Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, yesterday, Equal Pay Day, marked the day this year when women's median earnings for 2000 and 2001 to date, catch up with what men earned last year. It is disgraceful that hard-working women and people of color are still battling wage disparities and pay discrimination on the job. There is a wealth of evidence that shows that the wage gap still continues to plague American families, and that wage discrimination continues to be a serious and pervasive problem in workplaces across the country. In spite of the progress we have made, women still earn only 76 cents for every dollar earned by men. African American women earn just 64 cents, and Latinos earn only 54 cents for every dollar earned by white men. I have long supported the Equal Pay Act, which was signed into law 37 years ago by President Kennedy, and believe that the wage gap in the United States is unconscionable. Women and people of color should not be treated as second class citizens when it comes to pay. But not everyone shares my view. I was deeply troubled to learn this week that Diana Furchtgott-Roth, one of the strongest and most vigorous opponents to equal pay, was newly named as Chief of Staff to the Council for Economic Advisors. These pay disparities translate into large costs in lost wages and lost opportunity. The average working woman loses $4,200 in earnings annually, and suffers a loss of $420,000 over her career. This gender gap has a long-term impact, since lower wages and lower lifetime earnings lead to lower pension benefits in retirement. The median pension benefit received by new female retirees is less than half that of the benefits received by men. While some critics argue that the differences in pay are based on different levels of education, years in the workforce, occupational differences and similar factors, these factors alone do not explain away the wage gap. Studies have found substantial pay differences between men and women even when these factors are held constant. In fact, women now surpass men in the percentage of those earning a college or advanced degree, but college-educated women working full- time earn almost $28,000 less annually than college-educated men. An African American woman with a master's degree earns $29,000 less annually than a college-educated white male. An Hispanic female with a bachelor's degree makes only $872 more than a white male with only a high school degree. Pay discrimination is not just a women's problem, it's a family problem. The wage gap costs America's families $200 billion a year. Nearly two-thirds of working women report that they provide half or more of their family income. In addition, nearly one in five U.S. families is headed by a single woman, yet these women continue to earn the lowest average rate of pay. Women are entitled to the same paychecks as their male colleagues who are performing the same or comparable work. Without pay equality, women are less able to provide an economic safety net for themselves and their families. If married women were paid fairly, their family incomes would rise by nearly six percent, and their families' poverty rates would fall from 2.1 percent to 0.8 percent. If single working mothers were paid fairly, their incomes would rise by 17 percent, and their poverty rates would be reduced from 25.3 percent to 12.6 percent. These figures demonstrate the staggering effects of these unfair pay disparities on the lives of women and their families. The equal pay provisions of the Democratic leadership bill would toughen the Equal Pay Act by providing more effective remedies for women denied equal pay for equal work, allowing prevailing plaintiffs to recover compensatory and punitive damages. It also eliminates loopholes that employers use to evade the law, authorizes additional training for enforcement agencies to better handle wage disputes, and provides for the study of pay dynamics in the U.S. labor market to better understand the pay inequity problem. Finally, the bill forbids employers from prohibiting employees from disclosing their wages to co- workers, thereby making it easier for workers to evaluate whether their rights are being violated. Congress should pass these equal pay provisions. It is unacceptable for women and people of color to work hard and yet be denied fair compensation. These disparities are particularly alarming, because they persist 37 years after the Equal Pay Act was first enacted and at a time when our nation has been enjoying unprecedented prosperity. It's the right thing to do, and the fair thing to do, for working families.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Then we have seen what has happened in Medicare HMOs. Last year, 325,000 Medicare beneficiaries were dropped from their Medicare HMOs. This year it is 934,000--three times as many in 2001 as were dropped in 2000. People have to be asking: Business as usual? I hear from the other side: Business as usual. Business as usual. We are challenging that theory with this amendment. We believe this is a reflection of the true values of the American people and the true priorities of American families. I hope the amendment will be adopted. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand it, I have 15 minutes. I ask the Chair to let me know when I have 12 minutes left. Mr. President, first of all, I commend Senator Conrad, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, for his excellent presentation both last evening and this morning. I also commend him for his deep and profound and thoughtful analysis of the whole budget that is before the Senate at this time in the rather unusual form because, as I think every Member understands, we don't have the President's budget. I think all of us believe we should have the actual budget of the President so we can find out the President's priorities and the cuts that are going to be made in the various programs rather than predicting or surmising what might be in that particular proposal. I commend Senator Conrad for the very strong analysis he has made of this. From any fair reading of the debate, to date, one would have to find that the presentation made has been clear and convincing--that we are not going to be able to do all things for all people. We are not going to be able to afford these very dramatic tax cuts, which I believe are too large, too unfair, and too unpredictable, and still deal with the many challenges that we are facing. I commend the Senators from Montana and Florida, Mr. Baucus and Mr. Graham, for their leadership on this issue of prescription drugs. They have made a very effective case. It is one which I strongly support. I thank them. It is a clear indication of the priorities on this side of the aisle that our first amendment is on the issue of prescription drugs. This amendment recognizes the enormous need for giving assurances for prescription drugs to our seniors. I want to underline that fact. Today, as was pointed out in the presentation of Senator Baucus of Montana and the presentation of the Senator from Florida, this is really a life and death issue. Our debate on the budget is really a question of priorities, and it is also a question of values. What we are saying with this amendment is that we put a high priority on the issue of prescription drugs-- guaranteeing an affordable, dependable, reliable, and effective prescription drug program for our seniors in this country, and for others in desperate need. There is a critical failure to make that commitment in the underlying budget proposal. As has been debated on the floor of the Senate on a number of different occasions, the issue of prescription drugs is a life and death issue. This budget is about priorities. We are talking about life and death issues. For senior citizens, prescription drugs are as important as going to the hospital today. They are as important as the physician's care. If you can, imagine what would happen in this country if the Senate of the United States decided to take away all guarantees of hospitalization under Medicare. The country would be in an uproar. If we decided to take all guarantees of the physician's care away, the country would not tolerate it. Yet for our senior citizens, make no mistake about it, prescription drugs are life and death to them. I listened to my good friend--she is my good friend--from Texas talking about investing in the NIH and producing these new miracle drugs. That will be meaningless unless we are going to set up a system to get the magnificent new drugs out to the people who need them. That is what this amendment is all about. What we see before the Senate--in terms of choice and in terms of priority--is a Republican budget that effectively provides for a $1.6 trillion tax cut for the wealthiest individuals, and only $153 billion for the Medicare program. For the over 1 million individuals who are making more than $1 million, they will get $729 billion. Those seniors who are on Medicare and need prescription drugs get $153 billion. These tax breaks are for the millionaires who benefited very well over the last several years. We are going to give them $729 billion and $153 billion for the 39 million senior citizens and others who depend on Medicare. Who are these senior citizens who depend on Medicare? The average senior citizen who depends on prescription drugs and Medicare is 73 years old, a widow, about $14,000 in income, with multiple ailments. Do we understand that? A senior citizen making about $14,000 gets one-fifth in this budget what we are going to give the wealthiest 1 percent. This is the question of priorities. This chart shows very clearly that about 80 percent of all seniors have incomes under $25,000. Those are the people about whom we are talking. This issue is about priorities. Are we going to give tax breaks to the wealthiest individuals or are we going to say--as a matter of national priority--our senior citizens are a priority? They are in desperate need for a prescription drug program. With all due respect to the proponents of the administration's budget, in the proposal that is before us, just look at what they say in justifying their position on prescription drugs: ``If the Committee on Finance of the Senate reports''--if. Do you think the word ``if'' is in there for the tax cut? This is what the words for the tax cut are: ``the amount by which the aggregate levels of Federal revenues should be reduced.'' It is mandated here. It is mandated for the tax cut but not with regard to prescription drugs. It says: ``If the Committee on Finance of the Senate reports a bill . . . which improves the solvency of the Medicare programs''--what does that mean, ``improves the solvency of the Medicare programs''? That is ``wordspeak'' for if they are going to cut out benefits, because here it says: ``without the use of new subsidies from the general fund.'' Those words ``which improves the solvency'' mean if we report out of the Finance Committee--if they are going to report a bill--it is going to improve the solvency of the Medicare program by cutting out other benefits, because it says here ``without the use of new subsidies from the general fund.'' Therefore, the only way you are going to get prescription drugs is if they decide to do it, and it is only going to happen if they make cuts in the Medicare program and if the bill ``improves the access to prescription drugs.'' Wouldn't you think they would at least put the words in there that would guarantee prescription drugs? No. It is ``access to prescription drugs.'' What in the world is