Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support the nomination of Andrew Natsios. Andrew has ably served the State of Massachusetts as a Representative in the State House and as Chief Financial Officer for the State. He is an outstanding choice for the important post of Administrator for the Agency for International Development, and I'm confident he'll serve our country with great distinction. The Agency plays an invaluable role for the United States, bringing the hope of a better life to those in need around the globe through humanitarian aid and development projects. Its Administrator must understand the challenges facing the Agency both internally and externally. He must be a strong and effective manager. He must be committed to improving the Agency as an institution and have the ability to advance its development mission effectively. I'm confident that Andrew possesses the skills to accomplish these goals and that he will enhance the agency's valuable work around the world. Andrew has spent much of his distinguished career working on these important issues--most notably as the Assistant Administrator for the Bureau of Food and Humanitarian Assistance at the Agency for International Development, as Director of the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance and as Vice President of World Vision. Because of his outstanding ability, he was appointed as special coordinator to manage U.S. Government relief efforts during the Somalia famine. Andrew has written extensively on the challenges posed by humanitarian and intervention assistance and disaster response to U.S. foreign policy interests. He has also lectured at Boston College, the University of Massachusetts, and Northeastern University. Because of his strong management skills, Andrew was called in to Chair the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority and to oversee the Central Artery Tunnel Project--the nation's largest public project. We all agree that his management has restored credibility to the project. He also served as Governor Cellucci's Chief Financial Officer for Massachusetts and was responsible for a $20 billion state budget. Andrew has the vision, skills and ability to lead the Agency for International Development very effectively in the years ahead. His knowledge and experience, and his strong commitment to improving the agency will strengthen all of its vital missions. I look forward very much to working with him as the Administrator of the Agency for International Development.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator may be even more reluctant to interfere. We have a good prospect of listening to him quote poetry. All of us are enormously impressed that when the Senator travels back to West Virginia, he takes time to learn and to memorize poems. As a result of that experience, and a very long and distinguished career in the Senate, he has an enormous reservoir of knowledge of poetry and an incredible encyclopedic memory for poetry that always seems to be right for every special occasion. I look forward to hearing some of those this afternoon.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, April 24 marks the 86th anniversary of the beginning of one of the most tragic events in history, the Armenian Genocide. In 1915, the Ottoman Turkish Government embarked on a brutal policy of ethnic extermination. Over the next eight years, 1.5 million Armenians were killed, and more than half a million were forced from their homeland into exile. In the years since then, the Armenian diaspora has thrived in the United States and in many other countries, bringing extraordinary vitality and achievement to communities across America and throughout the world. The Armenian Assembly of America, the Armenian National Committee of America, and other distinguished groups deserve great credit for their impressive work in maintaining the proud history and heritage of the Armenian people, and guaranteeing that the Armenian Genocide will never be forgotten. One of the enduring achievements of the survivors of the Genocide and their descendants has been to keep its tragic memory alive, in spite of continuing efforts by those who refuse to acknowledge the atrocities that took place. In Massachusetts, the Armenian Genocide is part of that curriculum in every public school. Legislation was introduced last year in the U.S. House of Representatives to support recognition of the Armenian Genocide, and the French government approved a law to recognize the Armenian Genocide in January. It is time for all governments, political leaders and peoples everywhere to recognize the Armenian Genocide. These annual commemorations are an effective way to pay tribute to the courage and suffering and triumph of the Armenian people, and to ensure that such atrocities will never happen again to any people on earth.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to spend a few moments this afternoon to bring our colleagues up to date on where we are on the Elementary and Secondary Education legislation. Over these past 2 weeks we have had an ongoing exchange of ideas and views with the administration and our colleagues. We have been trying to continue to find common ground and to make important progress. We are very much aware that this is an issue that is not only a high priority for the President of the United States, but also that it is a high priority for every family in this country, and certainly among the highest priorities for those of us on this side of the aisle. We welcome the fact that we have a President who has placed education at the top of his agenda. Eight years ago when the Democrats lost control of the Senate, one of the first actions the Republicans took was to rescind some of the funding of elementary and secondary education. We also fought against attempts by our Republican friends to abolish the Department of Education. But that was then and this is now. We welcome the opportunity to find common ground so we can move ahead and make a difference for the children in this country and for the families across the Nation. As we start off our debate on this issue, we have to understand the importance of preparing a child to learn, even prior to the time they enroll in elementary school. This is an area of very considerable interest on both sides of the aisle. Our colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, has been a leader on these children's issues. Senator Jeffords has made this a special area of concern. And Senator Stevens has been very involved in early intervention for children. It is enormously important to continue to ensure a national commitment to have the nation's children ready to learn, as we did and as the Governors did in Charlottesville some years ago. I am hopeful we will be able to do that in a bipartisan way in Congress with solid legislation. We still have a ways to go, but we have made progress. We also have to understand the very serious and significant gap that still exists with regard to preparing children for grades K through 12th. We are still falling behind. We fund Early Start programs at approximately 10 percent for the earliest types of intervention. And for programs from birth to 3 years of age, we are down to either 2 or 3 percent. This is an area of enormous importance. We are trying to help many children across the nation with this program. Hopefully, it will make a difference. Unfortunately there are going to be many children who will still fall through the cracks unless we come back to revisit public policy and resources for early intervention programs. It is all part of a mosaic. We must give our full attention to these efforts