Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am sure that when all of our colleagues travel back to their States and meet with parents and families, they are being asked about the increased cost of tuition at the universities and colleges across the country. I know that is true in my own State of Massachusetts. The average fees at the University of Massachusetts, one of our fine universities, are going up in excess of $1,000 for this next year. Quite frankly, in my part of the country, families are really concerned about the economic conditions. I know the economic indicators, the GDP indicators, are showing some improvement. Clearly, the unemployment figures are not reflecting the real situations of many Americans in many parts of the Nation. So many Americans are facing lay-offs and those that are finding new jobs are often taking pay cuts. As many states cut their higher education budgets, people are wondering how they are going to afford the increases in tuition. Many of those attending school and recent graduates were very perplexed to read the story in the New York Times over the weekend that says: ``Bush seeking to squeeze school loan program.'' The student loan programs offer low-interest loans to full-time students. These programs are available to low and middle-income families. I have an AP story that says: The White House has suggested $5.2 billion savings from Federal student loan programs. The White House Budget Director Mitch Daniels proposed the savings to the House Speaker Dennis Hastert last week. Among Daniels's proposed savings is to require college students and graduates who wish to consolidate their Government-backed education loans to use variable interest rates, a change from the current program. I want to share with the Senate what has happened in my own State, and it is replicated across the country. Just last year, we had some 36,000 families consolidate their loans, taking advantage of the lower fixed interest rates. It amounts to $1 billion. The average loan in my State is $29,000. Let me be very clear, Mr. President. If the proposal that is reported in the New York Times goes into effect, it will mean $3,000 more for every $10,000 a person owes to the guaranteed loan program--$3,000; $10,000 over a 30-year period. That is $10,000 additional over a 10-year period if that student owes $30,000. In my State of Massachusetts, the average consolidated loan is $29,000. To do what? According to Mr. Daniels, for the next year, it will mean $1.3 billion in savings to the administration evidently so they can use it for the tax cut program for wealthy individuals. Talk about a financial transfer. This administration is going to balance its books at the expense of students. They are talking about $1.3 billion from students and middle-income families who will have to pay a variable rate on consolidated loans, instead of taking advantage of the lower fixed interest rates at the present time. This is an effort to effectively fix the system so that students and their families will pay more so this administration can afford more in tax cuts. Families pay what they can afford in tuition for their children to go to school, and depend on the federal loan programs for the remainder of the tuition. When it comes time to help repay those student loans, they will have to pay higher interest rates, and they ask why. Hard working families should get the best deal on interest rate that is available. The New York Times article goes on: ``The Bush administration is seeking to ease its budget by squeezing $1.3 billion from the Federal student loan program,'' administration and congressional officials say today. Whether it is the $1.3 billion as in the New York Times or the $5 billion, what they are basically saying is the students and middle- income families are going to have to pay a good deal more rather than taking advantage of the lowest interest rates. That is poor education policy. It is grossly unfair to middle-income families, and it is clearly not in the national interest. Our national interest ought to be to encourage the best and the brightest to complete their education, to be involved in the communities of this country, and contribute to our Nation's democratic values and its economic values. How can the administration make that kind of request to the Congress? Mr. President, I just want to make it very clear, as far as our committee goes, I can say without fear of any contradiction, this suggestion will not pass. The last time we faced this type of proposal was in 1981 under President Reagan who suggested an origination fee which was an additional burden on students and their families who were taking out student loans. We were unsuccessful in stopping that fee, and I believe we will succeed in rejecting the elimination of the fixed rate consolidation loans. But I tell my colleagues, how in the world can you believe this administration is putting education first when it is trying to shortchange the students of this country in an unfair and, I think, unwise way?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I think that is one of the most fascinating things I've ever seen, and as one who has worked for years on healthcare issues, it makes me even more committed to moving this broadband technology out across the country as quickly as possible, because one needs a very high bandwidth connection for those kinds of applications. You cannot do remote surgery over a narrow band connection.