happening? ``Access to prescription drugs''--is that the President's old program, a ``helping hand'' for prescription drugs? Is it a welfare benefit program? What is it? All it says is ``access to prescription drugs.'' It is no guarantee that there will be an effective prescription drug program that will be universal, that will be comprehensive, that will have basic and comprehensive coverage, and that will be affordable, like in the Baucus proposal. It also says: if there is ``. . . access to prescription drugs for the Medicare beneficiaries, the chairman of the Budget Committee of the Senate may''--may--``revise the allocations, but not to exceed the . . . $153 billion.'' We know what is going on here. The Budget Committee on the one hand mandates tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals. There is no contingency in this budget proposal with regard to taxes. There are no ifs, ands, or buts; there is a mandate for the Finance Committee on taxes, but not for prescription drugs. You would think if they were going to put this completely inadequate amount of money into the budget for prescription drugs, they would actually say: ``When the Committee on Finance does report a prescription drug program.'' But, oh, no. So make no mistake about it, this is phony. It is made up. No senior citizen in this country can take any--any--satisfaction whatsoever from what has been included in the budget proposal. The proposal that is before the Senate at this time by the Senators from Montana and Florida remedies that. It puts us on record to say that this is a national priority, this is a reflection of our budget priorities, this is a reflection of our values. We are going to insist that we have an opportunity to express it in this budget, and we shall. Now I think for those who are watching this debate, there are four major criteria by which we should evaluate the budget plan: Is it a fiscally responsible and balanced program? As has been pointed out by the Senator from North Dakota and others, it does not meet that test. Does it protect Social Security and Medicare for future generation retirees? It flunks that test. Does it adequately address the urgent needs, such as the prescription drug program and the real enhancement which is necessary if we are going to make education a priority in this country? We will have an amendment that will be offered by our colleague and friend, the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, on that issue. And does it distribute the benefits of the surplus fairly amongst all Americans? It fails that test. If the American people care about prescription drugs, this amendment is the way to go. It is well thought out. It is responsive to the challenge. It is absolutely essential to meet the health care needs of our senior citizens, at a time when their prescription drug coverage is dropping right through the bottom. A third of our seniors have no coverage. A third of our seniors have no coverage. Another third have employer-sponsored retiree coverage, but it is in rapid decline. We have seen how that has fallen off 40 percent in the last few years.

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object, but I have a similar request; that I follow the Senator from Texas.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I withhold, Mr. President.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is midway through Friday afternoon. We know most Americans are heading home from a busy day working and providing for their families. They may be looking forward over the weekend to some of the basketball championships that are going to be played on Saturday and again on Monday evening. They are looking forward to attending services on Sunday and then spending some time with their families. Then perhaps on Monday, when they go to work, they may hear on the radio or on television that the Senate is involved in what they broadly term ``a resolution on the budget.'' By and large, many are going to wonder exactly what that means and what is its relationship to their lives. They are going to wonder, what is it going to mean to my children's education, what is it going to mean to my parents' prescription drugs, what is it going to mean as far as investing in housing or in law enforcement, or any of the areas of national priority, or what is it going to mean in terms of the security of Medicare and Social Security? They are going to wonder about this. I heard over the last several months the President of the United States talk about the fact that he is going to urge the Congress to pass a very sizable tax cut. He talks about $1.6 trillion tax cut. We know the real figures are far in excess of that because they do not include other factors, as others have pointed out in earlier debates. Senator Conrad has done such a wonderful job not only in educating the Members of the Senate but also in helping the American people understand what is at stake with the President's tax reductions and the real economic impact it will have on the economic stability of our Nation. People are hearing our President say we can have a very sizable tax cut, and even with that tax cut, still be able to preserve Social Security and Medicare and fulfill the kinds of commitments that were made in the course of the campaign on prescription drugs, on education, on national security and defense. Citizens will wonder when they hear others speak in the Senate, principally from this side, when the Democrats say we cannot afford it all. They are going to hear those voices and wonder how do we really put all of this into some perspective. They are hard working and this doesn't make a great deal of sense. Maybe there is some sense that the budget resolution will result in an outcome that perhaps, over the course of this week, citizens will think, if I pay careful attention I will better understand. There are two very obvious conflicting statements we are receiving. One says we can afford the tax cuts. I think the American people are somewhat skeptical of that. They should be. I remember being here in 1981. I was one of 11 who voted against the Reagan tax cut that had similar kinds of support. As a matter of fact, many of those individuals who have been working on this current tax reduction are the same people who worked on President Reagan's tax reduction. At that time, we heard it all. It is the same record. I almost believe it's the same speech. I can hear it then: We can afford to have these major tax cuts. We can afford that and still provide billions and tens of billions in defense, and we are going to meet our national security, and we are going to be able to afford all of this and still see an expanding and growing economy. Of course, that was not the case. We saw the direct result of those tax cuts when this country went into a deficit of $4.6 trillion. People's eyes kind of glaze over when we talk about those figures. For the average family, it means they will pay several hundred dollars a year more on their student loan programs because it will be higher interest rates. They will pay several hundred dollars more on their car payments when buying a new car. They will spend several thousand dollars more, if fortunate enough, in purchasing a new home. That is what happened with the Reagan tax cut. That is the hidden cost that every working family and middle-income family is paying for every single year when we have those very sizable deficits. Those are the facts. I think they understand it. They understood over the period of the last 8 years that we had the longest period of economic growth and price stability. In my part of the country, in New England, in 1992, we were close to 8 percent unemployment, and we were looking at the future with a great sense of trepidation. There was reduction in types of defense, the real estate market was flat. Many of the innovative and creative computer companies had not worked out. We were wondering what the future would hold. Then we put in place an economic program, fiscal policy, monetary policy, investment incentives for the private sector, investments in people, and we saw economic progress. We shouldn't lose track of the fact that the proposal of 1981 was characterized by our current President's father as being voodoo economics. The American people were warned it was voodoo economics. Those are not my words, they were the characterization of President Bush, father of our current President. Now we have a very similar program. The American people are torn, with all these surpluses they keep reading and hearing about, 80 percent of which are estimated to be coming 3\1/2\ to 4 years from now. What family would be betting their own kind of future on what may happen 3\1/2\ years from now in terms of their income? But here we are talking about the future of our nation with all of its implications in terms of the economic policy, with what that means, whether we will have jobs, can you afford a home, or student loans. That is what we talk about in terms of economic policy. We have to ask, as any family would, what does this really mean? We have on the one hand a President who says we can have all of that tax cut and everything is going to be fine. We will be able to invest in education, we can give you that prescription drug program. Don't worry, we will be able to meet our national security even though it is a changing time in national security. We will be able to meet the other kinds of requirements for our country. We can do all of this and preserve Social Security and Medicare, too. Take a deep breath, Mr. Citizen. I think most Americans will say: Yes, let's take a deep breath. What does all that have to do with where we are today? This proposal now that is being advanced by the same party, and in many ways, the same leadership--not the President but in the Republican leadership that we will have this next week--is supposedly the blueprint that gives the assurance to the American people that they are going to be able to afford the tax cut and also that they are going to have sufficient resources to do what this President and what the Republican Party have stated is their commitment to do in enhancing education, providing a prescription drug program, and saving Social Security and Medicare. That blueprint is in what we call the budget. That makes sense. People ought to be able to understand that. If we are going to have those very large surpluses and do everything else, we can draw one conclusion; if we are not, we ought to be somewhat more cautious about where we are going in terms of the sizable tax reduction. I am for a tax reduction, one that is affordable and fair. But that isn't what we are talking about now. We are talking about an excessive one that is unfair. Nonetheless, we are talking about a major tax reduction. So it is fair for the American people to ask their representatives, as has been asked by a number of our colleagues today, and particularly effectively by my very good friend, the Senator from West Virginia who is presiding, where is the meat in this package? Where are we going to find out what is in this proposal that should be on everybody's desk on a Friday afternoon, when we will be starting debate on it on Monday; where is the budget that will say, OK, if we do the President's tax program, this is what the budget is going to be in every one of these programs--in education, prescription drugs, and Medicare. Where is that piece of paper? Where is it? It doesn't exist, Mr. President. Therefore, this kind of debate that we are being asked to conduct by the Republican leaders is