which are extremely important in preparing children for elementary school. I was disappointed that the administration zeroed out a very modest downpayment in the Early Child Development Program that had bipartisan support in the 106th Congress from Senator Stevens, Senator Jeffords, Senator Dodd, Senator Kerry, many others on the Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee, and myself. We have reached some very important agreements on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, however, differences over funding remain. We are in the process of negotiating language for the legislation, and I expect that the earliest we could have this legislation is late Wednesday or Thursday. Money is not the answer to everything, but it is a pretty good indication of the Nation's priorities. Under the President's bill, there is a reduction in resources of $69 billion for the Nation. However, we will only see an extremely modest, somewhat less than $3 billion, increase in the funding for programs which are targeted on the neediest children in this country. It is that kind of disparity which is of considerable trouble to many of us. We agree that every child should be tested each year in grades three through eight--not as a punishment, but so parents and educators know where every child stands and what more needs to be done to help them improve and achieve their full potential. We agree to create tough standards for schools and hold them accountable for improving student achievement. We agree that where schools fail, bold steps are necessary to turn them around, including requiring alternative governance arrangements. We agree parents deserve more public school options to ensure their children get a quality education. We agree that literacy programs should be expanded so every child learns to read well in the early years. We share these priorities with President Bush and believe these reforms will make a difference in our communities. We are still working on how to increase the flexibility while maintaining targeting and accountability. It is important that any additional flexibility is tied to strong accountability, and strong targeting to the neediest communities. We want to ensure that States and school districts do not ignore the children who need our help the most. We are also working hard to increase accountability and support for teachers. States and districts should be held accountable for putting qualified teachers in every classroom, particularly in the neediest schools. They should also have to provide professional development and mentoring support for teachers so that teachers can make these new tough reforms work. We are also working to ensure that after-school programs are expanded so that more children have the opportunity to catch up with their schoolwork if they have fallen behind. We are working to ensure parent involvement and that parent involvement is a cornerstone for all the new reforms. We are working to ensure schools and districts and States are held accountable to the public through mandatory report cards that include important information about how well their schools are doing. We are working to ensure that the Class Size Reduction Program is continued so children can get the individual attention they need to succeed. We are working to continue the School Renovation Program so communities can ensure children are learning in safe, modern school buildings. We hope we can address all these issues and come to a bipartisan consensus on them. We must also know that reforms minus resources equals failure. You cannot say education is your top priority and not put enough resources in the budget to do the job. We are disappointed in the President's budget. According to OMB, President Bush's budget contains only a $669 million increase next year for elementary and secondary education programs. That is an increase of one-fifth of one percent of what we are spending on our public schools today at the national, State, and local levels; we are spending $350 billion a year. Testing and accountability are important, but they are only the measures of reform, they are not reform themselves. Investment without accountability is a waste of money, but accountability without investment is a waste of time. We need the resources to make sure that slick, easy, and quick tests that have mostly multiple choice questions and which cost $3 or $4 will not be developed. We want to make sure we have a quality teacher teaching a quality curriculum to a quality test. That takes investment. It is not just the money, it is the resources to do the job: well- qualified teachers, thoughtful tests, good curriculum, the examination of the tests and reporting back in a timely way. At the current time, we are meeting only about 20 to 22 percent of the supplementary services that are necessary for children. If we are not going to have a significant increase in resources, we are not going to be able to provide the good quality supplementary services for those children who need them. We know with a very modest increase--about $1 billion--we could provide 1.6 million children with quality supplemental after-school academic opportunities. Even if you take what was paid last year and adding about $850 million this year, we are still only reaching about a third of all latchkey children, ages 8 to 13, who go home alone in the afternoon. Resources are important because they are translated into substantive issues that make a difference in advancing the quality of education for children. This chart compares the investments in ESEA programs for fiscal year 2001 to the Administration's 2002 proposal. In 2001, funding for ESEA programs increased by $3.6 billion or a 24.2 percent. This Administration has requested an increase of $669 million, which is only a 3.5 percent increase. Even with their willingness to go higher, it does not come close to the increases in 2001. This recognizes that we are only reaching one- third of all of the children who are disadvantaged or eligible under the Title I program. Look at the appropriations for the Department of Education. In 2001 there was an 18.2 percent increase, $6.5 billion. The Bush budget for all the education, is increased by 5.9 percent or $2.5 billion. The Department of Education over the period of the last 5 years shows a 12.8-percent increase in resources. However the proposed budget starts with a 5.9-percent increase in the Department of Education. This is a time with record surpluses, when we are going to give back $69 billion in tax reductions. There is a great deal of talk about investing in education, but we are still not putting in the resources. This chart is the State of Texas education equation. It shows that from 1994 to 2002, school funding went from $16.9 billion to $27.5 billion, a 57-percent increase under Governor Bush. Interestingly, we see an alarming increase in student achievement, from 56-percent of the students performing at a proficient level on the State test in 1994 to 80-percent of students performing at a proficient level in 2000-- showing you cannot educate on the cheap. The next chart shows the difference between the proposal the Democrats support and the Bush budget. We know there are 10,000 failing schools that need to be turned around. The best estimate is that it costs $180,000 to turn around a school. There are 57 different, accepted, scientifically evaluated ways in which schools can be restructured and organized that have been found to have been successful. Taking 10,000 schools and $180,000--that is, $1.8 billion-- to turn around the schools that we know are in need. With the other proposal, effectively, we are leaving 7,556 schools behind. We know what needs to be done. We know we have failing schools, and we have ways of turning them around. We know we have unqualified teachers, and we know what needs to be done to make them qualified. We know we have an inadequate curriculum, and we know what needs to be done to strengthen curriculum. We understand what will benefit the children and the teachers and we know how to strengthen their needs with supplementary services. If we don't have the supplementary services, trained teachers, effective tests, modern and safe schools, and smaller class sizes, then we are failing ourselves. We fail ourselves when we fail to provide the resources to ensure the nation's children with a sound education. Finally, I hope during this debate we have some discussion about the issue of IDEA. Full funding for IDEA will help immeasurably in allowing special needs children to get additional resources. I hope we can move ahead with ESEA and get the commitment of essential resources to meet these important needs. In doing the job, we need to give children across the nation the best opportunities which we all understand they deserve.