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, a number of us have come to the floor today to discuss legislation to provide tax incentives to accelerate ``broadband'' high-speed Internet access across the country. The widespread availability of broadband technology is essential to ensuring the United States' technological leadership in the world. We must make a commitment to a national broadband policy and do it now. The reach of the information revolution to our Nation's rural and urban underserved areas depends on affordable Internet access. For far too long, these regions have found themselves disconnected from the information age because of their geography and high-cost of service. One of our greatest challenges for the future is to close the growing economic gap in access to computers and the Internet. If we do not act to close it now, this ``digital divide'' will become the opportunity of our time. Several policy initiatives have been proposed to stimulate broadband deployment including deregulation, community planning grants, and low- interest loans to name a few. The broadband tax credit proposal is an important first step that has gained widespread support in Congress because it provides tax credits to those who take broadband to places where the market is not taking it, both geographically and technologically. So we are here to discuss the importance of that proposal and of ensuring its passage this year. The Senator from West Virginia is the sponsor of the preeminent broadband tax credit bill, the Broadband Internet Access Act, of which I am pleased to be an original cosponsor, as is my friend from Oregon. Senator Rockefeller had led the fight to bring broadband access to all Americans, and first introduced this bill along with Senators Moynihan, Kerry, and others. He reintroduced the Broadband Internet Access Act, S. 88, last year, and it has 64 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. A companion bill in the House has 194 cosponsors. A version of Senator Rockefeller's bill was reported out of the Senate Finance Committee as part of the stimulus package that was sent to the floor last December. I commend my friend from West Virginia for his leadership on this and many other technology issues so important to our nation's economy. Senator Smith and I have introduced a measure very similar to Senator Rockefeller's bill as an amendment to the energy legislation now before this body. Under this proposal, any company providing the required level of service, whether by telephone, cable modem, terrestrial wireless, satellite, or any other technology, would be eligible to claim the credit. The proposal provides a 10 percent tax credit for investment in ``current-generation'' broadband services and a 20 percent credit for investment in ``next generation'' services. Current generation broadband is typically 5-20 times faster than conventional ``dial-up'' Internet service and capable of transmitting text and photos very quickly. Current generation broadband can also transmit video imagery, but with low quality. Next generation broadband is hundreds of times faster than dial-up and transmits video imagery with great speed and clarity, making it ideal for applications like telemedicine, distance learning, and video conferencing. In my home State of Massachusetts, I saw firsthand how these types of advanced Internet services transformed the economy of the entire Berkshire County region. Like may rural areas across the Nation, the Berkshires were considered to be too far away from the Internet portals to interest providers. But business and Government leaders began an initiative called ``Berkshire Connect,'' that resulted in a partnership with providers to build a multi-million dollar network of microwave towers and fiber-optic lines linking the county's scenic villages and small cities with fast Internet access. The project put the Berkshires on an equal footing with the rest of the global marketplace, because the Internet levels the playing field between large and small businesses and rural and urban areas. I am confident that passage of the broadband tax credit measure will bring similar success stories across the Nation like we have seen in the Berkshires for more residents and businesses. The proposal provides $540 million in tax credits for broadband deployment to wire an estimated 5.4 million additional U.S. homes with current generation broadband and 700,000 more with next generation broadband. Today, 11 million U.S. homes are wired with current generation broadband and 340,000 with next generation broadband. This measure would increase those numbers by 50 percent and 200 percent respectively. Senator Smith and I filed this measure as an amendment to the energy legislation because we see a clear connection between Internet use and energy savings. One former Energy Department official has testified before Congress that by reducing shopping trips and retail office space, e-commerce was responsible for energy use staying flat in the last 1990s while the economy was expanding sharply. And a number of studies have found that telecommuting saves 1-2 percent of total annual gasoline consumption and has the potential to save more. Meanwhile, economists now recognize that telecommuters can avoid the ``congestion costs'' which each additional driver imposes on others in terms of lost time and excess fuel from sitting in traffic jams. Princeton Professor Paul Krugman has estimated Atlanta's congestion cost at $3,500 a year for each additional driver. And associated savings come in the area of the environment. A 1999 study by the International Telework Association and Council found that the average telecommuter saves 28.5 pounds of pollution emissions every day he or she works from home. The Senator from West Virginia was just discussing with me a number of other important benefits of broadband, apart from energy savings. I wonder if he would take a moment to describe those.

