Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to preface my question with this observation: Under the leadership of Senator Daschle, there were 46 Members of the Senate--under his leadership and Senator Reid's, and others--who wrote a letter to the President some 10 days ago, recognizing that if this policy of the administration went ahead, it would be like increasing taxes for the average working family by $3,700. That would be the average increase if they did not consolidate. It could go as high as $10,000. I am wondering, I did not hear that we ever received a response to that letter requesting the deferral of that action. As Senator pointed out, I think all of us in this body want to, first, give the assurances to young people in college that we are going to do everything we possibly can to make college affordable. And this is my question to the leader: Doesn't the leader believe that we have a real responsibility to do everything we possibly can to make sure college is going to be more affordable for working families and for the middle income, and that we are also going to stand to make sure we meet our commitment we made to the American people and to the schoolchildren with regard to the early education bill, that we are going to try to meet our commitment to those students, to the families, to the parents, and to the local communities as well? I am interested in hearing, as the majority leader of the Senate, how important you think it is that we continue the effort to ensure we are going to make the dreams of our young people attainable--through quality education in K-12, and through higher education--and how strongly the leader is committed to doing that, after thanking the administration for changing their position.

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield, I am grateful to both of my colleagues for their kind and overly generous remarks. I plan to be here for a while longer. Let me just carry on and ask the majority leader, the President, with whom we worked on education, was in southern Wisconsin earlier this week talking about the Federal Government having a responsibility. He said: Generally that responsibility is to write a healthy check. We did so in 2002; $22 billion for secondary, elementary education, a 25- percent increase. We have increased money 35 percent for teacher recruitment, teacher retention, and teacher pay. Does the Senator not find it somewhat perplexing that we see in this chart the Bush proposed increase for 2002 is 3.5 percent? It increased in 2002 as a result of the leadership of the Senators from South Dakota and Nevada and the Democrats. We got it up to 20 percent. The President is taking credit for it out here in the Midwest. And now we have this year 12.8 percent. Do we find that somewhat perplexing when we have the President saying we have our responsibilities to write a healthy check? Well, the check was written and we increased it, but the Bush proposal is at 2.8 percent. I wanted to mention, in the area which is of such central importance to educational reform, that is, having a quality teacher in every classroom, of all the educational issues, and there are many-- afterschool programs, the construction issues, smaller class sizes-- having a well-trained teacher in every classroom was key. The President was out in the Midwest another day talking about all the work they have done, increasing teacher recruitment, retention, and pay, 35 percent. That is represented in this $742 million. We supported every penny of it. Well, now, look at this fiscal year's proposed budget for the very same function. Zero. Not even the cost of living. Zero. I am just wondering; when the Senator talks about the difference between rhetoric and reality, there must be people in the Senator's own State who have to wonder about that as well. I am just, again, wondering whether it isn't important for us, as we are coming into the debate and national elections in 2002--money doesn't solve everything, but money is a pretty clear indication of a nation's priorities. I know the leader reached his hand out to the Republican leader and we passed a strong bipartisan bill that had reform. I think most of us thought we needed reform and resources. This is enormously troublesome to me in terms of the K through 12, as the efforts by the administration are to prohibit consolidation. I wonder whether the leader agrees with me that education is a key priority and that we are going to have to watch every aspect of it as we continue through this legislative session so that we are going to meet our responsibilities to families across the country and sharing quality education, K through 12, and even earlier education and college education.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, since September 11, Congress has taken significant steps to strengthen the security of our borders and improve our immigration system. Last month, the Senate passed important legislation to strengthen border security, improve our ability to screen foreign nationals, and enhance our ability to deter potential terrorists. In addition, Senator Brownback and I recently introduced legislation to restructure the Immigration and Naturalization Service so that the agency is better prepared to address security concerns. As we work to respond to the security issues before us, we can't lose sight of the other immigration issues that are still a priority. I'm pleased to join Senator Daschle in moving forward with one of those issues today by introducing the Uniting Families Act of 2002. This legislation extends section 245(i), a vital provision of U.S. immigration law which allows individuals who already legally qualify for permanent residency to process their applications in the United States, without returning to their homes countries. Without 245(i), immigrants are forced to leave their families here in the U.S. and risk separation from them for up to 10 years. Seventy-five percent of the people who have used 245(i) are the spouses and children of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. Extending this critical provision will help keep families together and help businesses retain critical workers. In addition, the INS will receive millions of dollars in additional revenues, at no cost to taxpayers. Extending 245(i) does not provide any loopholes for potential terrorists. Instead, it will improve the monitoring of immigrants already residing in this country. Individuals who qualify for permanent residency and process their applications in the U.S. are subject to rigorous background checks and interviews. This process provides the government a good opportunity to investigate individuals who are in this country and determine whether they should be allowed to remain here. Section 245(i) does not provide amnesty to immigrants or any benefits to anyone suspected of marriage fraud. The provision provides no protection from deportation if someone is here illegally and no right to surpass other immigrants waiting for visas. The House passed legislation recently to extend section 245(i), but it was too restrictive to provide any meaningful assistance. The Uniting Families Act will extend the filing deadline to April 30, 2003, and provide needed and well-deserved relief to members of our immigrant communities. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this needed extension.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my colleagues Senator Clinton and Congresswoman Nita Lowey in introducing legislation to improve the labeling of allergens in food. American families deserve to feel confident about the safety of the food on their tables. The Food Allergen Consumer Protection Act will allow the seven million Americans with food allergies to identify more easily a product's ingredients, avoid foods that may harm them, and stay healthy. We anticipate that this legislation will reduce the number, currently estimated to be 150 yearly, of Americans who die due to the ingestion of allergenic foods. The Food Allergen Consumer Production Act will require that food ingredient statements on food packages identify in common language when an ingredient, including a flavoring, coloring, or other additive, is itself, or is derived from, one of the eight main food allergens, or from grains containing gluten. This legislation will also make the ingredient label on foods easier to read, and require it to include a working telephone number, including one for telecommunication devices for deaf persons. The Food Allergen Consumer Protection Act will require food manufacturers to minimize cross-contamination with food allergens between foods produced in the same facility or on the same production line. It will require the use of ``may contain'' or other advisory language in food labeling when steps to reduce such cross-contamination will not eliminate it. This legislation also preserves the Food and Drug Administration's current authority to regulate the safety of certain products that are bioengineered to contain proteins that cause allergic reactions. The Food Allergen Consumer Protection Act will also require the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to track deaths related to food allergies, and it will direct the National Institutes of Health to develop a plan for research activities concerning food allergies. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this legislation that will do so much to improve the lives of those with food allergies. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my colleagues Senator Clinton and Congresswoman Nita Lowey in introducing legislation to improve the labeling of allergens in food. American families deserve to feel confident about the safety of the food on their tables. The Food Allergen Consumer Protection Act will allow the seven million Americans with food allergies to identify more easily a product's ingredients, avoid foods that may harm them, and stay healthy. We anticipate that this legislation will reduce the number, currently estimated to be 150 yearly, of Americans who die due to the ingestion of allergenic foods. The Food Allergen Consumer Production Act will require that food ingredient statements on food packages identify in common language when an ingredient, including a flavoring, coloring, or other additive, is itself, or is derived from, one of the eight main food allergens, or from grains containing gluten. This legislation will also make the ingredient label on foods easier to read, and require it to include a working telephone number, including one for telecommunication devices for deaf persons. The Food Allergen Consumer Protection Act will require food manufacturers to minimize cross-contamination with food allergens between foods produced in the same facility or on the same production line. It will require the use of ``may contain'' or other advisory language in food labeling when steps to reduce such cross-contamination will not eliminate it. This legislation also preserves the Food and Drug Administration's current authority to regulate the safety of certain products that are bioengineered to contain proteins that cause allergic reactions. The Food Allergen Consumer Protection Act will also require the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to track deaths related to food allergies, and it will direct the National Institutes of Health to develop a plan for research activities concerning food allergies. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this legislation that will do so much to improve the lives of those with food allergies. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a consent request?

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to follow the remarks of the Senator from Montana.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I wonder if the good Senator would be kind enough to yield 15 minutes off the bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for yielding the time. This is extremely important legislation. As one who from time to time manages floor legislation, I recognize that it is important to keep the focus and attention on the pending subject matter. But I want to take a moment of the Senate's time to talk about another issue which is important to the families in this country; that is, our education budget. I take this moment now because we have had a series of actions by the administration in recent days that brought new focus and attention on the issue of education funding. Money, in and of itself, is not going to answer the problems we are facing in this country on any public policy issues, and it will not in the area of education. But what we had last year was an education reform program that was worked on by Republicans and Democrats alike, the No Child Left Behind Act. Prior to passage of the new law, there was criticism of the federal education programs, that they were not resulting in the children developing academic skills and succeeding in our school systems across this country, and there was also a very fundamental understanding; and that is, while money alone will not solve the problem, reform alone will not solve the problem. If you bring reform together with resources, you are going to fulfill a recipe for progress for children in this country. The reforms, which we spelled out in the new law, are raise standards for students and teachers and hold schools and school districts accountable for results. It requires a great deal from the students, a great deal from the schools, a great deal from the parents, a great deal from the local communities, additional responsibilities by the States. We in Washington told them that we were going to be a partner in this endeavor to try to really make a difference in enhancing academic achievement. That was an endeavor on which many of us signed off. Many of us, who have been here for a period of time, have raised some serious questions about the seriousness with which our Republican friends are really committed to the areas of education and education reform. I remember, after we saw Republican leadership take over in the Senate, as a result of the elections of 1994, one of the first actions they undertook was a rescission of some $1.7 billion in education funding that had already been appropriated for some of the neediest children in this country. We fought that. We fought it and fought it, but they had some success in rescinding funding. It was the same year the Republican leadership announced they wanted to abolish the Department of Education. I think most of us in this body wanted the Department of Education, for one simple and fundamental reason; that is, every time the President brings a Cabinet together, we want to have someone at that table who is the clear, powerful voice for children and enhanced education and investing in the children of this country and their education. That is what the a Secretary of Education should do. But they wanted to abolish the Department of Education. They said we could have many other Departments, and money in other areas of public policy. But we resisted, and we saw that the Department was not abolished. Then, if you can believe, in 1995, in the Republican budget resolution that came over from the House, they tried to effectively eliminate over $18 billion in student loans support over a 7-year period. We were able to resist that, just as we resisted Republican efforts in 1981, when President Reagan initiated what they call an origination fee on student loans, an additional kind of payout. We were able to reduce that in a significant way. But students still pay too much up front to borrow money to go to college. This is the record over a very considerable period of time. Three years ago, we had the battle on the floor of the Senate on elementary education, and there was a move to eliminate and support for 800,000 homeless children, 800,000 migrant children, 800,000 immigrant children who were going to be American citizens. The Republican leadership did not want any coverage for them. The American people have a certain hesitancy and a certain concern about the legitimacy of the other side's real interest in investing in education. The list of anti-education proposals from the other side continues to go on. Just ten days ago, we saw the proposal by one of the leading authorities in the administration, Budget Director Mitch Daniels, who suggested a new way to shortchange students pursuing their college education in this country, by effectively denying them the opportunity to go for the lowest-interest rates on student loans that long have been available to them. The Administration sought to require that students pay higher interest rates on their loans, rates which would mean, for the average student, more than $3,000 in additional expenses over the life of their loan. If that loan was $17,000, and repayment were stretched over 30 years, it would be an additional $10,000 in costs. That is a very clear indication of how the Administration views support for higher education for students in this country. Now, we find that the President is out traveling across the country talking about the importance of funding education, understanding that we need reform and that we also need resources. Just yesterday, this is what the President said in Michigan: The Federal Government has responsibilities. Generally, that responsibility is to write a healthy check, and we did so in 2002--$22 billion for secondary and elementary education. It's a 25 percent increase. We've increased money by 35 percent for teacher recruitment, teacher retention, and teacher pay. I wish that had been their proposal, but it was not. It was not. Their proposal was for a 3.5 percent increase, basically enough only to cover inflation despite the tremendous needs beyond inflation that our