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank Senator Bond for his comments. I could not agree more with the Senator from Missouri. We must work together to fully fund the Pediatric GME program at $285 million in fiscal year 2002. Independent children's hospitals are experiencing very serious financial challenges that affect their ability to sustain their missions. In addition to the challenges of covering the costs of their academic programs, they include challenges in covering the higher costs of sicker patients in a price competitive marketplace, meeting the costs of uncovered services such as child protection services and poison control centers, and assuming the costs of devoting a large portion of their patient care to children from low-income families. On average, independent acute care children's hospitals devote nearly half of their patient care to children who are assisted by Medicaid or are uninsured. They devote more than 75 percent of their care for children with one or more chronic or congenital conditions. For children with rare and complex conditions, independent children's hospitals often provide the majority of care in their region or even nationwide. Furthermore, independent children's hospitals--including Boston Children's--serve as advocates for the public health of children, and they are essential to the health care safety net for children of low- income families. Our children are our most vulnerable patients. Pediatricians and pediatric specialists provide a crucial voice for these children who are not able to ensure their own health care. Without funding for this training even our Nation's number one Children's Hospital, Boston Children's, will no longer be able to ensure that our children receive state-of-the-art care targeted to their special needs. The Senator from Ohio and I have worked together on this issue over the years. I ask the Senator from Ohio, would he agree that graduate medical education programs at children's hospitals are essential to meeting the health care needs of our Nation's children?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, at the heart of the budget dispute between Republicans and Democrats is the size of President Bush's proposed tax cut. Republicans claim the surplus is so large that we can have it all, that their massive tax cut will not interfere with efforts to address the country's most serious concerns. Democrats respond that the Bush tax cut is so large that it will consume virtually all of the available surplus, leaving no resources to meet the Nation's basic needs. Under the Bush budget, the numbers just do not add up. The vote on the budget resolution is the vote which will determine the size of the tax cut. Once that vote is cast, more than $2 trillion, the real price tag on the tax cut, will effectively be gone. Those dollars will no longer be available for any other purpose--not for education, not for healthcare, not for defense, not for debt reduction, not for Social Security, not for Medicare. That money will be gone. The impact of the Republican tax cut on the Federal Government's ability to address the most pressing concerns of the American people would be devastating. It is too large to fit into any responsible budget. The available surplus over the next ten years is, at most, $2.7 trillion. Whatever we do over the next decade to address this country's unmet needs must be paid for from that amount. Whatever we want to do to financially strengthen Social Security and Medicare for future retirees must be funded from that amount. Whatever funds we want to hold in reserve for unanticipated problems must also come from that amount. President Bush tells us his tax cut will only cost $1.6 trillion. But the Administration's own budget documents acknowledge that the tax cut will consume more than $2 trillion of the surplus. Independent analysts have shown that the real cost of the tax cuts which the Republicans support will be close to $2.5 trillion over the next ten years, consuming 90 percent of the available surplus. There will be less than $200 billion, just $20 billion a year, left to finance everything we hope to accomplish in the decade ahead. The Republican budget does not add up. What would this mean for working families? There will simply be no money left to address the problems that concern them most: An elderly grandmother will not be able to afford the cost of the prescription drugs she needs to avoid serious illness; Her young grandchildren will go to overcrowded schools where the classroom may be in a trailer and where the teachers are too busy to give them the individual attention they need; Their older brother and sister will have difficulty affording college because the grant and loan assistance available to them will not have kept pace with the cost of tuition; Their parents will not have access to the technology training needed to move up the career ladder at work, so they may be stuck in a dead end job; If the family in among the 44 million Americans who do not receive health coverage at work and who cannot afford to purchase it, they will get no significant new help with their medical costs; And if they live in a high crime neighborhood, there will be fewer cops on the street to ensure their safety. But what about the tax cut? What will the Bush tax plan do for families like this? Unfortunately, it will not do much. The Republican tax cut is heavily slanted toward the wealthy. Over 40 percent of the entire tax cut nearly one trillion dollars in tax breaks will go to the richest 1 percent of taxpayers. They would get an average of $54,000 each year in tax benefits. This is more than most workers earn in a year. Under the Bush plan, 60 percent of working families will save $500 or less a year in taxes. Twelve million low income working families would not get any tax cut under the Bush plan, even though they pay federal taxes every year. The Republican tax cut is just not fair. It does the least for people who need help the most, the same people who depend on the programs which the Republicans want to cut. The Democratic budget plan stands in stark contrast to the Republican plan. Budgets are a reflection of our real values, and these two budgets clearly demonstrate how different the values of the two parties are. In political speeches, it is easy to be all things to all people. But the budget we vote for shows who we really are and what we really stand for. Our budget is geared to the needs of working families. It will provide them with tax relief, but it will also address their education and health care needs. And it will protect Social Security and Medicare, on which they depend for secure retirement. There are four criteria by which we should evaluate a budget plan: 1. is it a fiscally responsible, balanced program? 