Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator from Maine has a very important amendment. She is entitled to be heard. It is on the subject of testing, which we have been discussing. The membership should listen to her presentation. I ask that the Senate be in order.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, may we have order.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the Wellstone amendment. I am really kind of disappointed we are not getting, as our first action on the floor of the Senate in our new atmosphere, broad support for what is a very basic and fundamental and sensible and responsible amendment to assure that we are going to have the development of quality tests. That is all prior to the time that you get the bonus. We have all seen this in one of the national newspapers--it happens to be the New York Times--with two front page stories over the period of May 20, just before the Memorial Day break. Let me just refer to what happened in New York City with the application of a test for some of the children there: The law's ``unrealistic'' deadlines, state auditors said later, contributed to the numerous quality control problems that plague the test contractor, Harcourt Educational Measurement, for the next two years. This is a company that has a 99.9 percent accuracy rate, and we still had tens of thousands of children who did not graduate. We had the dismissal of principals, the dismissal of teachers, and numerous children who failed to go to college. All we are asking for is that the tests that are going to be developed be quality tests. And there are standards on how those are to be reached. For example, as the Senator from Minnesota pointed out yesterday, one of the very responsible nonprofit organizations called Achieve has done evaluations of various tests in various States. They have identified, for example, the States that are not just giving off- the-shelf testing but those that are really testing the child's ability to think through a problem and reflecting that in the form of exams. We are seeing as a result of that the rise in terms of achievement and accomplishment by these children. That is what is basically being asked for by the Senator from Minnesota. I think many of us have seen-- as has been stated to me by the Senator from Minnesota, the Senator from Washington, and others, over the period of the last 24 hours, and over the period of the Memorial Day recess--the concern that many parents have about how the tests are being used in schools, in school districts, and how teachers are just teaching to the test rather than really examining the ability of children to really process the knowledge they are learning and reflect it and respond in terms of the tests. I want to mention, just finally, this costs something for the States. You can get a quick answer on a Stanford 9. That might cost you $8 or $9 for a test. A more comprehensive test may cost as much as $25. But nonetheless, we believe if we are to achieve what this President has said he wants to achieve--and that is to use the tests to find out what the children don't know, so we can develop the curriculum and the support and the help for those children--let's make sure that it is going to be quality. That is what the Senator from Minnesota is trying to do. I hope his amendment will be accepted.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, will the Senator be good enough to yield me 3 minutes?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join Senator Graham and Senator Jeffords in introducing the Medicare Wellness Act of 2001, Medicare reform for the 21st century. This important legislation will make it easier for senior citizens to take advantage of the preventive benefits to them, while strengthening Medicare at the same time. Greater investment in the health of the nation's elderly is long overdue. Although we have made significant progress in reducing chronic disability among older Americans, we still have a long way to go. According to the World Health Organization, the United States ranks behind 23 other nations in ``healthy life expectancy.'' Surely, we can do better than that. Each year, chronic disability adds $26 billion to the nation's health care costs. Unless we act, the burden of these costs will become increasingly unbearable for countless senior citizens. In the next 30 years, Medicare will be under even heavier pressures as the baby boom generation retires. Nearly one fifth of the population will be 65 and older by 2025, which means that a larger number of beneficiaries will be supported by a smaller number of workers. To avoid hard remedies such as benefit cuts or tax increases, we should do all we can to reduce future Medicare costs by improving the health of senior citizens. According to a study at Duke University, if the 1.3 percent decline in disability achieved over the last 12 years can be raised to 1.5 percent, we can potentially save enough in Medicare to avoid any substantial long-term increase in Medicare tax or reduction in benefits. The Medicare Wellness Act attempt to do that. It waives cost- sharing for a series of preventive benefits, provides individual health risk appraisals, encourages a falls prevention campaign, and funds pilot projects and new research on the most effective ways to encourage senior citizens to adopt healthier lifestyles. Prevention saves lives and saves money. Screening can often be the difference between a successful battle with cancer and a failed one. Colorectral cancers, for example, have a five-year survival rate of up to 90 percent if detected at an early stage--but currently only 37 percent of these cancers are actually diagnosed early. Unfortunately, screening tests are significantly under-used by Medicare beneficiaries. Only approximately a third of men and women at-risk for these cancers are currently being screened. Our bill helps to combat this problem by eliminating cost-sharing and deductibles for a wide range of preventive services, such as screening for colorectral cancers, mammography, screening for glaucoma, bone mass measurement, medical nutrition therapy services, and screening for cholesterol problems and hypertension. The Medicare Wellness Act also creates a national ``falls prevention'' education and awareness campaign to reduce these injuries. Older Americans are hospitalized for fall-related injuries five times more often then they are for other types of injuries. This awareness campaign will educate senior citizens about precautions they can take to reduce the likelihood of such injuries. Clinical depression also takes a heavy toll on the nation's elderly. Compared to all other age groups, senior citizens have the highest suicide rate in the nation. Twenty percent of persons age 55 and older suffer from a mental disorder that is not part of the normal aging process. As with so many other illnesses, depression is under-diagnosed among the elderly. This bill provides needed funding for demonstration projects to screen for depression, so that elderly persons suffering from this problem can be diagnosed and referred to specialists for the treatment they need. The Medicare Wellness Act also encourages senior citizens to improve their health and reduce the risks of illness in other ways. Typical factors leading to poor health include smoking, physical inactivity, and excessive use of alcohol. A health risk appraisal initiative under the Act will given senior citizens the individual attention they need to make the changes in lifestyle necessary to improve their health. In addition, the Medicare Wellness Act encourages research to explore the most effective ways to improve Medicare's role in preventing disease and improving health. Pilot programs are authorized to experiment with innovative ways to promote healthier lifestyles and reach out to senior citizens in various settings. Federal agencies will undertake particular research programs on these issues. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission is asked to evaluate Medicare benefits in relation to private sector benefits. The National Institute on Aging is asked to report on ways to improve the quality of life for the elderly. The Institute of Medicine is asked to make recommendations to Congress about the medical and cost effectiveness of existing Medicare benefits and the potential benefit of preventive services. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. The Medicare Wellness Act can be a significant contribution to healthier senior citizens and a healthier Medicare.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join Senator Graham and Senator Jeffords in introducing the Medicare Wellness Act of 2001, Medicare reform for the 21st century. This important legislation will make it easier for senior citizens to take advantage of the preventive benefits to them, while strengthening Medicare at the same time. Greater investment in the health of the nation's elderly is long overdue. Although we have made significant progress in reducing chronic disability among older Americans, we still have a long way to go. According to the World Health Organization, the United States ranks behind 23 other nations in ``healthy life expectancy.'' Surely, we can do better than that. Each year, chronic disability adds $26 billion to the nation's health care costs. Unless we act, the burden of these costs will become increasingly unbearable for countless senior citizens. In the next 30 years, Medicare will be under even heavier pressures as the baby boom generation retires. Nearly one fifth of the population will be 65 and older by 2025, which means that a larger number of beneficiaries will be supported by a smaller number of workers. To avoid hard remedies such as benefit cuts or tax increases, we should do all we can to reduce future Medicare costs by improving the health of senior citizens. According to a study at Duke University, if the 1.3 percent decline in disability achieved over the last 12 years can be raised to 1.5 percent, we can potentially save enough in Medicare to avoid any substantial long-term increase in Medicare tax or reduction in benefits. The Medicare Wellness Act attempt to do that. It waives cost- sharing for a series of preventive benefits, provides individual health risk appraisals, encourages a falls prevention campaign, and funds pilot projects and new research on the most effective ways to encourage senior citizens to adopt healthier lifestyles. Prevention saves lives and saves money. Screening can often be the difference between a successful battle with cancer and a failed one. Colorectral cancers, for example, have a five-year survival rate of up to 90 percent if detected at an early stage--but currently only 37 percent of these cancers are actually diagnosed early. Unfortunately, screening