schools have. All of the difference between the 3.5 percent and what the President identified here was the result of Democratic leadership in the Senate and the Appropriations Committee to get that increase. Let's be fair. Let's be honest. Let's be candid in terms of it. That is the basic and bottom line. And all we have to do is say: Well, if this really was their proposal last year, what happened to it this year? This year, the administration proposes a 2.8 percent increase, again inflation only. Why on the one hand would you go out and tell people in Michigan that you provided $22 billion for elementary and secondary education, a 25 percent increase, and a 35 percent increase for teachers, recruitment for teachers for one year, and now come on back and propose a 2.8 percent increase. Who is fooling whom? It was 3.5 percent last year, and the Democrats raised it to the figures the President talked about, and this year it is 2.8 percent. That is what is in the budget. That is what is in the budget numbers. It gets worse. Look at what the administration's budget is for the future, according to the last budget conference report. It provides virtually zero new money for education for the next 8 years, all the way to 2011. They put forward funding to cover the cost of inflation, but not a nickel above it. There it is, as shown on the chart, for the next 8 years. For the next 8 years: a zero increase. We do not hear them talking about that. We do not hear the President or the Department of Education or anyone for the President denying this. It is because that happens to be it. What we are saying is that we believe--believe deeply--that when you have an over $2 trillion budget and you say education is your most important priority, outside of national security and the war on terrorism, we think you can do better on education than this. That is what the Democrats say. And that is what we want the American people want. An over $2 trillion budget, and they can't do anything better than a 2.8 percent increase. It doesn't even meet the challenges of inflation and growing school enrollment, never mind all our unmet school needs. So the schoolteachers who are out there now trying to upgrade their skills, as we have effectively required in last year's reform legislation, so that we can have a well-qualified teacher in every classroom, they are going to be denied the support. 18,000 fewer teachers who received training last year budget will go untrained next year under the administration's budget. Those children, whom we are asking to meet higher standards, who need that extra help and assistance in the after-school programs with tutorials, they are going to find the doors are going to be closed to them in the after-school programs. 33,000 children who received after- school learning opportunities will be pushed out of programs next school year under the administration's budget. Why is it that at a time when the country has come together, and there has been a great hullabaloo about the signing of the No Child Left Behind Act--and I participated in it, and welcomed the opportunity, as others did in this body, to see that we were going to give national focus and attention on the issues of education--we are pulling the rug out from underneath this effort? Are we expecting that schools reform will be a success on a tin cup budget? It simply cannot be done. Every schoolteacher, every parent understands that. Every school board member, every principal, every superintendent understands it. If we are going to leave no child behind, we cannot accept the Administration's budget that provides services to just over a third of all the needy children eligible for Title I assistance. They leave almost 6 million children behind. The Administration wanted to title our bipartisan school reform bill the No Child Left Behind Act. The legislation laid out a glide path of funding so that we would provide supplemental services for every needy child. That is what that legislation stated. That is what the President signed. But you don't get there with this budget. What we are basically talking about here is whether we are going to get the qualified teachers in underserved areas, areas with the highest incidence of dropout rates among Hispanic Americans and the highest number of unqualified teachers. That does not mean those teachers who are working today under extremely challenging and difficult conditions don't want to be a part of this whole effort to upgrade skills. They want to be. Give them a chance. Give them a fighting chance. That is what last year's bill sought to do. It sought to give them a chance for certification. Give them a chance for training. Give them a chance for upgrading their skills. We have seen where it has been done. It has been done down in North Carolina. It is being done in a handful of other States. We believe the Nation ought to be about it. That is the policy that last year's bipartisan legislation committed us. That is what we are not living up to. I hope we can try to get back to what we committed ourselves to and what we are fighting for here today. We have the opportunity at this time to try to breathe new life into the pledge to leave no child behind. We still have the appropriations process to go through. We welcome a President who says: All right. We have looked through these figures. We know we are fighting a war on terrorism. We know we are funding homeland security. But by God, at the greatest times of American history, we have not only fought overseas but we have invested here at home. The place to start off that investment is going to be here in the area of education. We are going to support those past efforts, those bipartisan efforts and make sure that the legislation comes to life with an infusion of added and desperately needed resources. We are going to continue to make our presentation, continue to make this case day in and day out. We want to tell the parents in this country that when we were a part of voting for that legislation to enhance academic achievement and accomplishment, we said it was a national priority and we meant it. This administration's budget does not make education a national priority. So, we are going to fight for those families. We are going to fight here on the floor. We are going to fight during the appropriations process. We will take on the administration. But we are not going to leave the children of this country behind.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, when I learned of the death of Msgr. George G. Higgins, I was saddened to lose a friend and one of the most passionate workers' advocates of our time. For half a century, Msgr. Higgins was the workers' priest. He was a leading advocate of workers rights, but his interests went beyond labor to issues of justice and peace, human and civil rights, discrimination. Through his writings and teachings, he helped show the connections between these vital issues and his deep faith. He left his mark on the lives of America's workers through his roles as writer, lecturer, lobbyist, negotiator, and leader. It is said that Msgr. Higgins never turned down an invitation to a labor meeting if he was able to be there. He was no stranger to picket lines, stopping by to lend an inspirational word to workers and to show his support. Msgr. Higgins played a central role in the negotiations between grape growers and the newly unionized farm workers in the early 1970s. United Farm Workers leader Cesar Chavez said in 1980 that no one in the country did more for farm workers than Msgr. Higgins. He played a key role as a liaison between the independent Polish labor union Solidarity and American unions at a time when Solidarity was struggling for its very survival in the early 1980s. In 2000, President Clinton awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor, for his commitment to workers' rights, civil rights and religious tolerance. Last year, he was conferred the University of Notre Dame's prestigious Laetare Medal. Msgr. Higgins believed that unions are central to democracy and the improvement of the plight of workers. He insisted that Catholic institutions welcome unionization and negotiate in good faith with their employees. AFL-CIO President John F. Sweeney said of Msgr. Higgins that, ``He has been an irresistible force in bringing labor and church together. . . . We respect him for his strength, we revere him for his conscience, we stand in awe of his intellect and we thank him for his love.'' My thoughts and wishes are with his sisters, Bridget Doonan and Ann Maronic, as well as his nephews, nieces, grandnephews and grandnieces. We will miss America's Labor Priest. As we continue to fight for America's workers, for justice and for peace, his memory will be with us--and with all workers around the globe.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield one more time and give me her reaction?