2. does it protect Social Security and Medicare for future generations?, 3. does it adequately address America's urgent national needs?, and 4. does it distribute the benefits of the surplus fairly amongst all Americans? By each yardstick, the Republican budget fails to measure up. The Democratic budget is a far sounder blueprint for building America's future. Once the Social Security and Medicare surpluses are reserved for the payment of future benefits, the available surplus is projected to be $2.7 trillion over the next ten years. The heart of the difference between the Democratic and Republican budgets is how each would use this surplus. The Democratic proposal would divide the surplus into thirds; allocating $900 billion for tax cuts, $900 billion for priority programs, and $900 billion for debt reduction. This contrasts sharply with the Republican plan, in which tax cuts would consume 90 percent of the surplus. When President Bush cites $1.6 trillion as the cost of his tax cut, he neglects the increased cost--more than $400 billion--of interest on the larger national debt caused by the tax cut. He ignores the $240 billion cost already added to elements of the Bush plan by House Republicans. His plan also ignores the $200 billion cost of revising the Alternative Minimum Tax to prevent an unintended increase in taxes on middle income families, and the $100 billion cost of extending existing tax credits through the decade. In reality, the Bush tax cut will consume $2.5 trillion over the decade. By consuming $2.5 trillion of the $2.7 trillion available surplus on tax cuts, the Republican budget would leave virtually nothing over the next ten years: to strengthen Social Security and Medicare before the baby boomers retire, to begin the quality prescription drug benefit that seniors desperately need, to provide the education increases that the nation's children deserve, to train and protect the American workers whose increased productivity has proved essential to our strong economy, to advance scientific research, to improve the nation's military readiness, to improve the security of family farmers, and to avoid burdening our children with the debt that we have accumulated. After the Bush tax cut, we will not have the resources to meet these urgent challenges. There will simply be no money left. The Democratic plan strikes a balance between tax cuts and addressing these important national priorities. It provides $900 billion to finance tax relief for the American people. This amount would allow a tax rate cut for all taxpayers, marriage penalty relief, and a doubling of the child tax credit. It would also enable us to implement several of the most widely supported targeted tax cuts such as making college tuition tax deductible and providing a tax credit for long-term care costs. I support a substantial tax cut, such as the one I just outlined, but not one that is so large that it crowds out investment in national priorities like education, health care, worker training and scientific research. Not one that is so large that it jeopardizes Medicare and Social Security. Not one that is so large that it threatens to return us to the era of large deficits. By authorizing a third of the surplus for spending on the nation's most important priorities, the Democratic plan would enable us to improve education by reducing class size and enhancing teacher quality, to provide senior citizens with meaningful assistance with the cost of prescription drug coverage, to extend health care coverage to many uninsured families, and to expand worker training opportunities and scientific research that will strengthen our economy. These are important initiatives that have overwhelming public support. The Democratic budget allows us to pursue these goals. Unfortunately, the Republican budget does not. By reserving one third of the surplus for debt reduction, the Democratic plan provides a safety value should the full amount of the projected surplus not materialize. We are not spending every last dollar of the $2.7 trillion, we propose to hold $900 billion in reserve. If the full surplus materializes, it will be used to pay down the debt. If projections fall short, we will have a cushion. The $2.7 trillion is only a projected surplus. The Congressional Budget Office itself recognizes that a small reduction in the growth rate of the economy would reduce its surplus estimates by trillions of dollars. Its projection for the next decade is based on a growth rate which the economy has only achieved in 5 of the last 35 years. Forecasting a budget surplus ten years in advance is no more reliable than forecasting the weather ten years in advance. Recent events should vividly remind us how difficult it is to predict the economy even one year ahead. CBO acknowledges that there is a 35 percent chance that the on-budget surplus will be less than half the size it has projected . . . less than half! Without a large reserve, Social Security is vulnerable to a new raid if the projected level of surplus fails to materialize. In order to truly protect Social Security and Medicare, the budget we adopt must 1. reserve the entire Social Security surplus and the Medicare surplus to pay for future retirement and medical benefits; and 2. devote a substantial portion of the available surplus to strengthen Social Security and Medicare by reducing long-term debt. The Democratic budget does both, and the Republican budget does neither. The Social Security and Medicare surpluses are comprised of payroll taxes that workers deposit with the Government to pay for their future Social Security and Medicare benefits. Just because the Government does not pay all those dollars out this year does not make us free to spend them. Over the next ten years, Social Security will take in $2.5 trillion more dollars than it will pay out and Medicare will take in $400 billion more dollars than it will pay out. But every penny of this will be needed to provide Social Security and Medicare benefits when the baby boomers retire. The Republican budget fails to set the entire $2.9 trillion aside to cover the cost of future Social Security and Medicare benefits. It only protects $2 trillion of that amount. The remaining $900 billion is used for other purposes. This threatens the retirement benefits of current workers. While the Bush budget is vague on just how this money will be used, it appears that more than $500 billion of it will be used to finance the Administration's scheme to create private retirement accounts. I believe it would be terribly wrong to take money out of Social Security to finance risky private accounts. The Republican budget is even more reckless in its treatment of the $400 billion Medicare surplus. The Bush Administration would give the Medicare dollars no special protection. It would co-mingle them in a contingency fund available to pay for their tax cuts and new spending. The threat posed by the Republican budget to Social Security and Medicare is very real. It removes $900 billion that already belong to these essential programs. Democrats are committed to keeping Social Security and Medicare strong. We do this by reserving all payroll taxes for the retirement and medical benefits that are now promised to seniors under current law. No qualifications, no exceptions. This commitment means that workers' payroll taxes are not available to fund income tax and estate tax cuts, private