basically a sham. Do we understand? It is a sham. Why? Because we have no figures. We have the general comments. We have been able to learn a figure here and a figure there, but we have the broadest kinds of figures. Being able to try and understand what is being talked about, we don't have it. We can't represent in the debate, which is supposed to be about the future of the economic condition of this country, the proposal of the President of the United States--a proposal of billions of dollars, a document that we are unable to have, which is going to give the assurance to the American people what we will be spending to educate their children, or what we will be providing to preserve Social Security or what we will be spending for a prescription drug program. It doesn't exist. It doesn't exist. And, if it did exist, it would have been talked about and referenced by our good Republicans this afternoon when it was challenged by the Senator from West Virginia and a number of our colleagues. It does not exist, Mr. President, in spite of the requests. There is not a family who would follow these kinds of procedures. I mean if we were looking at an American family and a family budget, could we say any family would say that all we care about is the cost of a new car. We only have to care about that. We have sufficient money to buy a new car. We do not know how we will provide for the other necessities--education for our kids, payments on the house, food on the table. But what we are going to do is, since we know we have the money here to buy the car, that is what we are going to do. That is what, effectively, is being done with this phony debate on the budget. You are saying you have the downpayment on the tax cut. But you are not saying what you are going to do about your children's education. You are not saying what you are going to do about your children's health. You are not saying what you are going to do about food. Those are the other elements. They do not exist. What family would do that? If there is not an American family who would do it, why should we? Why should we? Why should we, as representatives of the American family, do it with the Federal budget? That is what we are asking. Is there an American business that would say: We have the money to buy the furniture. We have it right in our cash account. Let's go out and buy the furniture, even though we are going to have to do something in terms of new machinery, even though we are going to have to do something in terms of research in the future. We don't know what that is going to be, but let's go ahead and spend the money anyways. We don't know, we can't tell you how much of that is going to be for research. We can't even tell you what the rent is going to be for our business. We can't even tell you what advertising is going to be. But we have that money for the furniture. Is there an American business that would do that? No. There is not an American business that would do it. That is what we are being asked to do with this budget. That is why this whole process is so badly flawed. Members who are interested in preparing amendments are having difficulty drafting the amendments because we don't know how they fit, this is the core issue. The principal responsibilities that we have on budgetary matters reflect the national priorities for this country. That is what Members of Congress and the Senate are all about, when it comes to budgetary matters: allocating resources on national priorities, that is what it is all about. We have other responsibilities, as we have seen, trying to deal with the proliferation of money in campaign financing, or we have other functions in terms of educating our constituents. We have other important responsibilities with regard to the judiciary. Yes. But when we are talking about the finances, we are talking about the nation's priorities, and we are talking about allocating resources to reflect the nation's priorities. The fact is not that money in and of itself is going to solve our problems. We know that is not the case too often. But it is a reflection of what our national priorities are if we allocate resources. If we, for example, fully fund the IDEA, the program to help local communities educate disabled children, which is being funded now at 17 percent--many of us believe that ought to be up to the 40 percent which we represented. We didn't guarantee it to the States, but we represented was going to be our best effort to try to provide the resources to do that. We really made a commitment to the States --more important, to the families--that we were going to do that. And we have left them short. Is there anyone here this afternoon, anyone left of our Republican colleagues, who will be able to tell us what is going to be in that budget for the IDEA over the next 5 years? How about over the length of this tax cut? That would be pretty interesting, wouldn't it? So families could say: Do we really want to have that much of a tax break, or should we save some of those resources to make sure we are going to provide help and assistance to local communities, local school districts, to provide some relief when they have a particular need with a child who has developmental disabilities, through no fault of their own, and because of those needs and a community's attempt to provide for and mainstream these children? Mr. President, 15 years ago, over 4.5 million of them were tucked away in closets. Now they are out in the schools. We are trying to meet those needs. We don't know what all those needs are going to be. We cannot say. In some areas, they may have very severe kinds of challenges and have scarce resources, and in other communities they may have fewer challenges and lots of resources. We are trying to see if we cannot provide some minimum to help. Isn't that more important than the tax cut? Where in the document is it, how much we are going to expend to help and assist those parents? Where is it? Someone show us, someone show not just Members of the Senate but someone explain it to the people of Massachusetts who think they have a Senator who ought to know that, just like every other State expects their Senators to know it. But, no, no, we are not going to do that. No, we are not going to. One, we either do not have it, or if we have it, we are not going to give it to you--no. No. What was the request that was made? What was the request that was made on our side of the aisle by those who are part of the Budget Committee and our Democratic leadership and our representatives on Appropriations, the committees that are going to have important responsibilities on this? Why don't we just wait, wait for just another week, wait for just another 2 weeks or another 3 weeks until we get that budget so the American people will understand and have a full picture of what is going out and what we are going to commit ourselves to and what is going to be left there for tax relief, tax reduction. What is the answer to that? What is the reason they refuse to do so? None of us want to be making judgments in terms of motivations. But it seems to me, if I was on the other side and believed deeply that this tax reduction of a monumental and growing size--not just as stated by the Senator from Massachusetts, but every publication says it who has been over there, watching the Ways and Means Committee. If they believed in it, they ought to be able to justify it and come out on the floor of the Senate and justify why they believe that is a fair program, and why providing X amount of money is sufficient for the IDEA. They ought to be able to come out here. We ought to be able to debate it. Will that debate take place? No. No. Why not? If they believed in the program as much as they indicated in their speeches, you would think they would relish that opportunity. Let's educate the American people. Let's take it to the American people and convince them we have the right on our side. But, no, they are not willing to do that. They are not willing to do it. Instead, we are left completely in the dark, which is not just a disservice to any single Member of the Senate, but is just an absolutely contemptible attitude to the people we represent, a contemptible, arrogant attitude--contemptible, arrogant attitude to the people we represent. Fairness--supposedly. We are supposed to have a new mood in Washington. We are going to change the rhetoric in Washington. We are going to change the whole parameters of debate and discussion in Washington. It is going to be a new time. This is the worst of the old times. As a member of the Senate, I cannot think back to a time that there has been a conscious attempt to keep the Members of this body in the dark on a major kind of policy issue that affects the nation's future in such a basic and tangible way, not a single incident. Maybe it comes to others, maybe it will come to others, but it certainly did not to me. This is something. I can see people saying: Why are people getting all worked up about this on Friday afternoon? Why didn't we know this earlier? We didn't know this earlier because we didn't know that was going to be the posture and the position of the Republican leadership earlier. We at least thought we might have the opportunity for just a few days to go through and examine it. But no. We are denied that. That has only become more certain and definite in the most recent hours. The American people ought to be very wary of what will be happening in this Senate with this debate next week because we are basically failing to meet our responsibilities to them in an extraordinary and important way. Let me give a very brief concrete example of what I am talking about. As we have seen, there have been bits and pieces of the budget which have been put out. The President has indicated that his budget for prescription drugs will be $153 billion. We have that figure. If the Congressional Budget Office, joint task, and OMB had taken what the President guaranteed in the Presidential campaign, that would be $220 billion. This is $153 billion. With the $220 billion, they were only going to get to less than a third of all the seniors. What are we going to expect with this lesser figure? Let me go on to give some concrete examples with the limited information that we have. The Congressional Budget Office reports that to maintain current Government services--that is effectively to maintain those services that are in effect today--for discretionary spending primarily in education, NIH--it doesn't include Social Security or Medicare--but let's take basic education programs; there would be the prescription drug program--it reports that to maintain those Government services, in the year 2002 it would cost $665 billion. But the administration proposes only $660.7 billion, which falls short $4.3 billion of the CBO's current services figure. In addition, the administration's discretionary budget includes $5.6 billion in emergency reserve and $12 billion in new defense spending. As a result, under the Bush budget, spending on all the nondefense discretionary programs would actually decrease by an average of 4 percent next year, or $13 billion. Cuts to individual programs will substantially exceed the 34 percent next year because President Bush finds the dollars to fund proposed increases for some programs--education, NIH, and community health centers--by cutting other existing programs. Accounting for these proposed discretionary increases means that the administration proposes a 7 percent average cut to unprotected nondefense discretionary programs next year. What does