Mr. KENNEDY. Is the Senator aware that the Bush budget allocates only $190 billion over the next 10 years for prescription drugs and Medicare reform, and the House Republican budget allocates $350 billion, but the cost of drugs for senior citizens during this same period will be $1.8 trillion--$1.8 trillion? Does the Senator conclude from that, this is going to be a very inadequate response to a major health challenge for our seniors?

Mr. KENNEDY. Is the Senator aware that under the House Republican plan, senior citizens would have to spend $670 before they received a dime of benefits? This is the cost of the premiums of $420, and the deductible which is $250. That comes to $670 before they get a dime of benefit. Is the Senator familiar with the fact that the average senior citizen's income is only $15,000, and the average prescription drug need is $2,200?

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator be good enough to yield for another question? Does not the Senator think then we have to deal with the substance and the reality rather than the cliches and the slogans?

Mr. KENNEDY. I am sure we are going to hear from the other side: We have a prescription drug proposal. Does the Senator agree with me that is really a misrepresentation? If we accept that as a concept, it will do people in my State little good. I understand the Senator is a strong supporter, and I see in the chair the Senator from Georgia who has worked very closely with the Senator from Florida on an excellent program, and I commend him for it. Does the Senator agree if we are going to do something, let's help our seniors and not misrepresent what we are trying to do for them?

Mr. KENNEDY. We all want to find common ground and work together. Requiring the seniors to pay $670 before they get a dime of benefits does not seem to me to fulfill the commitment this country made to our seniors when we passed Medicare and said: Pay in, and we are going to help relieve the anxiety you have about quality health care. I am interested in whatever comment the Senator wishes to make.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last year we reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, one of the most far reaching education reform bills in decades. It was a significant bipartisan achievement, but it isn't enough. We must do more to focus on the years leading up to school. Today, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and I are reintroducing the Book Stamp Act and looking forward to working in a bipartisan manner to improve early learning opportunities for our youngest children. In her statement before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, First Lady Laura Bush called attention to the problems she saw as a teacher. She described children who were having difficulties learning to read because they had not developed the basic building blocks of language during their preschool years, the building blocks forged through reading, language play, and bedtime stories. In her words, ``a failure to learn to read not only leads to failure in school, but portends failure throughout life.'' It should come as no surprise that the foundation for learning and literacy is laid long before children arrive at our public schools. We can't ignore the facts. Each year, millions of children enter kindergarten unprepared for school. Before the first lessons are taught, they are already behind. Low-income children are particularly at risk of school failure. Children in low-income households are less likely than their peers to enter school with the language skills they need. According to the Carnegie Foundation report, ``Ready to Learn: a Mandate for the Nation,'' 35 percent of children enter kindergarten unprepared to learn and most lack the language skills that are the prerequisites of literacy acquisition. The research also shows that children who are placed in remedial reading groups early in school, often continue to perform below age expectation. Reading failure in school constitutes a major disability that contributes to school dropout, juvenile delinquency, teen pregnancy, and other societal problems. In other words, the early childhood years are crucial ones for the development of literacy. There is widespread consensus that reading aloud by parents is the single most important activity for building the knowledge required for eventual success in reading. There is a long history of research linking reading aloud by parents with verbal language and literacy skills with our children. Regardless of culture or wealth, one of the most important factors in the development of literacy is access to books. Students from homes with an abundance of books and other language activities are substantially better readers than those with few or no reading materials. Children living in poverty bear a disproportionate burden of early language delay as well as later reading disability. Children from families with lower incomes, as a group, receive comparatively little stimulation at home. As a group, children from low-income families grow up with fewer books in the home, and are exposed to relatively little reading aloud. The Book Stamp Act will help remedy this. By providing books to the Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies, pediatricians, WIC clinics, and child care providers in each community, we can get developmentally appropriate books into the hands of low-income families. There are over 825 Resource and Referral Agencies that will provide free books to children enrolled in child care programs that serve low income families. Each child will receive at least one book every 6 months to take home. However, we can't stop there. It is not enough to just give books to the children. Since young children cannot read to themselves, we must make sure that the adults in their lives understand the importance of reading to children as young as six months. Training the parents and the child's caregiver about the importance of reading is just as critical as getting books into homes. Funds set aside by the Book Stamp Act will also be used to provide such training for parents and caregivers. Funds will be raised through the sale of a postage stamp similar to the Breast Cancer Stamp. Postal patrons may choose to support this program by purchasing premium stamps which feature as early learning character. We know what works to combat illiteracy. Through the simple act of getting books into the homes of families who might not otherwise be able to afford them and by providing simple training for parents and caregivers about the best ways to read to children, we can make an enormous difference in a short amount of time. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering the nomination of one of the nation's most distinguished scientific leaders, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, to be the Director of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Zerhouni's life is a story about endless possibilities. He arrived from Algeria with little else but his medical training--and a desire to help his fellow human beings facing disease. From that humble beginning, he has explored the endless possibilities of medical research. His contributions have been extraordinary. Dr. Zerhouni developed new methods for imaging living tissues that are in use in hospitals around the nation. As a skilled administrator, he has demonstrated leadership and vision time and time again at Johns Hopkins. He revitalized the Medical School's Clinical Practice Association. He worked skillfully with scientists, business leaders and elected officials to create a thriving biotechnology park. Most recently, he established the groundbreaking Institute for Cell Engineering. At this remarkable new facility, scientists are exploring the potential of stem cells to alleviate some of the most deadly diseases we face as a nation. The stem cell research conducted at the new Institute is already providing new insights into therapies for Parkinson's Disease, spinal injury, diabetes, and other serious illnesses. In many ways, the story of NIH is also a story about endless possibilities. NIH