retirement accounts, or new spending. The contrast between the Democratic and Republican budgets on Social Security and Medicare could not be greater. The Democrats would use $900 billion of the available surplus to strengthen Social Security and Medicare by paying down the debt. Republicans would remove $900 billion from Social Security and Medicare, and they would spend these dollars for other purposes. Many of America's most critical unmet needs are in the areas of health care and education. The surplus affords us an unprecedented opportunity to address these national concerns. Unfortunately, the Republican budget seriously short-changes them both. One of our highest health care priorities should be assisting seniors with the cost of prescription drugs. America's seniors desperately need access to prescription drugs, and President Bush only provides a placebo. He says the right things about how important it is to provide prescription drugs, but the numbers in the Republican budget prove that his words can not pass the truth in advertising test. There can be no question about the urgent need for a Medicare prescription drug benefit. A third of senior citizens, 12 million people have no prescription drug coverage at all. Only half of all senior citizens have prescription drug coverage throughout the year. Meanwhile, last year alone prescription drug costs increased an average 17 percent. The Republican budget provides only $153 billion over 10 years to finance prescription drug assistance for seniors. That amount is woefully inadequate. A real drug benefit available to all seniors would cost more than twice that amount. Yet even the $153 billion which the Republican budget purports to provide is illusory. These are not new dollars. They come out of the $400 billion Medicare surplus which was improperly removed from the Medicare Trust Fund. Unlike Republican proposals, the Democratic plan would provide drug coverage to all seniors through Medicare. The Democratic budget provides $311 billion to make prescription drugs affordable for seniors. It is the only real way to solve the problem. The Republican budget also fails to address the needs of the Nation's uninsured. An uninsured family is exposed to financial disaster in the event of serious illness. The health consequences of being uninsured are even more devastating. In any given year, one-third of people without insurance go without needed medical care. The chilling bottom line is that 83,000 Americans die every year because they have no insurance. Being uninsured is the seventh leading cause of death in America. Our failure to provide health insurance for every citizen kills more people than kidney disease, liver disease, and AIDS combined. Candidate Bush severely criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for what he described as an inadequate response to this crisis. But the budget resolution that his Republican colleagues have presented does nothing meaningful to expand health coverage. In this time of unprecedented budget surpluses, isn't it more important to assure that children and their parents can see a doctor when they fall ill than it is to provide new tax breaks for multi-millionaires? The Democratic budget provides 80 billion new dollars over the decade to extend health care coverage to uninsured families. Over the last few years, we have made great strides providing health coverage for children. However, there are many more children who still lack basic health coverage. These children, and their entire families, desperately need access to health care. The most effective way to provide health coverage is to insure the entire family. We are committed to taking this next step. Given how much President Bush has talked about education, it may come as a surprise to hear that education is one of the national priorities he has seriously shortchanged. But, sadly that is what the facts of the Republican budget show. The claim that President Bush increases funding for the U.S. Department of Education by $4.6 billion or 11.5 percent this year is the purest fantasy. Smoke and mirrors produced these numbers. President Bush counts $2.1 billion that President Clinton and the 106th Congress approved last year as part of this year's increase. If President Bush did nothing on education, almost half of ``his increase'' would happen anyway. The real increase that he proposes is $2.4 billion--only 5.7 percent above a freeze. And $600 million of the $2.4 billion increase is needed just to keep up with inflation. In reality, President Bush proposes only $1.8 billion in new money for education next year, a mere 4 percent above inflation. President Bush's education budget is a step backwards. It does not keep up with the average 13 percent annual increase Congress has provided for education over the last 5 years, and it will not enable communities and families across the country to meet their education needs. This year, schools confront record enrollments of 53 million elementary and secondary school students, and that number will continue to rise steadily, reaching an average six percent increase in student enrollment each year. President Bush's budget fails to keep pace with population growth in schools, and under the budget he proposes, Federal education support per student may well decrease over the decade. I applaud President Bush for making reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act a top priority. I applaud him for challenging the nation to ``leave no child behind.'' But I am disappointed that he has not backed his words with the resources needed to produce the action that we all agree is necessary. The Republican budget will leave many children behind. In sharp contrast, the Democratic budget would increase investment in education by $150 billion over the decade. It is the second largest spending commitment in the Democratic plan. This will provide the resources which will enable us to keep pace with the needs of the steadily expanding number of students in our public schools. It will allow us to significantly reduce class size, so that teachers can give individual students the attention they need. It will provide for better professional development for teachers and greater access to information technology in the classroom. It will make after school programs available for children who currently have no where constructive to go. And, it will make college financially attainable for many of the students who simply cannot afford it today. It would be extraordinarily shortsighted to turn our back on these national responsibilities. All these program cuts are made to finance the Republican tax cut, and the tax cut they would enact is grossly unfair. In reality, the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers, who pay 20 percent of all federal taxes, would receive over 40 percent of the tax benefits under their plan. Their average annual tax cut would be more than $54,000, more than a majority of American workers earn in a year. The contrast is stark. Eighty percent of American families have annual incomes below $65,000. They would receive less than 30 percent of the tax benefits under Bush's plan. The average tax cut those families would receive each year is less than $500. Twelve million low- income families who work and pay taxes would get no tax cut at all under Bush's plan. If we are going to return a share of the surplus to the people, that certainly is not a fair way to do it. Because the Bush tax cut is slanted so heavily to the wealthy, it is possible to enact a tax cut that costs less than half of President Bush's proposal, yet actually provides more tax relief for working families. That