that mean? Seven percent means: 12 million fewer meals delivered to ill and disabled seniors; 550,000 fewer babies receiving nutritional supplements; 300,000 fewer families assisted with heating costs under LIHEAP, with all of the problems we have had not only in the Northeast, Midwest, and the far West; LIHEAP also helps in the South as well; 300,000 fewer families will be assisted under LIHEAP; 45,000 fewer job opportunities for youth at a time when we need greater skills for young people in order to be a part of the job market. When I entered the Senate, you worked down at the Quincy Shipyard. Your father and grandfather worked there. You had a high school diploma, a small house, and 3 or 4 weeks off in the summertime. You had a pretty good life at that time. Now everyone who enters the job market has eight jobs. And young people have to have continuing training and education to make sure they have the skills in order to be able to compete. And with close to 400,000 of them dropping out of high school every year, we are cutting back on training and job opportunities for youth; 45,000 fewer people treated for mental illness and substance abuse at a time when we are facing, for example, the kinds of challenges we have seen in our high schools in recent times. Sure, it is a complex problem and a complex issue. But all you have to do is read that most recent report put out by the Mental Health Institute, and look at the number of troubled young girls in their teens and the challenges they are facing with the explosion that is taking place with their needs; the increasing numbers of suicides by teenagers in our society; the challenges of mental health. In my own city of Boston, a third of the children who go to school every day come home where there is physical and substance abuse or violence in terms of guns. And they are dropped in the schools. We are trying to provide some help and assistance to them. We don't do a very good job. We have eight behavioral professionals in our Boston school system. They are new and are very good, but eight is not enough. Talk to our superintendent who is making a real difference trying to reach out to these children who are facing some extraordinary pressures. Just in this current proposal that we know about, there will be 45,000 fewer people receiving help for mental illness; 30,000 fewer homes prepared for low-income families. Tell that to most of the urban areas. We see in my part of the country the need for help and assistance on home ownership; 25,000 fewer children immunized; 10,000 fewer National Science Foundation researchers, educators, and students; 3,000 fewer Federal law enforcement officials; 1,500 fewer air traffic controllers; 30 fewer toxic waste sites cleaned. That is just a brief snapshot of a number of programs that are targeted to youth or children, or in terms of some of the services that people are expecting that could be reduced or cut under that budget proposal. That is one of the figures that we have. Because President Bush's budget fails to specify what he would cut, it is impossible to determine which programs would be cut less deeply and which would be cut more severely than this. For each program held harmless, the cuts in remaining programs will exceed 7 percent by that much more. Are we entitled to know the whole range? Isn't it only responsible, though, that we are able to say, well, we are willing to accept that, or how many hundreds of billions of dollars in terms of tax? Shouldn't that be the nature of the debate? Why do we have to scrounge around and try to get these kinds of figures that are being kept away from us? They are not in any document here. These are the extrapolations based on the Congressional Budget Office of programs in our particular committee jurisdiction, for the most part. And we see what the impact would be. Should or shouldn't we have that debate, whether it is in these areas here or the whole range of different areas of need we have seen in recent times in the areas of education? I will just take a few more minutes, Mr. President, to look again at the Federal share of education funding. Referring to this chart, funding for early and secondary education has declined since 1980 from 11.9 percent to 8.3 percent in the year 2000. Higher education has seen these reductions. We are going down in terms of the participation. Again, it isn't just money solving all the problems, but there has been a partnership among the Federal, State, and local communities, and our primary responsibility is for those children who are economically disadvantaged. We said in the early 1960s that for children who were particularly economically disadvantaged, we ought to, as a nation, help local communities. That is basically the Federal involvement in terms of helping local communities. That was what we accepted as part of a national commitment, that we were going to try to provide some help and assistance. And we have seen that go down. Yet what is happening on the other side of this? We see that in the year 2000 we have 53 million children going to school, and the total number of children going to school is going to effectively double in future years. The number of children who are going to school will double. Are we going to have this kind of a debate on the budget in relation to that? This chart shows the flow lines, with the growth to 94 million children going to school as compared to the 53 million children going to school in 2000. Shouldn't we, if we are going to at least begin to recognize that there is this partnership, say that in those outyears perhaps we ought to--if we are going to have those surpluses; and certainly no one can guarantee it--look at not just what the needs are today, but we ought to be looking down the road in terms of what we are going to do in terms of a national priority? The chart I was just showing was in relation to elementary and secondary education. What we see with this chart is the corresponding escalation in terms of the total number of children who are going to higher education. That is enormously important in terms of acquiring different kinds of skills so that they are going to be able to be important players in a modern economy. Everyone has understood that for the longest period of time. We ought to have that debate--whether this budget that we should have next week is going to take into consideration the long-range interests, not just the problem that we have $130 billion of needs currently in terms of bringing our elementary and secondary schools up to par, in terms of safety and security, and in terms of their ventilation and electronics so that they will be able to have the modern computers. That is $130 billion and is not even talking about current needs but about future needs. Shouldn't we have that out here alongside of what is going to be allocated and expended in terms of this tax cut? But, oh, no, we can't have that. We can't have that. We can't wait 2 weeks. We can't wait 2 weeks, 3 weeks, 4 weeks, to be able to get that information out so we can have that informed debate. No, we are not going to do that. So I join those who have expressed their concern about this process. I had a good opportunity of listening, with great interest, to my friend and colleague from West Virginia this afternoon back in my office. I hope other Members listened to his excellent presentation in outlining the challenges of this moment because he brings to this debate and discussion not only the sweep of history with his own extraordinary career in public service, but he brings to it, in addition, the most exhaustive understanding and awareness in the history of this institution and its development, and even more than all of that--on top of that, his own experience and his understanding of the history--is his love of the institution and his deep commitment to it. So, Mr. President, when he warns about the real implications for this institution as a servant of the people, it needs to be a warning that is well heeded. And it is not being well heeded. If we are to move ahead the way it has been outlined that we will by the majority leader and the Republican leadership, at the end of next week this will be a lesser institution in terms of representing the people of this country, and that I hope to be able to avoid. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as the Senate continues consideration of campaign finance reform this week, I want to commend Senator Lott and Senator Daschle for their leadership in bringing this important issue before the Senate for a full and open debate. And I thank Senator McCain and Senator Feingold for their commitment and hard work in crafting meaningful, bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation. The enormous amounts of special interest money that flood our political system have become a cancer in our democracy. The voices of average citizens can barely be heard. Year after year, lobbyists and large corporations contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to political campaigns and dominate the airwaves with radio and TV ads promoting the causes of big business. During the 2000 election cycle alone, according to Federal Election Commission records, businesses contributed a total of $1.2 billion to political campaigns. A recent Wall Street Journal article reported that $296 million, almost two-thirds of all ``soft money'' contributions given in the last election, came from just over 800 people each of whom gave an average of $120,000. With sums of money like this pouring into our political system, it's no surprise that the average American family earning $50,000 a year feels alienated from the system and questions who's fighting for their interests. The first step in cleaning-up our system is to close the gaping loophole that allows special interests to bypass existing contribution limits and give huge sums of money directly to candidates and parties. These so-called ``soft-money'' contributions have become increasingly influential in elections. From 1984 to 2000, soft money contributions have sky-rocketed from $22 million to $463 million an increase of over 2000%. We cannot restore accountability to our political system, until we bring an end to soft money. McCain-Feingold does just that. Another vital component of meaningful reform is ending special interest gimmickry in campaign advertising. Today, corporations, wealthy individuals, and others can spend unlimited amounts of money running political ads as long as they do not ask people to vote for or against a candidate. These phony issue ads--which are often confusing and misleading--have become the weapon of choice in the escalating war of negative campaigning. The limits McCain-Feingold places on these ads will help clean-up the system and make it more accountable to the American people. So far, all the Republican leadership in Congress and the President have proposed is reforming the system to allow more money in politics, not less. Increasing hard money contribution limits across-the-board and legalizing soft-money will not restore the public's confidence in our political system. Instead, it will only enhance the influence of big corporations and other special interests. What is even more troubling are Republican efforts to use campaign finance reform as an excuse to silence working families and to prevent their unions from speaking up on the issues they care about. In the 2000 election, corporations outspent labor unions 14-1, yet Republicans would have us believe that muzzling unions--the voice for working families is real