Mr. KENNEDY. I couldn't agree more. As I said earlier, I think this would be a very good addition to the energy bill because it has clear energy savings implications. If that proves not to be possible, I think it should be included in any other tax bill that comes through this year. Passing the broadband tax credit this year should be a priority for the Senate and we must ensure its passage at our earliest opportunity.

Mr. KENNEDY. I wonder if my friend is a aware of the trans-Atlantic surgery that occurred last year, where a surgeon in New York operated on a patient in France?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I must rise, regrettably, to oppose the energy bill. This legislation means higher gas prices and lower environmental protections for the American people, and it should be opposed. I commend Senators Bingaman and Daschle for their leadership and their tireless work on this initiative. I believe I could have lived with many sections of the bill as introduced. I know there are many issues regarding our national energy policy upon which Senator Daschle, Senator Bingaman and I agree. However, in my opinion the bill in its current form falls far short of the mark for environmental and consumer protections, and forces us to rely on oil more than innovation for our energy needs for the foreseeable future. The energy bill as introduced wasn't as bold as it could have been, but it represented an improvement over the status quo. It had higher goals for renewable energy. It maintained some consumer protections. There are still provisions in this bill that deserve everyone's support. It's true that we are raising the bar a bit in calling for renewable energy, though not enough. We're providing some tax credits for renewable energy production and energy efficiency. We're improving pipeline safety. We're investing resources in making renewable energy more efficient and profitable. We're conducting research on finding the most appropriate and effective places to site renewable energy facilities. We spoke very clearly that drilling in the Arctic Natural Wildlife Refuge is not in the interests of our economic or national security. I am also pleased with Senator Bayh's leadership on clean-burning school buses, and I look forward to continuing our work together on this very important issue. But I think this bill doesn't do enough to ensure that efficiency is a serious component of our energy policy. I commend Senators Kerry and McCain for their efforts on fuel economy standards, but I'm very disappointed in the vote on CAFE. I'm also disappointed that the Senate couldn't find an agreement to set broad goals for fuel consumption as reflected in the Carper amendment. I fear we will be forced to revisit this issue again sooner rather than later. I'm very concerned that we didn't do enough to protect consumers in this bill. Energy industries wanted fewer regulatory restrictions, and were rewarded in this bill. The underlying bill had adequate consumer protections, but they were watered down by amendments. In today's fast- paced world of energy trading, and mergers, we should err on the side of transparency and consumer protection. The energy bill doesn't do that. I'm particularly concerned about the potential harm to the environment in this bill. This bill supports hydraulic fracturing. It forces States to use ethanol--and while ethanol clearly addresses air pollution, I'm concerned that the residue created by ethanol, known as EBTE, could pollute our water supply. We shouldn't be trading clean water for clean air. The fuel oxygenate mandate provisions are cumbersome for Massachusetts. It forces our state to use more ethanol than it will be able to accommodate for several years. The infrastructure to transfer ethanol is inadequate, and when Massachusetts finds itself unable to meet the mandate, it will be forced to pay a credit--increasing gas prices at the pump. I'm also concerned about the impact to the highway trust fund--Federal resources from the gas tax should be spent on repairing and constructing roads and bridges. More ethanol would reduce the revenues in this fund and compromise our ability to maintain our transportation infrastructure. I am very concerned about the liability protections given to industry. We're subsidizing and capping the liability costs of the nuclear industry in this bill--I believe if you're not prepared to bear the total costs of nuclear power, then you shouldn't enter the business. We're giving blanket product liability protections to fuel additive manufacturers, even though we don't have adequate information on their safety if they drain into our drinking water. An energy bill should be about innovation, conservation, and security--not about providing yet more liability protections for corporations when their products hurt people or the environment. This bill has some improvements, but I'm sure the Senate could do better.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, few individuals have made a greater contribution to the study of American history than Professor Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. Arthur's been a pre-eminent historian for over half a century, ever since 1946, when he won the Pulitzer Prize at the age of 28, for his book ``The Age of Jackson.'' As Oscar Wilde once said--anybody can make history but only a truly great man can write history. And Arthur Schlesinger has written about history with unsurpassed eloquence, and he's shaped that history with his unsurpassed wisdom and scholarship. In so many ways, Arthur Schlesinger represents the best of the liberal and progressive ideal in the 20th century. Arthur Schlesinger continues to represent these ideals in the 21st century, and I believe that his article on the 2000 presidential election published in last month's issue of The American Prospect will be of interest to all of us in Congress. I ask unanimous consent that it may be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself a half a minute. I want to add to what my colleague said. There is also $100 million in fees here. We have raised the fee part of it, which will be self- funding, making the total $843 million. This agency has a budget of $6 billion. It is our intention to try to work within that $6 billion to find the additional money and to work with the Appropriations Committee. But I think that the point the Senator from New Mexico makes about the difference between authorization and appropriations is always worthwhile to point out so people have a very full understanding of the process.

Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. KENNEDY. Hear. Hear. I thank the Senator. Madam President, it is my understanding now that we will proceed to three votes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia. He is my friend. I know I really can speak for all Members in saying he is the defender of all of the constitutional prerogatives of this great institution. We have heard him speak this evening. We have listened to that clear and compelling voice tonight, as we have heard it in defending the institution at other times. I am wondering if I could ask a special favor of the Senator. He has been extremely kind. But what we have not heard tonight is the poem about the ambulance in the valley. I know it is late in the evening, but could the Senator--if we were to yield the Senator a few more minutes--recite that poem? Or would he prefer to wait for another time? If he would prefer not to, I would certainly understand.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to give whatever time we have remaining to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand that two rollcalls have been ordered. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays on final passage of H.R. 3525, the underlying measure.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I hope we will approve the managers' amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, stacking the votes is fine with me. I would rather have our colleagues available so that we can move along. It is just 6 o'clock now. Maybe my cosponsors want to spend time describing the amendments. I do not think so. I know Senator Feinstein has not had a chance to address the whole issue as a prime sponsor. It seems to me we should be able to consider these amendments in a timely manner. I would like to see if we can move the votes to prior to 7:15 p.m. If the leader set that time, then that will be the time, but I hope we can make progress prior to that time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for the study that he has given to this issue, and for the recommendations that he has made on this legislation. We are urging our colleagues to support this. I thank him for his cooperation and for the seriousness which he has given to this legislation. I thank him. Mr. President, under the consent agreement we still have the additional item; that is, the managers' amendment. I ask that we now proceed to the consideration of the managers' amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use. I support the amendment. I think it demonstrates support for a very important provision in the legislation, and that is for the INS to receive the manifests of those who are coming into the United States in a timely fashion. It demonstrates, by increasing the penalty, that we are serious about this issue. The American carriers, as I understand it, do this regularly, routinely. In any event, there are a number of carriers that do not. What the amendment does is underline the importance of this function and establishes the seriousness with which we take this function of information by increasing the penalty. I think it helps the legislation and I support it.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I, too, hope our colleagues will support the amendment. There really is not any difference in the views that are being shared on the Senate floor this evening. That is, we want to get the best technology, and we want to then get a process so that it can be utilized effectively in order to protect our security. I want to give assurances to those who favor the earlier date that our committee will be meeting with the Commissioner, with Mr. Ziglar, and we welcome other colleagues, to try to monitor this as aggressively as we possibly can. This is the final date, but it is certainly the sense here for the INS to understand we want it done as early as possible. But we want to make sure it is complete, and we are going to have the best technology. Then we are going to have the best technology in terms of the implementation of the legislation. We give assurance to our colleagues that our committee will monitor this very carefully and periodically give reports back to the Senate because this is enormously important. What we are basically saying is with 550 million people moving in and out of the United States, there is a limited number who pose a security threat. The immigrants are not the danger, terrorists are the danger. We have to be able to use that knowledge to detect them. We have great opportunities to do it. We want to get the right technology and implement it and we want to do it in the shortest possible time. This legislation will establish sending that message. I agree with those who say we want to get started, we want to get it done right, but we have altered the date to take into consideration those who believe we would not have done the right job if we had the earlier date. We think this makes sense, and we hope colleagues will support the amendment.