is what the Democratic tax cut would do. The Democratic tax cut proposal incorporated in our budget would cost $900 billion. It would provide a tax cut for everyone who pays income tax. In addition, it would provide tax relief for the 12 million working families that the Bush plan ignored. These low income families pay substantial payroll taxes, and they too deserve relief. The Democratic plan also provides help to couples currently hurt by the marriage penalty. A tax cut of this size would also allow us to help families by doubling in the child tax credit, making college tuition tax deductible, and providing a tax credit for long term care costs. Such a program would provide greater tax relief for a substantial majority of taxpayers than the far more expensive Bush plan. That is because the tax benefits are distributed fairly. A close look at President Bush's budget only confirms that indeed we can not have it all. There is no way to provide massive tax cuts, eliminate the national debt, and meet the Nation's priority needs. This Republican budget is a fantasy. In essence, President Bush is asking working families to sacrifice while the wealthiest families in America collect far more than their fair share. This Republican budget threatens our prosperity and ignores the most fundamental national needs. It does not have the support of the American people, and it does not deserve their support.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, earlier in the week the Senate accepted an amendment from Senator Smith and Senator Biden to provide resources for a health insurance program for basically the parents of those children who are eligible for the CHIP program. That money would be taken out of the contingency fund. This amendment continues that program for the 10-year period. Therefore, it would take some $50 billion out of the tax cut, and the use of those resources would be to build on the CHIP program which has been so effective for the parents of those CHIP workers, who are American workers at the lower end of the economic scale. They cannot afford health insurance, and the provisions we have in the current budget of some $80 billion could be used as tax incentives for workers. These workers are not going to be paying the taxes. And even with a refundable tax credit, it will not be sufficient to afford the health insurance. This amendment will help them to do so. I hope the Senate will take this, with the amendment that is in the budget, and that we will have with that a combination of this amendment and the tax programs that will reach out to look after the health insurance needs of the hardest workers in this country who are pressed every single day for lack of health insurance. That is effectively what the amendment does.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senators Bingaman, Wyden, Edwards, Rockefeller, Corzine, Murray, and Clinton and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield the remaining 40 seconds to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to go in whatever order the format is. If it is appropriate at this time, I will go now.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise to support this resolution condemning Libya for its involvement with the Pan Am 103 Lockerbie bombing and reiterating conditions under which sanctions will be lifted. The conviction of Abdel Basset al-Megrahi by the Scottish court in the Netherlands for the December 21, 1988 terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 is a victory for the families of the 270 victims, who have been seeking justice for more than 12 years, a victory for our country, which was the real target of the terrorist attack, and a victory for the world community in the ongoing battle against international terrorism. Now that a Scottish court has concluded that Libya was responsible for the bombing, the hand of the United States has been strengthened in our effort to convince the international community that it is premature to welcome Libya back into the family of nations. The task will not be easy. Oil companies want to invest in the Libyan petroleum sector, and even many of our closest allies are anxious to close the book on the bombing. Following the verdict, President George Bush wisely stated that the United States will continue to press Libya to accept responsibility and compensate the families. We must demand full disclosure of what Libya knows. The United States must make it clear that we will use our veto in the UN Security Council to block any effort to permanently lift sanctions before Libya accepts responsibility for the actions of its intelligence officer, provides appropriate compensation to the families, accounts for its involvement in the bombing, and fully renounces terrorism. These are the conditions demanded by the international community--not just the United States--and they must be enforced before the sanctions are lifted. We must also be prepared to impose stronger sanctions if Qadhafi refuses to cooperate. This resolution makes clear that this should be American policy. U.S. sanctions against Libya which prevent trade and investment and bar the import of Libyan oil must also remain in place. Although there is strong interest by the U.S. oil industry in investing in Libya, the Administration must make clear that profits cannot take priority over justice. It is vital to the ongoing battle against international terrorism that all those responsible for this horrible act are brought to justice. I am pleased to work with Senator Feinstein on this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the ``Eliminate Colorectal Cancer Act of 2001''. I am pleased to have my colleague, Senator Helms, as the leading co-sponsor of this important legislation. Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among men and women in America. Over 50,000 Americans will die of this disease this year alone. The good news on colorectal cancer is that if it is detected early, we can dramatically improve the chance of survival. We have tried and true screening techniques that can not only discover this cancer early, but can prevent this disease by finding and eliminating growths before they become cancerous. The tragedy is that too often Americans do not get these lifesaving screenings. Today, only one-third of those at-risk for colorectal cancer are screened--and screening rates for minorities and women are even lower. All Americans age 50 and over should be screened for this disease, and there are many at increased risk who may need to start screening even earlier. Some are simply not aware they should be screened and others cannot afford to get this lifesaving test. We must work together for the day when no American is denied access to these lifesaving screening procedures simply because their health insurance company would not foot the bill. Medicare offers this important benefit. Now it's time that every American has that same assurance. That is why this week we are introducing ``The Eliminate Colorectal Cancer Act of 2001'', bipartisan legislation that will ensure that all health insurance covers screening procedures that can discover colorectal cancer in its earliest and most treatable stages. I am pleased that Representative Slaughter and Representative Morella are offering a similar bipartisan bill in the House, and I express my appreciation of so many from the cancer community on this legislation over the past couple of years. In this case, an ounce of prevention brings a lifesaving cure that could save tens of thousands of lives this year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the ``Eliminate Colorectal Cancer Act of 2001'' be printed in the Record with a bill summary.