campaign finance reform. The reality is that the Republican amendments offered last week to regulate union dues are not reform, but revenge for the extraordinary grassroots effort that the labor movement exerted in the last three Presidential campaigns. Fortunately, the Senate stood up for working families by defeating these anti-union amendments. For the first time in over two decades, the Senate has a real chance to meaningfully reform our campaign finance laws. We will learn a lot during the debate this week about who is committed to real reform and who is committed to maintaining the status quo. Finally, Mr. President, I happen to be one who, along with Senator Scott and Senator Stafford in 1974, offered public financing for House, Senate, and Presidential campaigns. That was in the wake of the Watergate financial scandals. The Senate took a good deal of time debating those issues. We were successful in passing it. So we would have had public financing for primaries for the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Presidency. In the course of those negotiations with the House of Representatives, we were unable to get movement in the House of Representatives. As a result, we eliminated the public financing for the House and Senate and took a partial public financing for the Presidential elections, which is the basis of a good deal of the challenge we are trying to face today. I personally believe we are not going to get real reform until we have a public financing program. Many people say--and I have heard it here on the floor--if we do that, we are using the public's money in politics and somehow this is evil and wrong. They say politics should not include the public's money. The tragic fact of the matter is that the public is paying for campaigns, and they are paying for them every day with the large loopholes that are being written into our Tax Code day after day, year after year, that are favoring many of the special interests that are making the largest campaign contributions. We would save the American public, I believe, a good deal in terms of their taxes, should we move toward a public finance kind of system. That is not the issue that is before the Senate now, but I do believe that the steps that were included in the proposed legislation before us provide for some progress. I intend to support it. I do believe that ultimately we are going to have to come to some form of system for public financing. I hope this will not require that we have a change in the Constitution. There will be those who will debate this issue this afternoon who think that is absolutely essential. At this point, I do not support those changes, but we need to take the necessary steps to address the larger issues, which I think will include public financing, in order to get a handle on this situation. I am a strong believer that public officials ought to be accountable to the people, not to financial interests. We ought to have the debates on the floor of the Senate and the House of Representatives with people who are representing their own best judgment and the interest of their States rather than--which I am afraid is too much the case--the interests driven by special interests and the largest contributors. Until we return to that kind of integrity in the financing of our election system, we are going to have difficulty assuring the American electorate that we are really meeting our responsibilities and have an institution that is of the people, by the people, and for the people, and responsive only to the people. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Cochran in sponsoring the Ready to Learn, Ready to Teach Act of 2001. I commend him for his leadership in improving early learning opportunities for children and families, so that more children come to school ready to learn. In the early 1990s, Dr. Ernest Boyer, the distinguished former leader of the Carnegie Foundation, gave compelling testimony to the Senate Labor Committee about the appallingly high number of children who enter school without the skills to prepare them for learning. Their lack of preparation presented enormous obstacles to their ability to learn effectively in school, and seriously impaired their long-term achievement. In response, Congress enacted the Ready to Learn program in 1992, and 2 years later its promise was so great that we extended it for five years. Because of the Department of Education and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Ready to Learn initiative became an innovative and effective program. By linking the power of television to the world of books, many more children have been enabled to become good readers much more quickly. Many children who enter school without the necessary basic skills are soon placed in a remedial program, which is costly for school systems. It is even more costly, however, for the students who face a bleaker future. Today, by the time they enter school, the average child will have watched 4,000 hours of television. That is roughly the equivalent of 4 years of school. For far too many youngsters, this is wasted time--time consuming ``empty calories'' for the brain. Instead, that time could be spent reading, writing, and learning. Through Ready to Learn television programming, children can obtain substantial educational benefits that turn TV time into learning time. As a result of Ready to Learn television, millions of children and families have access to high-quality television produced by public television stations across the country. Tens of thousands of parents and child-care providers have learned how to be better role models, to reinforce learning, and to be more active participants in children's learning from programs funded through Ready to Learn. For many low-income families, the workshops, books, and television shows funded through this program are a vital factor in preparing children to read. These programs help parents and child-care providers teach children the basics, preparing them to enter school ready to learn and ready to succeed. Ready to Learn provides 6.5 hours of non-violent educational programming a day. These hours include some of the best programs available to children, including Arthur, Barney & Friends, Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, The Puzzle Place, Reading Rainbow, and Sesame Street. A recent study by the University of Alabama found that Ready to Learn works. Parents who participate in Ready to Learn workshops are more critical consumers of television and their children are more active viewers. Children watch 40 percent less television overall, and they watch more education-oriented programming. These parents did more hands-on activities and read more minutes with their children than non- attendees. They read less for entertainment and more for education. They took their children to libraries and bookstores more than non- attendees. Ready to Learn extends beyond the television screen. Thousands of workshops are offered by local television stations, almost always in conjunction with local child-care training agencies or early childhood development professionals. These workshops have trained more than 320,000 parents and professionals who serve and support over 4 million children across the country. Ready to Learn has published and distributed millions of copies of PBS magazine, a quarterly which contains developmentally appropriate games and activities around Ready to Learn programming, parenting advice, news, and other information. In partnership with PBS and other programs, each station receives a minimum of 200 books each month for free local distribution. More than 300,000 books are distributed each year. Twelve of the 15 television programs named ``best for classroom use'' by teachers are PBS programs according to a 1997 study by the Corporation for Public Television. In addition, Ready to Learn stations have won 57 Emmys for their children's programming. Many of the innovations under Ready to Learn have come from local stations. WGBH in Boston is one of the nation's leaders in public broadcasting. It created the Reading Rainbow, and Where in the World is Carmen San Diego, which are leaders in educational programming across the country. Last year, WGBH hosted 34 Ready to Learn workshops in Massachusetts. 1,100 parents and 265 child-care providers and teachers attended. These parents and providers in turn worked with 3,400 children, who are now better prepared to succeed in their schools. WGBY of Springfield is the mainstay of literacy services for Western Massachusetts. This station trained 250 home day-care providers, who serve 2,500 children. A video lending library makes PBS materials available to teachers to use in their classroom. Workshop participants receive training on using children's programs as the starting point for educational activities. Participants receive free books. For some, these are the only books they have ever owned. They receive the PBS Families magazine, in English or Spanish, and they also receive the broadcasting schedules. Each of these resources builds on the learning that begins with viewing the PBS programs. Through partnerships with the Massachusetts Office of Child Care Services and community-based organizations such as Head Start, Even Start, and the Reach Out & Read Program at Boston Medical Center, Ready to Learn trainers are reaching many low-income families with media and literacy information. In Worcester, the Clark Street Developmental Learning School offers a family literacy program that uses Reading Rainbow or Arthur in every session with families. In addition, the school has now expanded its efforts to create an adult literacy center in the school. Many of the parents involved in the Ready to Learn project now attend the adult education program there. Similar successes are happening across the nation. Since 1994, the sponsors of Ready to Learn workshops have given away 1.5 million books. Their program has grown from 10 television stations in 1994 to 130 television stations today. They have conducted over 8,500 workshops reaching 186,000 parents and 146,000 child care providers, who have in turn affected the lives of over four million children. The Ready to Learn, Ready to Teach Act of 2001 that we are introducing today will continue this high-quality children's television programming. Equally important, it will take this valuable service into the next century through digital television, a powerful resource for delivering additional information through television programs. The Ready to Learn, Ready to Teach Act will also increase the authorization of funds for Ready to Learn programs from $30 million to $50 million a year, enabling these programs to reach even more families and children with these needed services. The Act also authorizes $20 million for high-quality teacher professional development. Building on the success of the MathLine program, the bill will expand the program to include materials for helping teachers to teach to high state standards in core subject areas. Participating stations make the teachers workshops available through districts, schools, and even on the teachers' own television sets. In this way, at their own pace, and in their own time, teachers can review the materials, observe other teachers at work, and reflect on their own practices. They can consider ways to improve their teaching, and make adjustments to their own practices. Teachers will also receive essential help in integrating technology into their teaching. Teachers themselves are very supportive of the contribution that television can make to their classrooms. Eighty-eight percent of teachers surveyed in 1997 by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting said that quality television used in the classroom helped them be more creative, 92 percent said that it helped them be more effective in the classroom. Again, I commend Senator Cochran for his leadership, and I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this important legislation, so that many more children can come to school ready to learn.