tests are significantly under-used by Medicare beneficiaries. Only approximately a third of men and women at-risk for these cancers are currently being screened. Our bill helps to combat this problem by eliminating cost-sharing and deductibles for a wide range of preventive services, such as screening for colorectral cancers, mammography, screening for glaucoma, bone mass measurement, medical nutrition therapy services, and screening for cholesterol problems and hypertension. The Medicare Wellness Act also creates a national ``falls prevention'' education and awareness campaign to reduce these injuries. Older Americans are hospitalized for fall-related injuries five times more often then they are for other types of injuries. This awareness campaign will educate senior citizens about precautions they can take to reduce the likelihood of such injuries. Clinical depression also takes a heavy toll on the nation's elderly. Compared to all other age groups, senior citizens have the highest suicide rate in the nation. Twenty percent of persons age 55 and older suffer from a mental disorder that is not part of the normal aging process. As with so many other illnesses, depression is under-diagnosed among the elderly. This bill provides needed funding for demonstration projects to screen for depression, so that elderly persons suffering from this problem can be diagnosed and referred to specialists for the treatment they need. The Medicare Wellness Act also encourages senior citizens to improve their health and reduce the risks of illness in other ways. Typical factors leading to poor health include smoking, physical inactivity, and excessive use of alcohol. A health risk appraisal initiative under the Act will given senior citizens the individual attention they need to make the changes in lifestyle necessary to improve their health. In addition, the Medicare Wellness Act encourages research to explore the most effective ways to improve Medicare's role in preventing disease and improving health. Pilot programs are authorized to experiment with innovative ways to promote healthier lifestyles and reach out to senior citizens in various settings. Federal agencies will undertake particular research programs on these issues. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission is asked to evaluate Medicare benefits in relation to private sector benefits. The National Institute on Aging is asked to report on ways to improve the quality of life for the elderly. The Institute of Medicine is asked to make recommendations to Congress about the medical and cost effectiveness of existing Medicare benefits and the potential benefit of preventive services. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. The Medicare Wellness Act can be a significant contribution to healthier senior citizens and a healthier Medicare.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today marks the 20th year since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention first published information in the Morbidity and Mortality Report on this illness we now call HIV/ AIDS. The past 20 years have seen immense loss, as well as significant medical advances, and this anniversary is a fitting time to renew the worldwide call for stronger action in the battle against this devastating global epidemic. Tragically, current reports from the CDC and from the Retrovirus Conference in Chicago indicate that the transmission of HIV is increasing among our youngest citizens. At least 50 percent of new infections in the U.S. occur in those under 25 years of age. Clearly, we can do more to combat this serious challenge that threatens to blight the lives of many of the Nation's youth. Our concern extends far beyond America's borders. President Bush has pledged $200 million for HIV/AIDS internationally, but we need to do far more, especially to help combat this massive HIV/AIDS crisis in developing nations. From orphaned children, to untrained workforces, to destabilized economies, the realities of HIV/AIDS in third-world nations are harsh. Today, nearly 40 million people worldwide continue to live with HIV/AIDS. Dealing more effectively with this global epidemic requires a stronger commitment from all of us both in Congress and in the administration, so that medical advances will benefit as many people as possible worldwide. The United States can set a proud example for the world community in dealing with HIV/AIDS by doing all we can to provide the resources needed for effective prevention programs, good treatment for those suffering from HIV/AIDS, and the development of a cure that will finally conquer it and save the lives of millions.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank colleagues for their cooperation. We are going to continue to work closely with our Members to try to move this process forward, and to do it in a timely way that will permit our colleagues, obviously, to speak to these measures where necessary and permit us to dispose of the amendments where necessary. But we do want to move ahead. I have every expectation we will have an opportunity to clear additional amendments tomorrow as well.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, in the meantime, I have a package of cleared amendments. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for these amendments to be considered en bloc and that any modifications, where applicable, be agreed to, the amendments be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc. For the information of the Senate, these amendments are the DeWine amendment No. 445; the Ensign amendment No. 453, as modified; the Roberts amendment No. 470; the Landrieu amendment No. 473; the Bennett amendment No. 503; the Collins amendment No. 506; the Collins amendment No. 508; the Sessions amendment No. 598; the Wyden amendment No. 625; and the Levin amendment No. 631.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, Senator Collins has an amendment also dealing with the issue of testing. When she arrives on the floor, I will yield the floor. I want to make some additional comments regarding funding and why I think it is so important. At the present time, we are only reaching about a third of all the children who are eligible. Listen to this. This is with regard to my State of Massachusetts. I will try by the end of the week to have a similar kind of breakdown for all the other States because I believe they will find that their situation is very similar. In the 1999-2000 school year, the supplemental Title I funding for disadvantaged children went to 980 out of the 1,900 Massachusetts elementary schools. But because of insufficient Federal funding, 624 Massachusetts schools with poverty rates in excess of 30 percent received zero in Title I education aid. That is part of the problem. In 600 schools, 30 percent of their children are Title I eligible, and they receive virtually no funding whatsoever. This is part of our dilemma in terms of wanting to make sure there is a range of different support services, the kinds of requirements that are going to be necessary in terms of well-qualified teachers, professional development and mentoring for teachers, and after-school programs. If we are serious about doing the job, doing it right and doing it well, we want to try to put ourselves on a glide path to full funding of Title I. Maybe we can't reach all of the children overnight. We understand that. We ought to be able to move ourselves on a glide path so we can look at all the children and, most importantly, their parents, and say that over the life of this legislation we are going to be able to assure those parents that their children who are ineligible for the program are going to get the support and the help and assistance they need. As you well know, Madam President, this is not the beginning of the pathway in terms of the academic achievement and accomplishment of children. We are looking against a background where the Head Start Program is funded at about 40 percent. We are going to find that some children are going to be coming up with the Head Start Programs and go into the Title I programs which are funded, and will get into supplementary services, and to the extent that these kinds of support elements make an important difference--and they do make an important difference--they are going to be helped and assisted. But we are going to find, in the same way, that a majority of children who are otherwise eligible for Title I are not going to benefit and then will go to school and fail to get help and assistance. It is going to be extremely difficult to think we are making an important difference in their lives and enhancing their ability in reading and in math. Almost every study and review--most recently, the Institute of Medicine review of January of this last year--talks about the development of the neurons in children's brains and the importance in these first 3 years in terms of being able to sort of stimulate the interest of the children in various kinds of activities, hoping to stir the elements in the children's brains so they open them up in ways that they will be more receptive to the learning experience--we know this medically from all of these various studies. The Carnegie Commission report has pointed these out for the last 10 years. Yet we still do not give that kind of intervention, support, and effort that we should and that we know makes an important difference. I think many of us are very hopeful that we can see investment in these early years, then we have further support in terms of the Head Start Program. We have further to go in funding the special needs program for children with disabilities, and further to go in terms of funding the Title I program for disadvantaged children. As the Chair understands, we will end up actually saving resources. I know the Chair is familiar with all of the studies that were done at the end of World War II on the GI bill where they estimated that for every $1 invested in education, the Federal Treasury got $8 back in enhanced earnings by those who received those programs. Investing in these children, in terms of savings and other social costs, is more than predictable. It is certain. We believe we have legislation that moves us very strongly in that direction. That is particularly why we are so strong in terms of wanting to get the funding for these programs. For the benefit of the Members, we will consider the Wellstone amendment tomorrow and probably begin the discussion. We will have an exact unanimous consent request in a few moments. For the benefit of the Members, as I understand it, we are coming in at about 11:00 a.m. and will be dealing with some necessary measures and we will then come back to the bill at approximately 11:30 a.m. We will have 20 minutes on the Wellstone amendment and then vote. We will follow that with consideration of the amendment of the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins. Amendments Nos. 445, 453, as modified; 470, 473, 503, 506, 508, 598, 625, and 631, en bloc

