it in an expedited manner?

Mr. KENNEDY. Those assurances, Mr. President, are enormously important and a tribute to all Americans, one of the great challenges to free ourselves from all forms of discrimination. I acknowledge the strong support and leadership of Senator Gordon Smith, a prime mover on this among our Republican colleagues. Also, Senator Specter has been a very strong supporter. This is a matter of conscience and a defining value for us as a society. Since the tragedies of September 11, a new spirit has grown across America--one where individuals and communities come together to help those in need. We have praised the brave actions of the firefighters and police officers who gave their lives to save others, and we have done so without inquiring about their sexual orientation, gender, race, or religion. We appropriately call heroes the men and women who, without regard for their own lives, saved the lives of strangers--and we have never asked if they were gay or lesbian; African American, Asian American, White, or Latino. It is important to take this spirit to the next level, to come together as a nation to stop the perpetration of senseless act of violence against individuals because of the religion they practice, the color of their skin or their sexual orientation. Hate crimes are a national disgrace--an attack on everything this country stands for. Attorney General Ashcroft recently compared the fight against hate crimes to the fight against terrorism, describing hate crimes as ``criminal acts that run counter to what is best in America--our belief in equality and freedom.'' Although America experienced a significant drop in violent crime during the 1990s, the number of hate crimes has continued to grow. In fact, according to FBI statistics, in 2000 there were nearly 8,000 reported hate crimes committed in the United States. That's over 20 hate crimes per day, every day. Hate crimes send a poisonous message that some Americans are second class citizens who deserve to be victimized solely because of their race, their ethnic background, their religion, their sexual orientation, their gender or their disability. These senseless crimes have a destructive and devastating impact not only on individual victims, but entire communities. If America is to live up to its founding ideals of liberty and justice for all, combating hate crimes must be a national priority. Yet for too long, the federal government has been forced to stand on the sidelines in the fight against these senseless acts of hate and violence. The hate crimes bill will change that by giving the Justice Department greater ability to investigate and prosecute these crimes, and to help the states do so as well. Now is the time for Congress to speak with one voice, insisting that all Americans will be guaranteed the equal protection of the laws. We must pay more than lip service to this core principle of our democracy. We must give those words practical meaning in our modern society. No Americans should feel that they are second-class citizens because Congress refuses to protect them against hate crimes. S. 625 is the same bipartisan bill passed two years ago with 57 votes. Over the last 2 years, support for passage of this bill has only grown, as more and more Senators become aware that hate crimes impact every community, every neighborhood and every family across the nation. We can and should pass this legislation swiftly. Not another day should pass before we take action to fight and prevent these senseless acts of violence. I thank the leadership for giving the American people the assurances we will take action on this legislation.