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Cochran in sponsoring the Ready to Learn, Ready to Teach Act of 2001. I commend him for his leadership in improving early learning opportunities for children and families, so that more children come to school ready to learn. In the early 1990s, Dr. Ernest Boyer, the distinguished former leader of the Carnegie Foundation, gave compelling testimony to the Senate Labor Committee about the appallingly high number of children who enter school without the skills to prepare them for learning. Their lack of preparation presented enormous obstacles to their ability to learn effectively in school, and seriously impaired their long-term achievement. In response, Congress enacted the Ready to Learn program in 1992, and 2 years later its promise was so great that we extended it for five years. Because of the Department of Education and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Ready to Learn initiative became an innovative and effective program. By linking the power of television to the world of books, many more children have been enabled to become good readers much more quickly. Many children who enter school without the necessary basic skills are soon placed in a remedial program, which is costly for school systems. It is even more costly, however, for the students who face a bleaker future. Today, by the time they enter school, the average child will have watched 4,000 hours of television. That is roughly the equivalent of 4 years of school. For far too many youngsters, this is wasted time--time consuming ``empty calories'' for the brain. Instead, that time could be spent reading, writing, and learning. Through Ready to Learn television programming, children can obtain substantial educational benefits that turn TV time into learning time. As a result of Ready to Learn television, millions of children and families have access to high-quality television produced by public television stations across the country. Tens of thousands of parents and child-care providers have learned how to be better role models, to reinforce learning, and to be more active participants in children's learning from programs funded through Ready to Learn. For many low-income families, the workshops, books, and television shows funded through this program are a vital factor in preparing children to read. These programs help parents and child-care providers teach children the basics, preparing them to enter school ready to learn and ready to succeed. Ready to Learn provides 6.5 hours of non-violent educational programming a day. These hours include some of the best programs available to children, including Arthur, Barney & Friends, Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, The Puzzle Place, Reading Rainbow, and Sesame Street. A recent study by the University of Alabama found that Ready to Learn works. Parents who participate in Ready to Learn workshops are more critical consumers of television and their children are more active viewers. Children watch 40 percent less television overall, and they watch more education-oriented programming. These parents did more hands-on activities and read more minutes with their children than non- attendees. They read less for entertainment and more for education. They took their children to libraries and bookstores more than non- attendees. Ready to Learn extends beyond the television screen. Thousands of workshops are offered by local television stations, almost always in conjunction with local child-care training agencies or early childhood development professionals. These workshops have trained more than 320,000 parents and professionals who serve and support over 4 million children across the country. Ready to Learn has published and distributed millions of copies of PBS magazine, a quarterly which contains developmentally appropriate games and activities around Ready to Learn programming, parenting advice, news, and other information. In partnership with PBS and other programs, each station receives a minimum of 200 books each month for free local distribution. More than 300,000 books are distributed each year. Twelve of the 15 television programs named ``best for classroom use'' by teachers are PBS programs according to a 1997 study by the Corporation for Public Television. In addition, Ready to Learn stations have won 57 Emmys for their children's programming. Many of the innovations under Ready to Learn have come from local stations. WGBH in Boston is one of the nation's leaders in public broadcasting. It created the Reading Rainbow, and Where in the World is Carmen San Diego, which are leaders in educational programming across the country. Last year, WGBH hosted 34 Ready to Learn workshops in Massachusetts. 1,100 parents and 265 child-care providers and teachers attended. These parents and providers in turn worked with 3,400 children, who are now better prepared to succeed in their schools. WGBY of Springfield is the mainstay of literacy services for Western Massachusetts. This station trained 250 home day-care providers, who serve 2,500 children. A video lending library makes PBS materials available to teachers to use in their classroom. Workshop participants receive training on using children's programs as the starting point for educational activities. Participants receive free books. For some, these are the only books they have ever owned. They receive the PBS Families magazine, in English or Spanish, and they also receive the broadcasting schedules. Each of these resources builds on the learning that begins with viewing the PBS programs. Through partnerships with the Massachusetts Office of Child Care Services and community-based organizations such as Head Start, Even Start, and the Reach Out & Read Program at Boston Medical Center, Ready to Learn trainers are reaching many low-income families with media and literacy information. In Worcester, the Clark Street Developmental Learning School offers a family literacy program that uses Reading Rainbow or Arthur in every session with families. In addition, the school has now expanded its efforts to create an adult literacy center in the school. Many of the parents involved in the Ready to Learn project now attend the adult education program there. Similar successes are happening across the nation. Since 1994, the sponsors of Ready to Learn workshops have given away 1.5 million books. Their program has grown from 10 television stations in 1994 to 130 television stations today. They have conducted over 8,500 workshops reaching 186,000 parents and 146,000 child care providers, who have in turn affected the lives of over four million children. The Ready to Learn, Ready to Teach Act of 2001 that we are introducing today will continue this high-quality children's television programming. Equally important, it will take this valuable service into the next century through digital television, a powerful resource for delivering additional information through television programs. The Ready to Learn, Ready to Teach Act will also increase the authorization of funds for Ready to Learn programs from $30 million to $50 million a year, enabling these programs to reach even more families and children with these needed services. The Act also authorizes $20 million for high-quality teacher professional development. Building on the success of the MathLine program, the bill will expand the program to include materials for helping teachers to teach to high state standards in core subject areas. Participating stations make the teachers workshops available through districts, schools, and even on the teachers' own television sets. In this way, at their own pace, and in their own time, teachers can review the materials, observe other teachers at work, and reflect on their own practices. They can consider ways to improve their teaching, and make adjustments to their own practices. Teachers will also receive essential help in integrating technology into their teaching. Teachers themselves are very supportive of the contribution that television can make to their classrooms. Eighty-eight percent of teachers surveyed in 1997 by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting said that quality television used in the classroom helped them be more creative, 92 percent said that it helped them be more effective in the classroom. Again, I commend Senator Cochran for his leadership, and I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this important legislation, so that many more children can come to school ready to learn.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, Senators Schumer, Sarbanes, Snowe, Dodd, Kerry, Feingold, Lieberman, Biden, Cantwell, Murray, Feinstein, Clinton, Corzine, Dayton, Mikulski, Boxer and I are reintroducing the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. In doing so, we reaffirm our strong commitment to the ERA and full equality for women in our society. Enactment and ratification of the ERA is essential to ensure that the law reflects our country's commitment to equality by guaranteeing equal rights for women. Existing statutory prohibitions against sex discrimination have failed to guarantee basic educational and employment opportunities for women that are equal to those available to men. The need for a constitutional guarantee of equal rights continues to be compelling. In the absence of the ERA, too little progress has been made on women's rights, especially in the area of economic opportunity. An unconscionable gap between the earnings of men and women persists in the workforce. Today, women continue to earn only 72 cents for each dollar earned by men. Taking home less than 3/4 of a pay-check for a full days work is still a common experience for far too many women. Sex discrimination continues to permeate many areas of the economy. While women with college degrees have made significant advances in many professional and managerial occupations in recent years, more than half of working women remain clustered in a narrow range of traditionally female, traditionally low-paying occupations. And female-headed households continue to dominate the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. When a family with children is headed by a woman, the likelihood is high that the family is living in poverty. In 1999, 41.9 percent of all families headed by single mothers lived below the poverty line. Plainly, much remains to be done to secure equal opportunity for women. Enactment of the Equal Rights Amendment alone will not undo generations of economic injustice, but it will encourage women in all parts of the country in their efforts to obtain fairness under the nation's laws. We know from the ratification experience of the 1970's and early 1980's that the road to adoption of the ERA will not be easy. But the extraordinary importance of the effort requires us to persevere. We should approve the ERA in this Congress, and begin the ratification process anew. The ERA must take its rightful place in America's founding document. I ask unanimous consent that the text of our joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, Senators