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. KENNEDY. Burke High School lost its accreditation 6 years ago because of low test scores. Only 36 percent of the senior class was accepted into college. After doubling per pupil spending, hiring new staff, and raising academic standards, the school regained its accreditation in 1999. Last year 62 percent of its seniors were accepted into college. This year every eligible senior, 100 percent of the Class of 2001, was accepted into a two or four year college. At Burke High School, no child is left behind. Burke High School is one of the most dramatic stories that has come across our desk. I visited that school when it was facing enormous problems. It is now doing extraordinarily well. It is a major achievement and accomplishment. The school's principal, Dr. Steven Leonard, attributes the turnaround to sustained ongoing school-based professional development for teachers. Teachers are trained outside the classroom, coached inside the classroom, and have year-long mentors at the school. When the Burke High School carefully analyzed its State test results, it discovered a widespread and deep need throughout the school. Dr. Leonard then raised more than $500,000 in 3 years from private sources to implement three schoolwide professional development programs. Over 3 years, he was able to spend a little over $125,000 a year for professional development for that school. We know what works. This legislation has the framework to make sure that it can work for children across the country, but we also know it takes the investment, the resources, to give life though these reforms. The Jeremiah Burke High School is an extraordinary example. Teachers have been trained to integrate literacy instruction throughout the curriculum. Teachers have learned to use technology as an educational supplement that enhances quality instruction instead of replacing it. Each classroom is now connected to the Internet. Every teacher at Burke participates in an ongoing professional development program that encourages college application, including financial aid applications. Every staff member at the school, not just guidance counselors, are trained in the procedures for college admissions and financial aid applications. Last year, Dr. Leonard required a complete college application to be a part of a year-end portfolio that all seniors must have in order to graduate. This year, he has made college acceptance an informal condition of graduation, and every child has measured up and met that challenge. It is extraordinary. With the same type of skillful analysis and hard work, every school can do the same. In the education reform legislation before the Senate, we encourage the same combination of high expectations, diagnostic testing, quality teaching, high-tech classrooms, and after-school learning opportunities that have worked at Burke High School in Massachusetts, Ashley Elementary School in Colorado, Humboldt Elementary School in Oregon, and scores of other schools such as these. We authorize $11 billion in additional funding for next year alone so new reforms can be launched in schools across the Nation and ongoing reforms can be sustained. This bill is solidly grounded in a vast amount of widely accepted research and practical experience. If we continue to work together on a bipartisan basis and enact this legislation, the real winners will be students, schools, communities, States, and the whole Nation. Let's finish the job we started so well. On the Wellstone amendment, I want to indicate my strong support. I agree we should be focusing on the use of tests that are of high quality rather than how quickly they be developed. State assessments are the base of new accountability system in Title I, and we want assurance that the assessments are of high quality and an accurate measure of what students know and can do. I had the good opportunity last Friday morning to be at a conference in Boston with 500 principals, teachers, and administrators of schools who have been working in the whole area of academic enhancement for children and accountability. This was a nonprofit organization that works to promote standard-based reform. They found the States have improved their standards in testing but they still have a way to go. I agree with the Senator that their evaluation of what works for children is enormously important. They have been at this for a long period of time. There is no superior organization in this area. We cannot afford to compromise the quality of assessment at the expense of quickly developing the test. The Administration has wanted to make sure we are going to create incentives in the States to move toward accountability. That is an admirable desire. However, we want to make sure that accountability systems are tied to quality tests. That is what the Senator's amendment is all about. I believe it is completely consistent with what the objectives of this bill are. It will also provide the assessment on the basis of the content standard more effectively than the off-the-shelf tests, which in too many instances are being taught to. We cannot afford to compromise the quality of assessments at the expense of quickly developing tests. I heard the Senator talk about the mistakes. Most of us have read the New York Times article on the tests that were given in New York City and the mistakes that were made and how this disadvantaged children as well as principals as well as the school administrator and how the company still claims they have 99.997 percent accuracy. But just that amount of failure resulted in dramatic adverse developments for students as well as for teachers and administrators. In my State of Massachusetts, there are several quality control measures in place to ensure reliability in the scoring of the MCAS test, our State assessment. Aside from the contract on assessment outside of the State, the results of all MCAS tests are also independently reviewed by testing experts at the University of Massachusetts. In addition to soliciting an additional review of the tests from the University, Massachusetts also trains its teachers, who are well-versed in the State standards, in the scoring of the MCAS. Teachers in Massachusetts review at least 25% of the test questions, including all of the written compositions in English language arts. Teachers are trained in the rubric and scoring process for a week-long period every July. Massachusetts' example illustrates the points made by the Senator from Minnesota regarding the need for ensuring quality in the test development and administration. We cannot afford to compromise the quality of assessment at the expense of quickly developing tests. Developing a high-quality assessment, even in just one subject for one grade, is a lengthy process. According to experts on test development, there are eight basic steps in the test development process. They are as follows: Defining the purpose for which the test is being developed; convening a technical committee to work with the States to write test specifications and determine the content and form of the test; developing and reviewing the questions and ideas on the test; conducting pretesting to ensure fairness, reliability, and accuracy of items on the test; data analysis and test assembly to make sure the test is aligned with the required subject matter and skills; and test administration and the development of accommodations for students with special needs. I see my friend and colleague from Maine in the chair. I know she is very familiar with these activities because the State of Maine is one of the States which has given an enormous amount of attention to all these matters of testing and also with regard to special needs children. The steps also include developing scoring changes and cut points associated with proficiency levels; and analysis of specifications and readjustment and realignment of items. States should not be encouraged to rush through this process but should take the time to develop assessments of high quality. States should be rewarded for taking the time to develop valid and reliable measures of what students know and can do. Good tests work. They provide us with information on student performance, help educators identify the needs of individual students, and measures our impact on working to change schools and turn around low-performing schools. However, while 15 States have developed tests in third through eighth grade math and reading, only seven States use high-quality tests that are aligned with academic standards in those subject areas. We should encourage States to use that time to develop quality assessments rather than develop assessments quickly. Awarding bonuses for the quality of assessment is consistent with our commitment to help States improve the quality of their tests. The Senate passed the Wellstone amendment to enhance the quality of test assessments by a vote of 50-47. We should continue to encourage States to improve the format of their tests, align the tests to standards, and employ multiple measures so the tests are reliable measures of what students know and can do. I strongly support the amendment offered by my friend from Minnesota. In this bill, we establish standards that define what we expect children to know each year. Then, we establish assessments to provide for the evaluation of that knowledge. High academic standards and quality assessments go hand in hand. We hope to avoid what is happening in too many States. That is, curriculum is not aligned to high standards, and tests are not aligned to high standards. When this happens, we risk compromising student's learning. We risk having teachers teaching to tests because they don't want to have a bad record of their students not being able to perform. That is not what this legislation is about. Senator Wellstone has spent a good deal of time trying to make sure that this legislation includes high-quality assessments, and that it accomplishes our goal of improving student learning. I thank him and commend him for the excellent work he has done in this whole area.