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the ``Eliminate Colorectal Cancer Act of 2001''. I am pleased to have my colleague, Senator Helms, as the leading co-sponsor of this important legislation. Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among men and women in America. Over 50,000 Americans will die of this disease this year alone. The good news on colorectal cancer is that if it is detected early, we can dramatically improve the chance of survival. We have tried and true screening techniques that can not only discover this cancer early, but can prevent this disease by finding and eliminating growths before they become cancerous. The tragedy is that too often Americans do not get these lifesaving screenings. Today, only one-third of those at-risk for colorectal cancer are screened--and screening rates for minorities and women are even lower. All Americans age 50 and over should be screened for this disease, and there are many at increased risk who may need to start screening even earlier. Some are simply not aware they should be screened and others cannot afford to get this lifesaving test. We must work together for the day when no American is denied access to these lifesaving screening procedures simply because their health insurance company would not foot the bill. Medicare offers this important benefit. Now it's time that every American has that same assurance. That is why this week we are introducing ``The Eliminate Colorectal Cancer Act of 2001'', bipartisan legislation that will ensure that all health insurance covers screening procedures that can discover colorectal cancer in its earliest and most treatable stages. I am pleased that Representative Slaughter and Representative Morella are offering a similar bipartisan bill in the House, and I express my appreciation of so many from the cancer community on this legislation over the past couple of years. In this case, an ounce of prevention brings a lifesaving cure that could save tens of thousands of lives this year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the ``Eliminate Colorectal Cancer Act of 2001'' be printed in the Record with a bill summary.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I thank Senators Harkin and Wellstone for bringing forward this extremely important amendment. Over the period of this week we are going to cast some votes here in the U.S. Senate, but I doubt if there is any particular amendment that presents more clearly the question of values and priorities than this amendment does. I doubt if there is any amendment that we will consider that is more about the future of our country and that has a greater relevance to what kind of society we will become over the period of these next several years and into the future. The numbers that the Senators from Iowa and Minnesota have talked about are very large amounts of money. But when you look at this amount in the context of educational need, these figures are not out of the ordinary. As a matter of fact, they are very modest given the number of children currently attending the nation's schools, and increases in the number of children that are going to be attending our nation's schools and colleges in the coming years. Senators Harkin and Wellstone are posing a question of priorities. That is, are we prepared to invest in the future of this country and in its children, through reducing the tax breaks for the wealthiest individuals by a third? I commend Senators Wellstone and Harkin for posing that question. I agree with those who say that money does not solve all of our nation's problems. That point will be debated here this afternoon as this amendment is considered. That point is both valid and worthy of debate. However, money is also a reflection of our Nation's priorities. This is what the budget debate is all about. This is what our votes are all about. The amendment brought forth by the Senator from Iowa is about placing a priority on what the American family has said is their first priority investment in our nation's children and in our future. Since fiscal year 1980, the federal share has decreased for education programs. In elementary and secondary education, the investment has dropped from 11.9% to 8.3% in fiscal year 2000, and in higher education from 15.4% to 11%. But, the educational needs of schools and communities are rising. This chart reflects the number of children who will be entering elementary and secondary schools in the United States of America over the period of the next 90 years. The number of school-aged children will increase from today's enrollments of 53 million students, up to 94 million students in 2100. This amendment is really about partnership--between federal, State, and local communities. The federal role should lead this partnership through recognizing that the needs of our nation's schools will continue to grow as the population in our nation's schools grows. We must ask ourselves: Does this budget reflect the growing need to invest in elementary and secondary education? Or is it business as usual--a 5.7 percent over last year's funding level. The Harkin amendment accurately reflects the realities faced by our nation's schools and universities. Enrollment in higher education has also significantly increased. Our colleges and universities are reaching record enrollments. This year, college enrollment numbered over 15 million students, and is expected to rise over the next 10 years to reach 17.5 million in 2010. The priority to educate all of our nation's children must begin through an investment in educating children at an early age. Various reports, including those produced by the Carnegie Commission, have shown us what a difference is made through investment at the earliest time in children's lives. Early Start, which is now being funded at 4 or 5 percent of what it should be; the Head Start program at about 40 percent, or 45 percent of what it should be; child care, 17 percent in terms of quality education. And the list goes on. As I mentioned, the average annual investment in education has dropped over the past years. Now we are faced, in this budget, with an increase of only 5.7 percent. That is an inadequate amount when talking about the investment needed for the children of this country. The Senator from Iowa went into considerable detail on a number of features in this amendment, and I would also like to highlight some important points. I would like to briefly mention the Pell Grant Program. We had a national debate in 1960 regarding aid to education programs. At that time Vice President Nixon was opposed to any aid to education, and President Kennedy supported aid to education. The President believed-- and this country went on record during that time--that any student in this country who is able to gain entrance into any college or university on the basis of their academic ability should be able to do so, despite the size of their wallet or the size of their pocketbook. The President believed that students should have access to a range of grants, loans, and work-study programs, and also rely on their own individual efforts, to make up the tuition. This commitment was reflected in the creation of Pell grants. Over the last 25 years, federal student need has shifted from a grant-based system to a loan-based system. In 1980, 55% of total federal aid for higher education was awarded through grants, and 43% through loans. In 1998, this ratio shifted to 58% through loans, and 40% through grants. A recent study has found that the maximum award under the Pell grant program has fallen dramatically, from providing 84% of total costs at a public, 4-year