Schumer, Sarbanes, Snowe, Dodd, Kerry, Feingold, Lieberman, Biden, Cantwell, Murray, Feinstein, Clinton, Corzine, Dayton, Mikulski, Boxer and I are reintroducing the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. In doing so, we reaffirm our strong commitment to the ERA and full equality for women in our society. Enactment and ratification of the ERA is essential to ensure that the law reflects our country's commitment to equality by guaranteeing equal rights for women. Existing statutory prohibitions against sex discrimination have failed to guarantee basic educational and employment opportunities for women that are equal to those available to men. The need for a constitutional guarantee of equal rights continues to be compelling. In the absence of the ERA, too little progress has been made on women's rights, especially in the area of economic opportunity. An unconscionable gap between the earnings of men and women persists in the workforce. Today, women continue to earn only 72 cents for each dollar earned by men. Taking home less than 3/4 of a pay-check for a full days work is still a common experience for far too many women. Sex discrimination continues to permeate many areas of the economy. While women with college degrees have made significant advances in many professional and managerial occupations in recent years, more than half of working women remain clustered in a narrow range of traditionally female, traditionally low-paying occupations. And female-headed households continue to dominate the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. When a family with children is headed by a woman, the likelihood is high that the family is living in poverty. In 1999, 41.9 percent of all families headed by single mothers lived below the poverty line. Plainly, much remains to be done to secure equal opportunity for women. Enactment of the Equal Rights Amendment alone will not undo generations of economic injustice, but it will encourage women in all parts of the country in their efforts to obtain fairness under the nation's laws. We know from the ratification experience of the 1970's and early 1980's that the road to adoption of the ERA will not be easy. But the extraordinary importance of the effort requires us to persevere. We should approve the ERA in this Congress, and begin the ratification process anew. The ERA must take its rightful place in America's founding document. I ask unanimous consent that the text of our joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Nickles, has proposed that we remove Section 304 from McCain-Feingold. Senator Nickles has further committed that this will be the last amendment he will offer on questions relating to union use of dues or fees for political purposes. Section 304 of McCain-Feingold, entitled ``Codification of Beck Decision,'' would require unions to establish procedures for workers to object to paying dues that would go toward political activity. Unions would be required to notify workers of their rights; to reduce the fees paid by any worker who makes an objection; and to provide an explanation of their calculations. Some of my colleagues claim that Section 304 expands upon and does not, in fact, codify Beck. My colleague, Senator McConnell, for example, asserts that McCain-Feingold goes beyond Beck by authorizing unions to charge objecting non-members for things that Beck clearly prohibited, such as community service projects, charitable donations, lobbying activities, and union organizing. Beck, however, did nothing of the sort. The precise holding of Beck, and I quote, is that the National Labor Relations Act ``authorizes the exaction of only those fees and dues necessary to `performing the duties of an exclusive representative of the employees in dealing with the employer on labor-management issues.' '' That is it. Consistent with standard practice under Supreme Court labor law holdings, Beck left development of all the details including which expenses are related to the ``duties of an exclusive representative,'' or what procedures unions must develop to the National Labor Relations Board and the courts. It did not hold that a union's charitable contributions, organizing expenses and the like are not related to collective bargaining. Nor did it say that lobbying activities could not be related to collective bargaining. In fact, in a case called Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association, decided in 1991, the Supreme Court held precisely the opposite. It stated that, even under the strict first amendment standards that apply to Government employment, objectors may be charged for ``lobbying activities relate[d] . . . to the ratification or implementation of'' a collective bargaining agreement. My Republican colleagues cannot codify their view of what the law should be by saying that Beck made it the law. That is simply not what Beck did. Some of my colleagues across the aisle also claim that there is a difference between the Beck holding--that unions may require only those dues necessary to support collective bargaining--and the McCain- Feingold formulation--that unions may not require dues for political activities unrelated to collective bargaining. This is a distinction without a difference. The effects of Beck and McCain-Feingold are exactly the same. The NLRB and the courts will interpret the requirements of the law--and their results will be the same--whether Section 304 is included in the bill or not. Thus, the NLRB and the courts will determine whether payments made by a union are related to collective bargaining or not. If they are, all employees must pay for them. If they are not, then employees who object may opt out of paying for those costs. Beck sets this rule and McCain-Feingold codifies it. For these reasons, I do not believe that the Nickles amendment is necessary. Beck will be the law with or without Section 304 of McCain- Feingold. And since the Beck decision, close to 13 years ago, every union has created a procedure to ensure that dues-paying workers can opt out of a union's political expenditures. These procedures universally involve notice to workers of the opt-out rights provided under Beck; establishment of a means for workers to notify the union of their decision to exercise these rights; an accounting by the union of its spending so that it can calculate the appropriate fee reduction; and the right of access to an impartial decisionmaker if the worker who opts out disagrees with the union's accounting or calculations. So why was Section 304 included in McCain-Feingold in the first place? It was included only because my Republican colleagues wanted additional insurance that unions would obey the law. But as the scores of court cases and NLRB decisions addressing Beck issues attest, there are ample means under existing law to ensure that unions follow the dictates of the Beck decision. These means will exist with or without McCain-Feingold. Unions will conduct themselves in precisely the same way whether or not Section 304 of McCain-Feingold is enacted. Whether we choose McCain-Feingold as written or Senator Nickles' amendment to McCain-Feingold is irrelevant. So what will happen if we remove this provision? Absolutely nothing. Nothing, that is, unless some of my Republican colleagues use this action as an excuse to introduce yet more amendments that would prevent unions from representing the voices of working families in the political process. Senator Nickles has committed that he will introduce no such amendments, and I thank him for that. As my friend Senator Feingold has stated, we have amply debated--and resoundingly rejected-- any such paycheck deception amendments, and we should not waste this body's time by endlessly debating, and rejecting, similar bills. So let me be clear. If the Senate votes for the Nickles amendment today, it will not in any way change the law that governs union collection of dues for political purposes. Paycheck deception supporters may claim that the Nickles amendment shows that supporters of McCain-Feingold have abandoned dissenting workers or shown their unwillingness to enforce Beck rights. This is patently false. If it is adopted, the Nickles amendment will show that we acknowledge as all in this body must that unions are already bound by the same rules that would govern them if Section 304 were enacted. My colleagues should not allow paycheck deception supporters to twist this basic understanding into an excuse for advancing their pro-business, anti- worker agenda.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I have a copy.

Mr. KENNEDY. Would you look at this language and tell me if I am wrong? I think it is very important. You are representing this is evenhanded. This is not evenhanded. We want to understand why it isn't evenhanded or the Senator should admit it isn't, if you are trying effectively to gut the representatives of working families.

Mr. KENNEDY. It is the position of Senators McCain and Feingold that is done under the codification of the Beck decision in the first place. You talk about the parity between corporations and unions. Yet on page 3 you say ``for any corporation described in this section to use funds from its general treasury.'' So you are talking about the use of funds by corporations. But on the other hand, if it is a labor organization, you are talking about collecting or assessing such employees' dues or initiation fees or other payments. On the one hand, you require one criteria for corporations for expenditures, and on the other hand, for the unions, you have an entirely different definition. Can you explain why you favor corporations in your language to the disadvantage of unions? Why do we have such a disparity in this when you tried to represent to the Senate that you are trying to be evenhanded?

Mr. KENNEDY. In your amendment, you talk about cycle; you don't talk about day. A cycle is generally referred, under the Federal Election Commission, to be the whole 2-year-period. We are talking about these transitions in terms of stockholders just from 1 day. I am wondering how the permission for stockholders would be met in those circumstances.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator may be attempting, but that is not what the language says. On page 2, it says under ``Prohibition.--Except with the separate, prior, written, voluntary authorization of a stockholder, in case of a corporation''--and once we have 99 percent of the businesses, according to Dun & Bradstreet, not covered by the stockholders, they are even, by mere definition, excluded. Last week more than 6.7 billion shares were traded in the New York Stock Exchange. How were those covered? Would the Senator's amendment apply to just the stockholders included last week?

Mr. KENNEDY. These are of the businesses----

Mr. KENNEDY. I am telling you they do not, so effectively your amendment does not apply to the 99.7 percent under your definition. We always get these amendments maybe a half an hour beforehand. In our review, the Senator's amendment excludes 99.7 percent of all corporations. Another question I have----

Mr. KENNEDY. It cannot because you refer to those that have stockholders, page 2. Since 99 percent of the corporations do not have them, then they are not covered.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to ask my friend and colleague from Utah some questions, if he will be good enough to answer some questions. Since 99.7 percent of American for-profit corporations are privately held, how does this amendment apply to them?