research has developed therapies to free millions of Americans from the limitations of disease and disability so that they, too, can explore the endless possibilities of an active and productive life. Dr. Zerhouni will become the first NIH Director in this new century of the life sciences. Never have the possibilities for NIH been greater. The NIH budget will increase to more than $27 billion this year. Those funds will support research and training in thousands of research institutions across the nation and around the world. Leading the NIH is an awesome responsibility that will determine the quality of life for millions and millions of Americans for many years to come. NIH research ranges from studies of microscopic structures in living cells to investigations of patterns of disease in entire populations. NIH research not only gives us information about what keeps us healthy or makes us sick, but it reveals new insights into who we are as human beings. The advances made by NIH research in just the first two years of this new century are extraordinary--and the future promises still greater wonders. Already in this century, NIH research has helped map the human genome. No less important than these basic genetic studies are recent findings from NIH scientists that structured lifestyle changes can significantly reduce the risk of diabetics, sparing millions of Americans from this deadly disease. The impact of NIH research on human health is incalculable. Life expectancies have risen dramatically over the last century, and some scientists believe that the first human being to live to be a productive 150 year-old is already alive today. Never before have the challenges for NIH been greater. The anthrax attacks of last fall taught the nation what many of us knew already-- that the powerful techniques of modern biology can be used not only to heal but to harm. Just this week, the Brookings Institute published a risk assessment showing that a million Americans could die in a major biological attack. NIH must provide the leadership required to develop new medical weapons in the battle against bioterrorism. I know that good progress is already being make in the race to develop better vaccines against smallpox, anthrax, and other dangerous pathogens. I would also like to extend my thanks, and the thanks of the entire Senate to Dr. Ruth Kirschstein, who has served so effectively as Acting Director since the departure of Dr. Harold Varmus. She has served in this important position with dedication and skill, to the great benefit of NIH and the nation. Earlier this week, our committee received Dr. Zerhouni's nomination papers from the President. A few days ago, we listened to him explain his vision for meeting the challenges and seizing the opportunities of this new century of the life sciences as NIH Director. Earlier today, our committee approved his nomination unanimously. I hope my Senate colleagues will confirm his nomination quickly. I wish every good future to Dr. Zerhouni, and I look forward to working with him closely in the years to come.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to commend to my colleagues an article from the New York Times reviewing a new production of Arthur Miller's play, ``The Man Who Had All the Luck.'' Produced by the Williamstown Theater Festival last summer, this revival has earned acclaim for its extraordinary adaptation of this work by one of America's finest playwrights. The critic has offered special praise for the lead actors, Chris O'Donnell and Samantha Mathis as well as Sam Robards. The Williamstown Theater Festival is a tremendous organization which brings great drama to the Berkshires every summer, with some of the most talented performers and directors in the country. This production is now brilliantly staged on Broadway and I know that audiences will enjoy this timeless and poignant American story. I ask unanimous consent that the article from the New York Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I'm honored to join Senator Brownback and my other colleagues in introducing the Immigration Reform, Accountability, and Security Enhancement Act of 2002, which will strengthen our national security by bringing our immigration system into the 21st century. Recently, the Senate took an important step by unanimously passing legislation which strengthens the security of our borders, improves our ability to screen foreign nationals, and improves coordination among the several responsible entities. Restructuring the INS is the next critical step in establishing an agency that can act effectively and fairly to secure our borders and provide better services to immigrants. There is strong bipartisan agreement that the INS must be reformed. But restructuring must be done correctly. The INS handles the enforcement of our immigration laws and the adjudication of benefits and services. INS's dual missions have long suffered under the current structure. On the enforcement side, September 11 clearly demonstrated that our immigration laws are being applied inconsistently. Some of the terrorists were residing here legally, others had overstayed their visas, and the status of others is still unknown. Improving the structure of the INS will help ensure greater accountability and the consistent and effective enforcement of our immigration laws. The INS service functions have also suffered. Courteous behavior has too often been the exception, rather than the rule. Application fees steadily increase, yet poor service and long delays have persisted. Massive backlogs have forced individuals to languish for years waiting for their naturalization and permanent resident applications to be processed. Files have been lost. Fingerprints have expired. To address the distinct and at times conflicting responsibilities, successful reform must separate the enforcement functions from the service and adjudication functions. The result will be increased accountability and efficiency, as well as clarity of purpose. But, meaningful reform must also include a strong central authority to coordinate these dual functions. Our legislation requires that one high-level person take charge of the Nation's immigration laws to ensure uniform policy determinations and implementation, accountability, coordination, and fiscal responsibility. The new agency's director, like the FBI director, will have direct access to high-level officials in the executive branch. I congratulate the House of Representatives for acting quickly and decisively on restructuring legislation. The House bill abolishes the Immigration and Naturalization Service and establishes separate bureaus for services and enforcement which would operate as parallel structures with limited coordination. An Associate Attorney General would oversee the two bureaus. The goals of the House bill are very similar to our bill, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and the administration to pass effective legislation and put these reforms into law. The overarching difference between our two bills is the power and authority vested in the agency head and the coordination between the two bureaus. Our bill expands and improves the coordination between the bureaus through strong central leadership. The Immigration Reform, Accountability, and Security Enhancement Act establishes a Director of Immigration Affairs, a Deputy Director heading the Bureau of Services and Adjudications, and a Deputy Director heading the Bureau of Enforcement and Border Affairs. The Director will serve as the principal advisor to the Attorney General in developing and implementing U.S. immigration law and policy. The Director will be the strong central authority over the two bureaus, and will be able to integrate information systems, policies, and administrative infrastructure. The coordination and harmonization of policy, services and enforcement will also be enhanced by the establishment of several offices which will assist the two bureaus. The General Counsel, appointed by the Attorney General in consultation with the Agency Director, will serve as the chief legal officer for the Agency, providing specialized