university in 1975-1976, to providing 39% of total costs in 1999-2000. Any Member of this body may visit a college or university in this country and listen to young people. What are they talking about? Are they talking about their books? Are they talking about their studies or what is happening in their lecture halls? No. They are talking about their loans and how they are going to repay their loans. Students are not talking about whether they are able to go into public service, but instead about what they are going to have to do when they get out of school. The Harkin amendment is a downpayment for putting this country back on the road, and ensuring that young and talented Americans are not turning their backs on the possibility of higher education because do not want to be in debt, nor put their families in debt. This is wrong. It is clear that students cannot afford not to go to college. We are all working together to ensure that every child has access to a high quality education. But let's also invest in our nation's children. Let's invest in making sure there will be sufficient resources for children to benefit from elementary and secondary education, and move on the furthering their education in colleges and universities. We need a plan that makes increasing Head Start a priority over tax cuts for the wealthy. We need a plan that makes full funding for IDEA a priority over tax cuts for the wealthy. We need a plan that makes increasing Title I a program that helps disadvantaged students master basic skills a priority over tax cuts for the wealthy. We need a plan that makes reducing class size a priority. We need a plan that makes improving teacher quality a priority. We need a plan that makes expanding after-school learning opportunities a priority. We need a plan that makes modernizing and rebuilding the nation's crumbling and overcrowded school buildings a priority. We need a plan that makes increasing the maximum level of Pell grants a priority. We need a strong investment in education that will ensure a bright future for the nation, not a tax cut that leaves the nation's children and students behind. We know what needs to be done now in terms of education in America. The real question is, Do we have the will? This particular amendment addresses programs that invest in children, and ensures that our future workers are going to have the skills to compete in a modern economy. It reflects the best values of the American people and the best values of our party. That value is investment in children and their futures. That is what this amendment is about. It ought to be adopted.

Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. That is exactly what I have said.

Mr. KENNEDY. If I could answer the Senator's question this way. 97 percent of students in the highest achievement and socioeconomic quartile go on to 4 year college. On the other hand, only 46 percent of children achieving at the same academic level, but in the lowest socioeconomic quartile, go on to a 4-year college or university. We, as a country and as a society, understand that education is the great equalizer. When we are faced with these facts----

Mr. KENNEDY. When we are faced with these facts, we have to ask ourselves, What should be our investment? The Harkin amendment is a comprehensive amendment. It will ensure that children are well prepared, ready to learn, and will benefit from the changes and the improvements we have made in elementary, secondary, and higher education. The question is, Are we going to take the one-third of the tax program and do what the Harkin-Wellstone amendment has asked, or are we going to provide additional billions of dollars to the wealthiest individuals? It is a clear choice.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is absolutely correct. It will be a sham if we just have the test without having the support services. We are working to ensure these important services that accelerate learning and academic achievement. That is addressed in the Harkin amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is absolutely correct. Over the last 15 years, as the Senator is well familiar, we have learned that a child's mind--almost from the time of birth--should have opportunities to develop. Research has shown us that we must take advantage of the new science in ways that are going to enhance the academic opportunities for these children. The Senator's amendment focuses not only on the early learning, but also on Head Start, which serves 3- and 4-year-olds. The Senator is familiar with the excellent hearing that was chaired by Senator Jeffords, and during which we learned that 98 percent of young children are receiving important support services at a young age. In Europe, for example, such services have had an important impact on a child's learning ability. That is what the Senator's amendment is about and why it is so compelling.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Specter and Senator Harkin in sponsoring this important amendment to provide the National Institutes of Health with the resources it needs to continue its lifesaving mission. In a historic vote in 1997, the Senate pledged to double the funding of the NIH over the next five years, and Senator Specter's amendment represents the fulfillment of that pledge for the coming fiscal year. The resources we devote to NIH are a basic investment in a healthy future for all Americans. Biomedical research supported by NIH has given us medical miracles undreamed of by previous generations. An irregular heartbeat once meant a lifetime of disability. This condition can now be corrected with a pacemaker so small that it can be inserted under local anesthetic using fiber optic technology. New drugs now allow many seniors to live a full and active life who once would have been disabled by the terrible pain of arthritis. Transplants save the lives of thousands of patients who once would have died of kidney failure. Even more astonishing discoveries will be developed in the years to come. New insights into the genetic basis of disease will allow treatments to be developed that are custom-made for an individual patient's genetic signature. Microscopic cameras are now being developed that can be swallowed by patients to give doctors an accurate view of the patient's internal organs without the need for risky surgery. I'm proud that Massachusetts is leading the way to this remarkable future. Our state is home to many of the nation's leading biomedical research institutions and receives more than one out of every ten dollars that NIH spends on research, or over $1.5 billion last year alone. NIH grants support essential research all across the Commonwealth. In Boston, researchers supported by NIH discovered a link between the immune system and the brain that may lead to better treatments for diseases like Parkinson's and multiple sclerosis. In Worcester, NIH funds are helping to build a new center for cancer research that will become a leading center in finding a cure for that dread disease. Investment in research is the foundation on which the state's thriving biotechnology industry is built. There are more than 250 biotech companies in Massachusetts that give good jobs to thousands of professionals across the state. These companies are an important partner in the nation's commitment to promoting the health of all our citizens. The future of biomedical research is bright, provided that we continue our strong national investment in discovery. Senator Specter's amendment will give NIH the resources it needs to turn the breakthroughs of today into the cures of tomorrow, and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.