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, as we have just heard from our good friend and colleague, Senator Wellstone of Minnesota, we are back on legislation that the Senate is considering on support for elementary and secondary education. I welcome the fact that we are on it, and am very hopeful we will stay on it until we conclude. We have been on this legislation in one way or the other probably for the better part of 4 or 5 weeks, but we have only been on it for a few days at a time. As most of you understand, the reauthorization of ESEA is an extremely important piece of legislation. It deserves the full time and attention of the Senate. We had a series of amendments, and over the Memorial Day recess we had the opportunity to go through the more than 200 amendments which were initially offered. We have been able to dispose of 33 of those amendments, and we have a number of amendments that will be withdrawn. Others are acceptable. And there still remain a number that are still pending a vote on the floor of the Senate. We want to get about the business of completing our work on education. I welcome the fact that we are back on this legislation. I will address the amendment we have before us in a moment or two, but I do want to let our colleagues know that earlier in the afternoon the President called a number of members of the Senate Education Committee and a few others to the White House to talk about the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. He indicated at that time that the legislation, as it stands, would be acceptable to him, and he didn't need to have it enhanced or altered or changed. He urged us to get about the business of completing the reauthorization of ESEA. I indicated to the President that we have been working diligently on this legislation, and have been working in a bipartisan manner. We have had the opportunity of working with the Secretary of Education and the President's education advisers. And now we have a very important, significant blueprint that can make a difference in the quality of education for children in this country by building on the standards which have been established by 49 of the States, by using high-quality, meaningful assessments so that we know what children are learning, particularly in the areas of math and literacy and, eventually, in 2007 and 2008, in science, and by using data from those assessments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of students, and provide the needed assistance for them to succeed. We are going to hold the schools, communities, children, and parents accountable. The point I made to the President was that I thought we in Washington ought to be held accountable as well by ensuring that the benefits of this legislation should be available to all the needy children and not, as is currently the case, to just a third of the children. It has been our position from the beginning that with the changes included in this legislation, we should fund the Title I program. Now it is funded at a third. We ought to be able to fund it at two-thirds next year and reach two-thirds of the children. Over the 4 years of President Bush's Presidency, we ought to have a commitment to reach the final third so that we will have the full funding of the Title I education program that can be flexibly used by local communities. With the provisions included in this legislation, we can provide a very positive learning experience for every child. We are not there yet. The President indicated we will continue to have ongoing discussions, particularly as the Appropriations bills are considered. He certainly has not ruled full funding of Title I out, but he has not ruled it in. We indicated that our position was supported by 79 Members of the Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike. I indicated to the President that support for mandatory, full funding of IDEA, funding that helps local communities to fund their special needs programs for children with disabilities, has very broad bipartisan support. We are very hopeful that any conference committee will once and for all provide for full funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. It is a position supported by more than 70 percent of the Senate, a good share of Republicans and Democrats alike. In any event, we had a good exchange at the White House. We welcome the President's strong support for our legislation, and we have every intention of working to respond to Senator Daschle's strong desire to make this legislation the first order of business. We ought to complete this legislation. I urge our colleagues who have amendments to bring them to our attention so that we can dispose of them in an orderly way. As we return to our ongoing education debate here in the Senate, I think it appropriate to review briefly what our pending legislation does and its sources of inspiration. Our goal in this bipartisan legislation has been to support proven, effective reforms. Time and again we have seen individual schools follow a similar path and achieve successful improvements in the quality of education. This reform bill builds on that grassroots experience. The bill requires every child to be tested each year in grades 3-8 so parents and educators alike will have better information on where their children stand and what needs to be done to help them learn more effectively. The bill requires that students, schools, and school districts are held to challenging academic standards. Low-achieving children will receive additional help. Students in failing schools will be free to transfer to other public schools or take advantage of after-school supplementary tutoring. If a failing school does not turn around in a reasonable number of years, it will be completely reorganized. The bill provides high-quality assessments aligned with State standards that measure a full range of the child's learning. Off-the- shelf, fill-in-the-bubble tests too often compromise the quality of instruction and undermine genuine efforts for school improvements. I salute the very strong efforts of the Senator from Minnesota in making sure that tests are quality tests that challenge children and positively affect the learning process, not just measure what they have been able to memorize in a particular class. That is enormously important. This legislation is going to be strengthened because of the efforts of the Senator from Minnesota. Parents and the public deserve to know not only where their children stand, but also how their local schools and districts measure up. Annual report cards are required at each level. Sunshine can be a powerful force for change. Our bill is strict in asking more of students, teachers, and schools and in holding them accountable for their performance. Just as important, the bill is intended to provide the resources that we know are necessary for all of them to have a genuine chance for success. Our bill provides support to reach the goal of a qualified teacher in every classroom and a qualified principal in every school. Today, 39 percent of all teachers are teaching a subject in which they have no undergraduate major or minor degree. Clearly, that figure is unacceptable, and Congress can help do something about it. Our bill revises and strengthens professional development programs to provide teachers with year-long mentors, ongoing training in their subject matter, and the best teaching methods and practices in child development. It offers additional support to school districts with high concentrations of limited-English-proficient students to teach them English and make sure they meet the same high academic standards we expect all children to meet. The bill expands the successful 21st Century Learning Centers Program that does such an excellent job of offering worthwhile after-school activities to students. Our goal is to reach every latch-key child over the next 7 years to provide them with supplementary learning opportunities after school that keep them off the streets, away from the gangs, and out of trouble. Our bill also provides full funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Twenty-five years ago, the Federal Government promised to pay 40 percent of these costs, but we have never met that promise. Today the figure is still only 15 percent. It is long past time for Congress to meet its commitment to special needs children. Our bill's emphasis on better results and targeted resources comes from experience at the grassroots. Those experiences demonstrate that all schools can do better, not just the elite few. Hundreds of successful local schools and school districts around the country are making impressive strides in improving student achievement. We can turn that number into thousands by helping guide the way. Many challenged schools are already turning themselves around as a result of reforms that focused on increased accountability linked to higher standards and quality testing, early intervention for children who need additional help, and adequate investments in proven reforms, especially in high-needed areas. Three schools that have recently reported improvements are excellent examples. The Ashley Elementary School in Denver, Colorado, has an almost 100-percent minority population with a 90-percent poverty rate. It recently reported that since 1998, the number of third graders meeting State reading standards had soared by 280 percent--280 percent. After years of reported failure, the school was shut down and reopened with new teachers and a new principal. Results of the Colorado Student Assessment Program were carefully analyzed, and the entire staff of the school signed on to a goal of raising student literacy skills. As a result, literacy was emphasized in every subject and in every class. Assessments of each student are monitored bimonthly. Students who fall behind receive extra support quickly or new methods of instruction. Every teacher gets professional development support every week. Ninety-minute reading blocks were created with a class size of 12 students per teacher, compared to 25 students per teacher in 1998. Strict accountability, high-quality assessments, early intervention, professional development, and class-size reduction--these are precisely the types of proven reforms that will be strongly supported in the pending legislation. Another example is Humboldt Elementary School in Portland, Oregon, which has been turned around with a similar combination of reforms. In 1997, only 17 percent of third grade Humboldt students and 10 percent of fifth grade students met Oregon's benchmark scoring in reading. Twenty-five percent of third graders and only 9 percent of fifth graders met the math benchmark. In the face of this serious challenge, the city of Portland shut down and reconstituted the school. Two-thirds of the staff was reassigned. A new principal was hired. Academic and performance expectations were raised for all students. Class size was reduced from 28 to 1, to 21 to 1. All teachers now receive weekly professional development. Individual student assessment results are analyzed regularly and learning needs are diagnosed to respond to quickly. Eighty percent of Humboldt children participate in afterschool learning programs. Humboldt found out that reform costs money. In 1998, Portland added $540,000 to Humboldt's budget to carry out their reconstitution program. I will later provide examples of schools, in my State of Massachusetts, that have experienced dramatic results when given the necessary resources to succeed. In many cases, schools reversed low- performance using less $540,000--the amount allocated to reversing low- performance in the Humbolt budget. The New American Schools Corporation estimates that it costs approximately $180,000 to implement a comprehensive school reform model in a given school--often the first step toward turning around low-performance. We have 10,000 failing schools at the present time, which equates to $1.8 billion to begin the process of turning around the nation's low-performing schools. If we are committed a quality education for all of America's students, we will include those resources in our legislation. Those resources have not yet been included. We think they should be. According to the Oregon assessment in 2000, the percentage of Humboldt students meeting the State benchmark for academic performance increased to 67 percent among third graders and 60 percent with fifth graders. The percentage of third graders more than doubled, to 57 percent in math, and the percentage of fifth graders meeting the math standard soared to 70 percent. Another impressive example of a successful school is the Jeremiah Burke High School in Dorchester, MA. Not long ago it was thought of as a hopeless, high-poverty school, but it is turning itself around with precisely the types of reforms emphasized in this current bill. The Burke High School story was featured on the front page of the Boston Globe of May 22: ``Dorchester School Gains Acceptance.'' I ask unanimous consent the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield that to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield my remaining time to the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is the final vote on a tax cut which is far larger than the country can afford. It has been pushed through Congress by the Republican leadership in unprecedented haste without adequate debate. They have sought at every turn to avoid a serious discussion about national priorities. They pretend that we can have it all--that this massive tax cut will not affect our ability to adequately fund our education and health care needs, to reduce the debt, and to financially strengthen Medicare and Social Security for future generations. This view is a fantasy. The reality is that this tax cut will have a direct and substantial effect on our ability to fulfill our responsibilities in each of these areas. Let's focus on one of these priorities--education. The budget resolution on which this $1.35 trillion tax bill is based also eliminates $308 billion of funding for education which had the support of a majority of Senators. We recognized that those funds are essential to providing a quality education for every child. Yet the enormous size of this tax cut is incompatible with real education reform. Sadly, Republican priorities place the needs of the wealthiest taxpayers for new tax breaks above the needs of America's school children. Democrats support a substantial tax cut--one that would cost nearly a trillion dollars over the next 10 years and one that would give working families a fair share of the tax benefits. Under Democratic plans, the vast majority of American families would receive the same, or even more, tax relief than the Republicans provide, but at a fraction of this bill's cost. That is possible because the Republican bill gives such a huge windfall to the rich. Four hundred and fifty billion dollars will go to the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers. This tax cut reported from the conference committee is clearly excessive. It is neither fair nor affordable. The conference report gives even larger tax breaks to the rich than the Senate tax bill did. It reduces the rate of the top income tax bracket by an additional percent, but still fails to provide any reduction in the 15 percent tax rate that nearly three quarters of all taxpayers pay. The extra dollars consumed by reducing the top income tax bracket come from budget gimmicks that make the bill even more fiscally irresponsible in the long run. Over one of every $3 of tax breaks in this conference report will go the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers. Once the tax breaks are fully implemented, the richest 1 percent will receive an average tax cut of over $37,000 each year--more than the pay most families take home in an entire year. The $37,000 a year that this bill provides to the wealthiest 1 percent could pay the salary of a new teacher in most school districts. But now there won't be funds for new teachers. The Republicans decided that wealthy taxpayers need the money more. Education is far and away the most important concern of Americans, so I offered a number of amendments to protect education from the adverse effects of the most extravagant parts of the tax cut. Again and again Republicans chose tax breaks aimed exclusively at the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, people with average incomes of $1.1 million, over full funding of elementary and secondary education for disadvantaged children, over full funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, over teacher quality improvements for all students, over increased access to safe after-school activities, over bilingual education, over Pell grants, over HOPE Scholarship Tax Credits, and over Head Start. The President's rhetoric may say ``leave no child behind,'' but this tax bill leaves a whole generation of children behind. It leaves them behind so that the very wealthiest taxpayers can get a half-trillion dollars in new tax breaks. If we do not have adequate resources to provide all our children with a quality education, then we certainly don't have the excess revenue that justifies new tax breaks for millionaires. Nationwide, there are 129 million income tax returns filed each year, but only 900,000 of these report income in the top marginal income tax bracket, which is presently 39.6 percent. These are the wealthiest men and women in America, and tax cuts that exclusively benefit them should not displace the education funding that the Senate has already agreed is necessary. Only by the use of smoke and mirrors and budget gimmicks has this tax bill been made to comply with the mandate of the budget resolution to report a tax bill costing $1.35 trillion over eleven years. But the real cost are even higher. The real costs of this bill explode in the out years. Most disturbing of all is the extreme use of back-loading to conceal the enormous cost of these tax cuts when they completely take effect. The rate reduction is not fully implemented until the year 2006. Marriage penalty tax relief does not even begin until the year 2005. The amount of the child credit does not reach the full $1,000 until the year 2010. The estate tax is not repealed until that year as well, so that almost none of the cost of the repeal shows up until the year 2011. These tactics are the height of fiscal irresponsibility. The excessive cost of the bill in the first decade is troubling enough. But that cost will more than triple in the following ten years. A $1.35 trillion tax cut in the first 10 years will mushroom to substantially more than $4 trillion in the next 10 years--precisely when the nation will confront unprecedented new costs in Medicare and Social Security from the retirement of the baby boom generation. Funds urgently needed to strengthen these basic programs are being consumed by reckless tax cuts. The Republican leadership could easily have accepted the recent Senate vote on the Harkin budget amendment reducing the size of the tax cut by 20 percent and investing the resulting $250 billion in education over the text 10 years. A responsible proposal like that would enable vital improvements to be made in education throughout America, while still leaving $1 trillion for tax cuts that both Democrats and Republicans support. Unfortunately, they refused. Across America, 12 million children live in poverty--but we currently provide the full range of title I Federal educations services to only one in three of these children. Four of every 10 children in poverty are taught by teachers who lack an undergraduate major or minor degree in their primary field. Gym teachers are teaching math. English teachers are teaching physics. Nearly one in five first-through-third graders are attempting to learn in overcrowded classes of 25 or more students. In these cases, some students inevitably lose in the competition for essential teacher time. In addition, over 7 million latchkey children are left alone to fend for themselves after school each day, without constructive after-school activities to keep them off the streets, out of gangs, and away from drugs and other dangerous behavior. Even though Head Start ranks as the public's favorite government program, inadequate funding continues to deny Head Start to half of all eligible children. Students with disabilities suffer from the same Federal neglect. The Federal Government has long promised to fund 40 percent of disability education. Yet it still only funds 17 percent. For years, parents and States have called on the Federal Government to live up to its commitment to disabled students. Almost 14 million children attend schools in inadequate facilities--schools that are overcrowded with classes held in hallways and trailers and schools that are crumbling and unsafe. Seven million children attend schools with severe safety code violations. While money may not guarantee quality education, it is impossible to provide quality education in today's schools without substantial new investments. ``Reform'' without resources will have no real impact on what takes place in America's classrooms. The massive tax cut contained in this bill will shortchange an entire generation of children. Nowhere are Republicans' misplaced priorities clearer. After all the talk about the importance of education to children's lives and the Nation's future--after all the talk about unmet needs in the Nation's schools--after all the Senate votes to increase investments to meet the most basic education needs, the Republican tax cut crowds out new investments in education. It tells millions of children who attend inadequate schools that they don't count. If the Federal Government lacks the resources to provide both, shouldn't the education of our children take precedence over new tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers? Who in this Chamber would openly declare that the wants of 900,000 millionaires are more important than the needs of millions of school children? That, in essence, is what we are voting on today.