advice on all legal matters involving U.S. immigration laws. A Chief Financial Officer will direct, supervise, and coordinate all budgetary duties for the Agency. A Chief of Policy and Strategy will promote a national immigration policy, identify priorities and coordinate policy within the Agency. A Chief of Congressional, Intergovernmental, and Public Affairs will be the central liaison with Congress and other Federal agencies, and the media. This bill will enhance the accountability of the new Agency and will renew our national commitment to civil rights in the immigration process. This bill establishes an autonomous Office of the Ombudsman to be located within the Department of Justice. The Ombudsman will be appointed by and report directly to the Attorney General. The Ombudsman will identify and report on serious or systematic problems encountered by the public and will assist individuals in resolving problems with the Agency. The Ombudsman also will report annually to Congress on the steps taken to correct the problems and propose changes in the practices of the Agency to correct such problems. The vital role of statistical information in the modern age is recognized. This bill establishes a Director of Immigration Statistics, appointed by the Attorney General, who will report directly to the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the Department of Justice. Using 21st century technology, the newly established Office of Immigration Statistics will not only record and analyze statistical information, but will also establish standards of reliability and validation and will coordinate with the Service Bureau, the Enforcement Bureau, and the Executive Office for Immigration Review. This legislation also recognizes the need for alternatives to the detention of asylum seekers. The U.S. asylum program is a bipartisan success story, it provides new hope and new life for the persecuted and oppressed and it advances our foreign policy objectives by protecting human rights and promoting the American dream of opportunity. The United States is a leader in providing asylum to refugees worldwide. Still, we constantly need to strive to improve this very important program. This bill would require the consideration of specific alternatives to detention, including parole with appearance assistance provided by private nonprofit voluntary agencies. Finally, we are including much needed reform to address the treatment of unaccompanied minors in INS custody. I commend Senator Feinstein's long-standing commitment to this important issue and am honored to include her legislation, the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act, as part of our proposal to restructure the INS. These provisions will address many of the problems facing unaccompanied minors and will help bring U.S. treatment of unaccompanied alien children into line with international standards. The bill establishes a new Office of Children's Services within the Department of Justice to ensure that Federal authorities recognize the special needs and circumstances of unaccompanied alien children when making decisions regarding their custody and repatriation and ensures that unaccompanied alien children have access to appoint counsel and guardians ad litem. This bill is needed to ensure that our nation is prepared to meet the challenges that are before us. The Immigration Reform, Accountability, and Security Enhancement Act will help remedy many of the problems that currently plague the Immigration and Naturalization Service and will ensure that INS's responsibilities are effectively addressed and coordinated, executed with efficiency and courtesy, and uphold our great tradition of immigration and refugee protection. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I'm honored to join Senator Brownback and my other colleagues in introducing the Immigration Reform, Accountability, and Security Enhancement Act of 2002, which will strengthen our national security by bringing our immigration system into the 21st century. Recently, the Senate took an important step by unanimously passing legislation which strengthens the security of our borders, improves our ability to screen foreign nationals, and improves coordination among the several responsible entities. Restructuring the INS is the next critical step in establishing an agency that can act effectively and fairly to secure our borders and provide better services to immigrants. There is strong bipartisan agreement that the INS must be reformed. But restructuring must be done correctly. The INS handles the enforcement of our immigration laws and the adjudication of benefits and services. INS's dual missions have long suffered under the current structure. On the enforcement side, September 11 clearly demonstrated that our immigration laws are being applied inconsistently. Some of the terrorists were residing here legally, others had overstayed their visas, and the status of others is still unknown. Improving the structure of the INS will help ensure greater accountability and the consistent and effective enforcement of our immigration laws. The INS service functions have also suffered. Courteous behavior has too often been the exception, rather than the rule. Application fees steadily increase, yet poor service and long delays have persisted. Massive backlogs have forced individuals to languish for years waiting for their naturalization and permanent resident applications to be processed. Files have been lost. Fingerprints have expired. To address the distinct and at times conflicting responsibilities, successful reform must separate the enforcement functions from the service and adjudication functions. The result will be increased accountability and efficiency, as well as clarity of purpose. But, meaningful reform must also include a strong central authority to coordinate these dual functions. Our legislation requires that one high-level person take charge of the Nation's immigration laws to ensure uniform policy determinations and implementation, accountability, coordination, and fiscal responsibility. The new agency's director, like the FBI director, will have direct access to high-level officials in the executive branch. I congratulate the House of Representatives for acting quickly and decisively on restructuring legislation. The House bill abolishes the Immigration and Naturalization Service and establishes separate bureaus for services and enforcement which would operate as parallel structures with limited coordination. An Associate Attorney General would oversee the two bureaus. The goals of the House bill are very similar to our bill, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and the administration to pass effective legislation and put these reforms into law. The overarching difference between our two bills is the power and authority vested in the agency head and the coordination between the two bureaus. Our bill expands and improves the coordination between the bureaus through strong central leadership. The Immigration Reform, Accountability, and Security Enhancement Act establishes a Director of Immigration Affairs, a Deputy Director heading the Bureau of Services and Adjudications, and a Deputy Director heading the Bureau of Enforcement and Border Affairs. The Director will serve as the principal advisor to the Attorney General in developing and implementing U.S. immigration law and policy. The Director will be the strong central authority over the two bureaus, and will be able to integrate information systems, policies, and administrative infrastructure. The coordination and harmonization of policy, services and enforcement will also be enhanced by the establishment of several offices which will assist the two bureaus. The General Counsel, appointed by the Attorney General in consultation with the Agency Director, will serve as the chief legal officer for the Agency, providing specialized advice on all legal matters involving U.S. immigration laws. A Chief Financial Officer will direct, supervise, and coordinate all budgetary duties for the Agency. A Chief of Policy and Strategy will promote a national immigration