Mr. KENNEDY. If I can start with 15 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today Senator Specter, Senator Leahy, Senator Jeffords, Senator Graham, Senator Chafee, and I introduce the bipartisan ``Nutrition Assistance for Working Families and Seniors Act.'' Our goal is to repair specific holes that time has worn in the nation's core nutrition safety net--the Food Stamp Program. Hunger is a silent crisis affecting families all across America. No corner of our land is immune from this tragedy. The Nation can well afford to ensure that the average food stamp benefit of 79 cents per meal is available to everyone who truly needs it. In a time of economic prosperity, the moral imperative to feed the hungry may be clearest. But in a time of economic uncertainty, the need to feed the hungry should be clearest. The bottom line is that too many working families and seniors in America have trouble putting enough food on the table. On February 26, 2001, the New York Times included a compelling account of the difficulties faced by the Payne family from Cleveland, Ohio. Mrs. Payne states that ``it's difficult to work at a grocery store all day, looking at all the food I can't buy, so I imagine filling up my cart with one of those big orders and bringing home enough food for all my kids.'' She and her husband, a factory worker, routinely go without dinner to be sure that their four children have enough to eat. The Payne family was among thousands of working families that have recently turned to emergency food pantries and soup kitchens in search of help. The Payne family did not know that they were eligible for food stamps. Nationwide, participation in the Food Stamp Program has declined 34 percent since 1996, four times faster than the decline in the poverty rate. This means that over 2 million fewer people who live in poverty are accessing food stamps today. Over a quarter of the reduction in food stamp participation between 1994 and 1998 resulted from welfae reform and its elimination of food stamp eligibility for legal immigrants, both by directly rendering legal immigrants ineligible for food stamps, and by discouraging their U.S. citizen children from accessing food stamps. The results are predictable. The U.S. Department of Agriculture determined that 4.9 million adults and 2.6 million children lived in households that experienced hunger during 1999. The Urban Institute finds that 33 percent of former welfare recipients have to skip or cut meals due to lack of food. The most vulnerable people among us--recent immigrants, children, and the elderly--are the ones who face the greatest difficulty. Republicans and Democrats agree that we need to work together in good faith to deliver senior citizens from having to choose between heating and eating, and from having to choose between paying for their prescription drugs or for their groceries. There is also widespread agreement that more must be done to end childhood hunger. A July 1999 General Accounting Office study concludes, ``Children's participation in the Food Stamp Program has dropped more sharply than the number of children living in poverty, indicating a growing gap between need and assistance.'' Sadly, the enormity of this crisis is confirmed by a major study released today by the Urban Institute's National Survey of America's Families, which focuses upon the impact that welfare reform has had on the children of immigrants. The report finds that 80 percent of the children of immigrants are United States citizens, but the immigrant status of parents prevents these citizen children from receiving the aid they need. According to the Urban Institute, 24 percent of children of immigrants live in poverty compared to 16 percent of children of citizens, and 37 percent of children of immigrants live in households that have difficulty putting enough food on the table each month, compared to 27 percent of children of citizens. The report also shows that access to public benefits makes a difference for immigrant families. Largely because Massachusetts pays to provide food stamps to all legal immigrants, food insecurity rates there are relatively similar for children of immigrants and children of citizens 28 percent of immigrant children versus 22 percent of native children). Texas provides no such benefit, however, and this fact is reflected in its food insecurity rates. Over 49 percent of children of immigrants lack secure access to adequate nutrition in Texas, compared to a third of children of citizens. While hunger and malnutrition are serious problems for people of all ages, their effects are particularly damaging to children. Hungry and undernourished children are more likely to become anemic and to suffer from allergies, asthma, diarrhea, and infections. They are also more likely to have behavioral problems and difficulty in learning. When children arrive at school hungry, they cannot learn. If we do not address this silent crisis, our considerable investments in education and early learning activities will not have the full positive impact that they should. Clearly more must be done for both the children of citizens and the children of immigrants. A strong Food Stamp Program is essential to ensure that all people in America can get the food they need to stay healthy. In seven common sense steps, this bill reaches goals shared by Republicans and Democrats alike--promoting self-sufficiency, encouraging transitions from welfare to work, and eradicating hunger among children and seniors. First, this bill restores eligibility for food stamps to all legal immigrants, a matter of fundamental fairness and basic need. The Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured reports that immigrant families on average pay $80,000 more in taxes than they receive in local, state, and federal benefits over a lifetime. For 30 years prior to welfare reform, food stamps were available to legal immigrants, and as today's Urban Institute report confirms, legal immigrants are now among those most in need of nutritional assistance. Our laws recognize that legal immigrants need access to employment, education, and health care, yet all of these efforts are compromised when legal immigrants are denied access to basic nutrition. The effort to prevent legal immigrants from accessing food stamps never made sense from a policy perspective, and I am pleased to see considerable bipartisan momentum building to restore eligibility. Our key allied in the effort to restore eligibility include the National Conference of State Legislatures, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, the National Black Caucus of State Legislators, the Hispanic Caucus, leaders of all major religious denominations, and over 1,400 immigration, hunger, and social justice organizations that are active in every state. Over twenty newspapers have published editorials urging restoration of food stamp eligibility to legal immigrants. With such strong and broad public support, I am hopeful that immigrants will not have to wait another year to have their access to basic nutrition restored. Second, this bill ends the child penalty under current food stamp law. Just as the marriage penalty in our tax code unfairly penalizes some couples, existing law unfairly limits nutritional assistance to some families with children. This bill fixes the problem by indexing the food stamp standard deduction to family size in a way that simply ensures that every family that is in deep poverty, with earnings under 10 percent of the poverty limit, will receive the maximum current food stamp benefit regardless of family size. Over half of the benefit from this provision will go to working families. Third, this bill addresses a core nutritional concern of senior citizens and other low-income families on fixed incomes, many of whom qualify for the minimum food stamp benefit. The food stamp minimum benefit has remained at $10 since 1977. This bill raises the minimum benefit to $25 over the course of five years, and then indexes it to inflation. Fourth, this bill ensures that food stamp law treats child support payments like income when calculating benefits, by disregarding 20 percent of these payments in the benefit determinations. This measure is consistent with last year's overwhelming House approval of a plan to encourage states to pass more child support payments through to low- income families. Parents who know that their children will directly benefit if they pay their child support are more likely to remain on the job, pay their child support, and, most importantly, remain involved with their children. Fifth, this bill gives states more options for helping families make the transition from welfare to work. Current food stamp law allows a 3- month state option for a transitional food stamp benefit. This bill mirrors Medicaid's six-month Medicaid transitional benefit for food stamps, simplifying state recordkeeping, increasing state flexibility, and helping TANF families transition to work. Sixth, this bill improves access to food stamp information, helping to ensure that families like the Paynes are aware of the help that remains available to them. It helps rural families apply for food stamps using online and telephone systems, eliminating the need to travel to food stamp offices. It also supports stronger public-private partnerships that generate and distribute information about the nation's nutrition assistance program. Finally, this bill increases federal support for emergency food programs, 71 percent of which are operated by faith based organizations. Sharp increases in requests for help from food pantries and soup kitchens have occurred over the past year despite steep declines in food stamp participation. Many food banks find themselves unable to meet the increased requests for help. Nationally, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and America's Second Harvest have independently documented a 15 to 20 percent increase in needs over 1998. 79 percent of Massachusetts food pantries funded through Project Bread reported serving more working poor in 1998, and 72 percent reported helping more families with children. To ensure that emergency food needs are met without unnecessarily tapping Food Stamp resources, this bill increases funding for The Emergency Food Assistance Program by 10 percent. The total cost of this bill amounts to about $2.75 billion over five years, which would increase the cost of the Food Stamp Program by about 2 percent. This bill's cost is also modest in relation to the current ten-year non-Social surplus--it uses but 0.2 percent of the projected federal surplus. We've often heard that hunger has a cure. This is a call to action, not a truism, for the many people who have cooperated in developing this legislation. I'm proud to work with them for its prompt passage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.