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleagues, Senators Graham, Leahy, Kerry, Wellstone, Dodd, Inouye, Akaka, Feingold, and Durbin in introducing the Immigrant Fairness Restoration Act. This legislation will restore the balance to our immigration laws that was lost when Congress amended the immigration laws in 1996. The changes made in 1996 went too far. They have had harsh consequences that punish families and violate individual liberty, fairness and due process. Families are being torn apart. Persons who present no danger to their communities have been left to languish in INS detention. Individuals are being summarily deported from the United States, to countries they no longer remember, separated from all that they know and love. The bill we are introducing will undo many of these harsh consequences. It will eliminate the retroactive application of the 1996 changes. Permanent residents who committed offenses long before the enactment of the 1996 laws should be able to apply for the relief from removal under the law as it existed when the offense was committed. Current immigration laws too often punish permanent residents out of all proportion to their crimes. Relatively minor offenses are turned into aggravated felonies. Permanent residents who did not have criminal convictions or serve prison sentences are blocked from all relief from deportation. Our proposal restores the discretion that immigration judges previously had and responsibly exercised to evaluate cases on an individual basis and grant relief from deportation to deserving persons. Currently, immigration judges are precluded from granting such relief to many permanent residents, regardless of the circumstances or equities in the cases. As a result of the 1996 laws, the judges' hands are tied, even in the most compelling cases. This legislation will allow immigration judges to return to their proper role. Our bill will also end mandatory detention. The Attorney General will have the authority to release from detention persons who do not pose a danger to the community and are not a flight risk. Detention is an extraordinary power that should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. A judge should have the discretion to release from detention persons who are not a danger to the community and who do not pose a flight risk. Clearly, dangerous criminals should be detained and deported. But indefinite detention must end. No public purpose is served by wasting valuable resources detaining non-dangerous individuals, many of whom have lived in this country with their families for many years, established strong ties to their communities, paid taxes, and contributed in other ways to the fabric of our Nation. The 1996 laws also stripped the Federal courts of any authority to review the decisions of the INS and the immigration courts. Under present law, harsh determinations are often made at the unreviewable discretion of INS officers. Fundamental decisions are made on the basis of a brief review of a few pages in a file, or a perfunctory administrative hearing, without judicial review. Our proposal will restore such review. Immigrants deserve their day in court. Americans are proud of our heritage and history as a nation of immigrants. It is long past time for Congress to correct the laws enacted in 1996. Many heart-wrenching stories could be cited about the ``nightmares'' created by the 1996 laws and the people caught by its provisions. Consider the case of Carlos Garcia, who fled from his native land of El Salvador in 1978 during the civil war. Upon arriving in the United States, he became fluent in English and attended a local community college, and in 1982, he became a permanent resident. All of his family live in this country, including his U.S. citizen parents. In 1993, he pleaded guilty to taking $200 from a department store where he worked. He was sentenced to two years of probation, with a suspended jail sentence, and he completed his probation early. Apart from this single offense, he has no criminal history. For years, he has worked as a caterer, holding a security clearance, since his employer handled functions in Congress, the State Department and White House. He regularly attends church and participates in a bone marrow transplant program to help children. In 1998, the INS placed Carlos in removal proceedings after he returned from a four-day vacation cruise. Because the 1996 laws made his crime an aggravated felony, the immigration judge no longer had discretion to consider evidence of his positive contributions to his community, his family ties, or the potential hardship that severing those ties may cause. Or consider the case of Claudette Etienne, who fled from Haiti at the age of 23, and was a legal resident of the United States for 20 years. She had two young U.S. citizen children and lived with her husband in Miami. One day, during an argument, Claudette threatened her husband with a broken bottle, and was sentenced to a year of probation. In June 1999, she was found guilty of selling a small amount of cocaine and was sentenced to another year of probation. When she was summoned to see her probation officer in February 2000, INS officers arrested her and placed her in deportation proceedings under the 1996 immigration laws. She was imprisoned in an INS detention center for the next seven months, and in September was taken by U.S. Marshals and put on a flight to Haiti. Upon arriving in Haiti, the police immediately jailed her in a cell that was pitch black. The air was thick with the stench of human sweat and waste, and the temperature reached 105 degrees. Claudette had to rely on the compassion of prisoners and guards for food, since the jail provided none. During her imprisonment in Haiti, she became sick with fever, stomach pains, diarrhea, and constant vomiting from drinking tap water. She died in the jail a few days later. Surely, Congress cannot ignore such abuses. Even many proponents of the 1996 laws now admit that these changes went too far and need to be corrected as soon as possible. The Immigrant Fairness Restoration Act will help to protect families, assure fairness and due process, and restore the integrity of our immigration laws, and I urge all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am honored today to join my colleagues, Senators Gregg, DeWine, and Bayh, to introduce the ``Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2001.'' For more than 60 years, collective bargaining has enabled labor and management to work together to improve job conditions and increase productivity. Through collective bargaining, labor and management have led the way on many important improvements in today's workplace-- especially with regard to health and pension benefits, paid holidays and sick leave, and workplace safety. Collective bargaining in the public sector, once a controversial issue, is now widely accepted. It has been common since at least 1962, when President Kennedy signed an Executive Order granting these basic rights to federal employees. Congressional employees have had these rights since enactment of the Congressional Accountability Act almost a decade ago. It is long since time to give state and local government employees federal protection for the basic right to enter into collective bargaining agreements with their employers. The act we are introducing today extends this protection to firefighters, police officers, paramedics and emergency medical technicians. The bill guarantees the fundamental rights necessary for collective bargaining--the right to form and join a union; the right to bargain over hours, wages and working conditions; the right to sign legally enforceable contracts; and the right to a resolution mechanism in the event of an impasse in negotiations. The bill also accomplishes its goals in a reasonable and moderate way. The benefits of this bill are clear and compelling. It will lead to safer working conditions for public safety officers. These valued public employees serve in some of the country's most dangerous, strenuous and stressful jobs. Every year, more than 80,000 police officers and 75,000 firefighters are injured on the job. An average of 160 police officers and nearly 100 firefighters die in the line of duty each year. Because these men and women serve on the front lines in providing firefighting services, law enforcement services, and emergency medical services, they know what it takes to create safer working conditions. They deserve the benefit of collective bargaining to give them a voice in decisions that can literally make a life-and- death difference on the job. Our bill will also save money for states and local communities. Experience has shown that when public safety officers can discuss workplace conditions with management, partnerships and cooperation develop and lead to improved labor-management relations and better, more cost-effective services. A study by the International Association of Fire Fighters shows that states and municipalities that give firefighters the right to discuss workplace issues have lower fire department budgets than states without such laws. When workers who actually do the job are able to provide advice on their work conditions, there are fewer injuries, better morale, better information on new technologies, and more efficient ways to provide the services. It is a matter of basic fairness to give these courageous men and women the same rights that have long been enjoyed by other workers. They put their lives on the line to protect us every day. They deserve to have an effective voice on the job, and improvements in their work conditions will benefit their entire community. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleagues, Senators Graham, Leahy, Kerry, Wellstone, Dodd, Inouye, Akaka, Feingold, and Durbin in introducing the Immigrant Fairness Restoration Act. This legislation will restore the balance to our immigration laws that was lost when Congress amended the immigration laws in 1996. The changes made in 1996 went too far. They have had harsh consequences that punish families and violate individual liberty, fairness and due process. Families are being torn apart. Persons who present no danger to their communities have been left to languish in INS detention. Individuals are being summarily deported from the United States, to countries they no longer remember, separated from all that they know and love. The bill we are introducing will undo many of these harsh consequences. It will eliminate the retroactive application of the 1996 changes. Permanent residents who committed offenses long before the enactment of the 1996 laws should be able to apply for the relief from removal under the law as it existed when the offense was committed. Current immigration laws too often punish permanent residents out of all proportion to their crimes. Relatively minor offenses are turned into aggravated felonies. Permanent residents who did not have criminal convictions or serve prison sentences are blocked from all relief from deportation. Our proposal restores the discretion that immigration judges previously had and responsibly exercised to evaluate cases on an individual basis and grant relief from deportation to deserving persons. Currently, immigration judges are precluded from granting such relief to many permanent residents, regardless of the circumstances or equities in the cases. As a result of the 1996 laws, the judges' hands are tied, even in the most compelling cases. This legislation will allow immigration judges to return to their proper role. Our bill will also end mandatory detention. The Attorney General will have the authority to release from detention persons who do not pose a danger to the community and are not a flight risk. Detention is an extraordinary power that should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. A judge should have the discretion to release from detention persons who are not a danger to the community and who do not pose a flight risk. Clearly, dangerous criminals should be detained and deported. But indefinite detention must end. No public purpose is served by wasting valuable resources detaining non-dangerous individuals, many of whom have lived in this country with their families for many years, established strong ties to their communities, paid taxes, and contributed in other ways to the fabric of our Nation. The 1996 laws also stripped the Federal courts of any authority to review the decisions of the INS and the immigration courts. Under present law, harsh determinations are often made at the unreviewable discretion of INS officers. Fundamental decisions are made on the basis of a brief review of a few pages in a file, or a perfunctory administrative hearing, without judicial review. Our proposal will restore such review. Immigrants deserve their day in court. Americans are proud of our heritage and history as a nation of immigrants. It is long past time for Congress to correct the laws enacted in 1996. Many heart-wrenching stories could be cited about the ``nightmares'' created by the 1996 laws and the people caught by its provisions. Consider the case of Carlos Garcia, who fled from his native land of El Salvador in 1978 during the civil war. Upon arriving in the United States, he became fluent in English and attended a local community college, and in 1982, he became a permanent resident. All of his family live in this country, including his U.S. citizen parents. In 1993, he pleaded guilty to taking $200 from a department store where he worked. He was sentenced to two years of probation, with a suspended jail sentence, and he completed his probation early. Apart from this single offense, he has no criminal history. For years, he has worked as a caterer, holding a security clearance, since his employer handled functions in Congress, the State Department and White House. He regularly attends church and participates in a bone marrow transplant program to help children. In 1998, the INS placed Carlos in removal proceedings after he returned from a four-day vacation cruise. Because the 1996 laws made his crime an aggravated felony, the immigration judge no longer had discretion to consider evidence of his positive contributions to his community, his family ties, or the potential hardship that severing those ties may cause. Or consider the case of Claudette Etienne, who fled from Haiti at the age of 23, and was a legal resident of the United States for 20 years. She had two young U.S. citizen children and lived with her husband in Miami. One day, during an argument, Claudette threatened her husband with a broken bottle, and was sentenced to a year of probation. In June 1999, she was found guilty of selling a small amount of cocaine and was sentenced to another year of probation. When she was summoned to see her probation officer in February 2000, INS officers arrested her and placed her in deportation proceedings under the 1996 immigration laws. She was imprisoned in an INS detention center for the next seven months, and in September was taken by U.S. Marshals and put on a flight to Haiti. Upon arriving in Haiti, the police immediately jailed her in a cell that was pitch black. The air was thick with the stench of human sweat and waste, and the temperature reached 105 degrees. Claudette had to rely on the compassion of prisoners and guards for food, since the jail provided none. During her imprisonment in Haiti, she became sick with fever, stomach pains, diarrhea, and constant vomiting from drinking tap water. She died in the jail a few days later. Surely, Congress cannot ignore such abuses. Even many proponents of the 1996 laws now admit that these changes went too far and need to be corrected as soon as possible. The Immigrant Fairness Restoration Act will help to protect families, assure fairness and due process, and restore the integrity of our immigration laws, and I urge all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am honored today to join my colleagues, Senators Gregg, DeWine, and Bayh, to introduce the ``Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2001.'' For more than 60 years, collective bargaining has enabled labor and management to work together to improve job conditions and increase productivity. Through collective bargaining, labor and management have led the way on many important improvements in today's workplace-- especially with regard to health and pension benefits, paid holidays and sick leave, and workplace safety. Collective bargaining in the public sector, once a controversial issue, is now widely accepted. It has been common since at least 1962, when President Kennedy signed an Executive Order granting these basic rights to federal employees. Congressional employees have had these rights since enactment of the Congressional Accountability Act almost a decade ago. It is long since time to give state and local government employees federal protection for the basic right to enter into collective bargaining agreements with their employers. The act we are introducing today extends this protection to firefighters, police officers, paramedics and emergency medical technicians. The bill guarantees the fundamental rights necessary for collective bargaining--the right to form and join a union; the right to bargain over hours, wages and working conditions; the right to sign legally enforceable contracts; and the right to a resolution mechanism in the event of an impasse in negotiations. The bill also accomplishes its goals in a reasonable and moderate way. The benefits of this bill are clear and compelling. It will lead to safer working conditions for public safety officers. These valued public employees serve in some of the country's most dangerous, strenuous and stressful jobs. Every year, more than 80,000 police officers and 75,000 firefighters are injured on the job. An average of 160 police officers and nearly 100 firefighters die in the line of duty each year. Because these men and women serve on the front lines in providing firefighting services, law enforcement services, and emergency medical services, they know what it takes to create safer working conditions. They deserve the benefit of collective bargaining to give them a voice in decisions that can literally make a life-and- death difference on the job. Our bill will also save money for states and local communities. Experience has shown that when public safety officers can discuss workplace conditions with management, partnerships and cooperation develop and lead to improved labor-management relations and better, more cost-effective services. A study by the International Association of Fire Fighters shows that states and municipalities that give firefighters the right to discuss workplace issues have lower fire department budgets than states without such laws. When workers who actually do the job are able to provide advice on their work conditions, there are fewer injuries, better morale, better information on new technologies, and more efficient ways to provide the services. It is a matter of basic fairness to give these courageous men and women the same rights that have long been enjoyed by other workers. They put their lives on the line to protect us every day. They deserve to have an effective voice on the job, and improvements in their work conditions will benefit their entire community. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is unfortunate that the Republican leadership has interrupted the Senate's action on landmark education reform legislation in order to expedite action on their massive tax cut bill. It demonstrates once more that education is not a real priority for our Republican colleagues. Their only priority is tax cuts, tax cuts and more tax cuts. The Republican position could not be clearer: Education can wait while we rush to give away hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks for the wealthy. In Republican priorities, the needs of the wealthiest taxpayers for new tax breaks rank far higher than the needs of America's school children. Across America, 12 million children are disadvantaged in our education system, but we currently provide the full range of title I Federal education services to only one in three of these children. The rest are left to fend for themselves, with the most overcrowded classrooms, the least amount of quality teacher time, the most outdated textbooks and learning tools, and the most inadequate facilities. Students with disabilities suffer from the same federal neglect. The Federal Government has long promised to fund 40 percent of special education. Yet it still only funds 17 percent, less than half of what was promised. Parents of millions of disabled children are forced to struggle in the States every year for the education that their children deserve. For years, states have called on the Federal Government to live up to its commitment to students with special needs. Yet the Republican budget, and the tax cut that follows from it, say no. Instead, one of every three dollars of the tax breaks in the bill before us will go to the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers. Once the tax breaks are fully implemented, the richest 1 percent will receive an average tax cut of $37,000 each year--more than most families take home from work in an entire year. Mr. President, $37,000 a year could pay the salary of a new teacher in most school districts. But if this tax bill passes, there won't be funds for new teachers. Our Republican colleagues in Congress have decided that wealthy taxpayers need the money more. The tax cut is clearly excessive. It is