policy, identify priorities and coordinate policy within the Agency. A Chief of Congressional, Intergovernmental, and Public Affairs will be the central liaison with Congress and other Federal agencies, and the media. This bill will enhance the accountability of the new Agency and will renew our national commitment to civil rights in the immigration process. This bill establishes an autonomous Office of the Ombudsman to be located within the Department of Justice. The Ombudsman will be appointed by and report directly to the Attorney General. The Ombudsman will identify and report on serious or systematic problems encountered by the public and will assist individuals in resolving problems with the Agency. The Ombudsman also will report annually to Congress on the steps taken to correct the problems and propose changes in the practices of the Agency to correct such problems. The vital role of statistical information in the modern age is recognized. This bill establishes a Director of Immigration Statistics, appointed by the Attorney General, who will report directly to the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the Department of Justice. Using 21st century technology, the newly established Office of Immigration Statistics will not only record and analyze statistical information, but will also establish standards of reliability and validation and will coordinate with the Service Bureau, the Enforcement Bureau, and the Executive Office for Immigration Review. This legislation also recognizes the need for alternatives to the detention of asylum seekers. The U.S. asylum program is a bipartisan success story, it provides new hope and new life for the persecuted and oppressed and it advances our foreign policy objectives by protecting human rights and promoting the American dream of opportunity. The United States is a leader in providing asylum to refugees worldwide. Still, we constantly need to strive to improve this very important program. This bill would require the consideration of specific alternatives to detention, including parole with appearance assistance provided by private nonprofit voluntary agencies. Finally, we are including much needed reform to address the treatment of unaccompanied minors in INS custody. I commend Senator Feinstein's long-standing commitment to this important issue and am honored to include her legislation, the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act, as part of our proposal to restructure the INS. These provisions will address many of the problems facing unaccompanied minors and will help bring U.S. treatment of unaccompanied alien children into line with international standards. The bill establishes a new Office of Children's Services within the Department of Justice to ensure that Federal authorities recognize the special needs and circumstances of unaccompanied alien children when making decisions regarding their custody and repatriation and ensures that unaccompanied alien children have access to appoint counsel and guardians ad litem. This bill is needed to ensure that our nation is prepared to meet the challenges that are before us. The Immigration Reform, Accountability, and Security Enhancement Act will help remedy many of the problems that currently plague the Immigration and Naturalization Service and will ensure that INS's responsibilities are effectively addressed and coordinated, executed with efficiency and courtesy, and uphold our great tradition of immigration and refugee protection. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last year we reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, one of the most far reaching education reform bills in decades. It was a significant bipartisan achievement, but it isn't enough. We must do more to focus on the years leading up to school. Today, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and I are reintroducing the Book Stamp Act and looking forward to working in a bipartisan manner to improve early learning opportunities for our youngest children. In her statement before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, First Lady Laura Bush called attention to the problems she saw as a teacher. She described children who were having difficulties learning to read because they had not developed the basic building blocks of language during their preschool years, the building blocks forged through reading, language play, and bedtime stories. In her words, ``a failure to learn to read not only leads to failure in school, but portends failure throughout life.'' It should come as no surprise that the foundation for learning and literacy is laid long before children arrive at our public schools. We can't ignore the facts. Each year, millions of children enter kindergarten unprepared for school. Before the first lessons are taught, they are already behind. Low-income children are particularly at risk of school failure. Children in low-income households are less likely than their peers to enter school with the language skills they need. According to the Carnegie Foundation report, ``Ready to Learn: a Mandate for the Nation,'' 35 percent of children enter kindergarten unprepared to learn and most lack the language skills that are the prerequisites of literacy acquisition. The research also shows that children who are placed in remedial reading groups early in school, often continue to perform below age expectation. Reading failure in school constitutes a major disability that contributes to school dropout, juvenile delinquency, teen pregnancy, and other societal problems. In other words, the early childhood years are crucial ones for the development of literacy. There is widespread consensus that reading aloud by parents is the single most important activity for building the knowledge required for eventual success in reading. There is a long history of research linking reading aloud by parents with verbal language and literacy skills with our children. Regardless of culture or wealth, one of the most important factors in the development of literacy is access to books. Students from homes with an abundance of books and other language activities are substantially better readers than those with few or no reading materials. Children living in poverty bear a disproportionate burden of early language delay as well as later reading disability. Children from families with lower incomes, as a group, receive comparatively little stimulation at home. As a group, children from low-income families grow up with fewer books in the home, and are exposed to relatively little reading aloud. The Book Stamp Act will help remedy this. By providing books to the Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies, pediatricians, WIC clinics, and child care providers in each community, we can get developmentally appropriate books into the hands of low-income families. There are over 825 Resource and Referral Agencies that will provide free books to children enrolled in child care programs that serve low income families. Each child will receive at least one book every 6 months to take home. However, we can't stop there. It is not enough to just give books to the children. Since young children cannot read to themselves, we must make sure that the adults in their lives understand the importance of reading to children as young as six months. Training the parents and the child's caregiver about the importance of reading is just as critical as getting books into homes. Funds set aside by the Book Stamp Act will also be used to provide such training for parents and caregivers. Funds will be raised through the sale of a postage stamp similar to the Breast Cancer Stamp. Postal patrons may choose to support this program by purchasing premium stamps which feature as early learning character. We know what works to combat illiteracy. Through the simple act of getting books into the homes of families who might not otherwise be able to afford them and by providing simple training for parents and caregivers about the best ways to read to children, we can make an enormous difference in a short amount of time. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to bring to the attention of the Senate and the American people one of the great challenges this country is facing again, and the failure of the Bush administration to respond to this challenge, and that is the cost of higher education. I don't think there is anyone or any family who is watching the U.S. Senate this morning who isn't concerned about what the cost is for higher education--for their children, who are in college at the present time, or parents whose children have gone to college and endured the debt. It is absolutely extraordinary to me, at this time of real crisis, in terms of availability of college for working, middle-income families that the Bush administration has now suggested a way that will make the cost of college education even higher and the debts even deeper. I draw again to the attention of the Senate this AP story from last week, where the White House suggested $5.2 billion in savings from Federal student loans. White House Budget Director Mitch Daniels proposed savings to House Speaker Dennis Hastert. Among Daniels' proposed savings is to require college students and graduates who wish to consolidate their Government-backed education to use variable interest rates. That means that the Bush administration is saying to college students, rather than being able to take advantage of the low-interest rates at the present time, they will have to take their chances on the variable interest rates. What is that going to cost for the average student and the average family? The average family in this country who borrows ends up with a $17,000 debt. In my State, it is about $23,000 or $24,000. The best estimate is that it is going to cost that family at least $3,000; if it is going to be over a 30-year period, it will be an additional $10,000. Do families understand this proposal of the Bush administration? Now, we are, as Democrats, extraordinarily concerned. We have sent a letter to the administration. Our committee, the Education Committee, has invited Mr. Daniels to testify on this particular issue, so that we can better understand what the reasons and the rationale are--other than that the Federal Government can effectively take back that money from the students and use it for the tax cut for the wealthiest individuals. This is a tax increase on working families that are going to school. Now what has been the administration's response? The Democrats are virtually unanimous. There are 46 of our Democratic colleagues who have said they will stand in the way and will not permit it. We will have a legislative fix, and we will not permit it. We are telling the administration that. What has been the reaction of the administration? If we look at the reaction of the administration, according to Deputy Education Secretary William Hansen, they yesterday dismissed the Democratic criticism as incredibly disingenuous. It is not the Democrats who are disingenuous. It is the Bush administration's proposal to raise the cost of going to higher education. Is this something that we say is the cost of higher education? I refer again to a story that is in the New York Times--and there is a similar story in the Washington Post this morning--``Greater Share of Income is Committed to Education.'' Poor and middle class families have had to use a steadily larger portion of their income to attend the Nation's public universities over the last 2 decades as State spending for higher education has lagged behind. All of these trends are unhealthy for the future of educational opportunity in this country, says Patrick Callan, President of the National Center for Higher Education. That is not a Democratic Senator. This is the president of the National Center for Higher Education in San Jose, CA, which commissioned the study with the support of the Ford Foundation and the Pew Charitable Trust. These are independent studies. These are independent studies, and still the administration stays the course and says, well, even in spite of this fact, we are going to even make it more difficult and more complex. We reject that at the outset. I bring to the attention of the Members a response that Ari Fleischer had yesterday from the White House when he was asked about fixed versus variable rates. Mr. Fleischer's response: Well, we are just going to continue to work with Congress to find a solution. The idea was always a voluntary one, never a mandatory one. Mr. Fleischer better understand what this whole proposal is about because this is poppycock. What is mandatory, according to the administration, is they get the variable rate. What they are taking away from the student is the opportunity to take advantage of the low rate. It is still a live consideration, and I do not know who Mr. Fleischer is talking to in the Congress to find a solution. He also makes reference to the fact about what the administration is doing in funding and education. I, again, remind the Senate about where the administration is on its budget now and in the future on education. This year the President is requesting $50 billion in discretionary appropriations for the Department of Education, an increase of $1.4 billion, or 2.8 percent. That is what the administration is suggesting. If we look at last year's budget conference report, on page 51, they outline the baseline estimates which do not reflect any specific policy except for defense. President Bush's budget authority for the year 2002--this report assumes that discretionary function levels grow by inflation. What is that saying? That over the next 9 years, this is the Bush proposal on funding education: zero. This is what they say. Now, we are shortchanging the children in this country. If we look back at this last year, primarily at the behest of the Democrats, we saw an increase in the elementary and secondary education. The proposal of the Bush administration is zero in the outyears and is now attempting to tamper with the interest rates to make it more costly. Now, that is an intolerable position for the Bush administration to have. There is a failure to fund the elementary and secondary education adequately, and they are putting an additional tax on every family in this country sending their children to school. Sixty-three percent of the students who attend higher education are borrowing at this time. The average cost across the Nation is $17,000. Every family, if their proposal goes forward, is going to pay at least $3,000 more. We are not going to tolerate it. It is difficult for many of us, who thought we were going to see a strong commitment in the area of education, to understand in a budget of over $2 trillion why the administration has to target working families and middle-income families. I do not understand that. They say education is important. They have over a $2 trillion budget and they cannot find the funding in the areas of education. I want to let our colleagues know we are going to do everything in resisting this proposal. From an educational point of view, it makes no sense. From a national interest point of view, investing in education and our children is investing in our future. I see my colleague and friend, the Senator from Michigan, who is doing such an outstanding job on bringing to the attention of the Senate the importance of prescription drugs. I commend her for her eloquence, persistence, and leadership in this area. I tell her that on behalf of all the people of Massachusetts. We are enormously grateful to her for bringing these facts to the attention of the membership. I hope she will address the proposal we had from the House Republicans yesterday on the issue of prescription drugs. I think myself it is more of a series of platitudes rather than a core program. They refuse to commit the resources which are necessary. It seems to me that a bus ticket to Canada will probably save seniors more than the Republican proposal. I am going to be interested in her reaction to that, and her statements about the importance of assuring our senior citizens that a prescription drug program be a part of our Medicare system. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield to the Senator from New York.