neither fair nor affordable. No wonder the Republican leadership is attempting to force a final vote in Congress as soon as possible, before public outrage builds. Through the use of smoke and mirrors and budget gimmicks, the bill technically complies with the mandate of the budget resolution to report a tax bill costing $1.35 trillion over eleven years. But the real costs are far higher. The real costs of this bill explode in the outyears. It does not conform with the clear intent expressed by a majority of Senators to substantially reduce the size of the Bush tax cut. Most disturbing of all is the extreme use of backloading to conceal the enormous cost of these tax cuts when they take full effect. The rate reduction is not fully implemented until the year 2007. Marriage penalty tax relief does not even begin until the year 2005. The amount of the child credit does not reach the full $1000 until the year 2011. The estate tax is not repealed until the year 2011 as well, so that almost none of the cost of the repeal shows up until the year 2012. These tactics are the height of fiscal irresponsibility. The excessive cost of the tax breaks in the first 10 years is bad enough. But that cost will triple in the following 10 years. A $1.35 trillion tax cut in the first 10 years will mushroom to more than $4 trillion in the next 10 years, precisely when the Nation will confront unprecedented additional costs for Medicare and Social Security because of the retirement of the baby boom generation. Funds urgently needed to strengthen these basic programs are being denied by these reckless tax cuts. Democrats support a substantial tax cut, one that would cost nearly a trillion dollars over the next 10 years, and that would give working families a fair share of the tax benefits. But this Republican bill does not deserve to be enacted. It is far too costly, and it fails to provide significant tax relief to those who need help the most. It is clear that the nation cannot afford this tax cut without seriously neglecting America's most important priorities, including education. To meet our basic education needs, I will propose an amendment making reduction in the top marginal income tax rate contingent upon funding education at the levels that the Senate has already voted to support during our consideration of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. If we do not have adequate resources to provide all students with a quality education, then we certainly do not have the resources needed to provide new tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. Fewer than 1 percent of taxpayers have incomes high enough to be affected by the top income bracket. These are the richest men and women in America. The $120 billion in tax breaks contained exclusively for them in this misguided bill should not take priority over the support for education that the Senate has already agreed is necessary. Support for basic education deserves higher priority than lavish new tax breaks for the wealthiest citizens.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am honored today to join Chairman Jeffords and Senator Feingold to introduce the Older Workers' Rights Restoration Act of 2001. Our goal is to restore to older state government workers the right to seek remedies for age discrimination. A recent decision by the Supreme Court took that right away. State workers now have fewer federal protections against age discrimination than other employees in the country. This bill will remedy that injustice. In 1967, Congress outlawed age discrimination in employment in the private sector by passing the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. In 1974, recognizing that employees of state government agencies were also often subject to pervasive and arbitrary age discrimination, Congress extended the Act to cover state governments. For more than 25 years, state employees were protected from age discrimination, and had the same remedies as all other employees covered by this law. But in Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, decided last year, the Supreme Court held that Congress lacked the power to subject states to suits under the federal age discrimination laws. As a result, unless a state agrees to allow suits against its agencies in such cases, state employees cannot seek relief on their own behalf to remedy age discrimination. In a recent hearing before the Labor Committee, I was privileged to hear the eloquent testimony of Dr. J. Daniel Kimel, the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case. Dr. Kimel has been a professor of physics at Florida State University for 35 years and is paid less than younger faculty. Because of the Supreme Court's ruling, Dr. Kimel has been unable to seek any remedy at all for this age-based salary discrimination. Large numbers of State employees, those who work for State colleges and universities, State police forces, State departments of transportation, State environmental protection agencies and many other State agencies, lack effective Federal remedies for age discrimination. That result is unfair. These State workers are vulnerable to age discrimination, which wastes valuable talent and adversely affects morale. No worker should be subject to discriminatory hiring, firing, or other job action based on age or any other characteristic that has nothing to do with job performance. We must act to see that workers are adequately protected against this threat. The bill that Chairman Jeffords, Senator Feingold and I are introducing today is in the best tradition of the nation's civil rights laws. It provides that when a State program receives Federal tax dollars, the program must permit its employees to seek remedies under the Federal age discrimination law. The courts have long recognized that Congress can act to see that Federal funds are not used to subsidize discrimination, and this is what our bill will do. In fact, all of the scholars who testified in our Committee hearing agree that this is an appropriate and constitutional use of Congress' power. This important bill will help to ensure that all Americans are protected from age discrimination in employment. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this needed legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am honored today to join Chairman Jeffords and Senator Feingold to introduce the Older Workers' Rights Restoration Act of 2001. Our goal is to restore to older state government workers the right to seek remedies for age discrimination. A recent decision by the Supreme Court took that right away. State workers now have fewer federal protections against age discrimination than other employees in the country. This bill will remedy that injustice. In 1967, Congress outlawed age discrimination in employment in the private sector by passing the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. In 1974, recognizing that employees of state government agencies were also often subject to pervasive and arbitrary age discrimination, Congress extended the Act to cover state governments. For more than 25 years, state employees were protected from age discrimination, and had the same remedies as all other employees covered by this law. But in Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, decided last year, the Supreme Court held that Congress lacked the power to subject states to suits under the federal age discrimination laws. As a result, unless a state agrees to allow suits against its agencies in such cases, state employees cannot seek relief on their own behalf to remedy age discrimination. In a recent hearing before the Labor Committee, I was privileged to hear the eloquent testimony of Dr. J. Daniel Kimel, the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case. Dr. Kimel has been a professor of physics at Florida State University for 35 years and is paid less than younger faculty. Because of the Supreme Court's ruling, Dr. Kimel has been unable to seek any remedy at all for this age-based salary discrimination. Large numbers of State employees, those who work for State colleges and universities, State police forces, State departments of transportation, State environmental protection agencies and many other State agencies, lack effective Federal remedies for age discrimination. That result is unfair. These State workers are vulnerable to age discrimination, which wastes valuable talent and adversely affects morale. No worker should be subject to discriminatory hiring, firing, or other job action based on age or any other characteristic that has nothing to do with job performance. We must act to see that workers are adequately protected against this threat. The bill that Chairman Jeffords, Senator Feingold and I are introducing today is in the best tradition of the nation's civil rights laws. It provides that when a State program receives Federal tax dollars, the program must permit its employees to seek remedies under the Federal age discrimination law. The courts have long recognized that Congress can act to see that Federal funds are not used to subsidize discrimination, and this is what our bill will do. In fact, all of the scholars who testified in our Committee hearing agree that this is an appropriate and constitutional use of Congress' power. This important bill will help to ensure that all Americans are protected from age discrimination in employment. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this needed legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for the past 8 years, the Boston Medical Center has had a unique program in place to give legal help to disadvantaged children and their families. Under the leadership of Dr. Barry Zuckerman, the hospital's chief of pediatrics, the Family Advocacy Program was established to fight the legal and administrative problems that doctors often face when trying to improve children's health in ways that ``pills and surgery cannot.'' Dr. Zuckerman believes that we must impact the whole child. As he puts it, ``you can't separate out a child's organ functions from the rest of his body and the context of his environment.'' That is why at Boston Medical Center, the hospital that treats more poor people than any other in Massachusetts, Dr. Zuckerman and fellow pediatricians decided to get their own lawyers to advocate on behalf of these poor children and families. The three lawyers in the program do what they can to pressure negligent landlords to improve living conditions, help families apply for food stamps, pressure insurance companies to pay for baby formula and other things to help prevent child illness. Recently, the New York Times did a story on the program, recognizing the good it has done for the disadvantaged families of Massachusetts. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.