Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to bring to the attention of the Senate the continued deterioration of the position which had been accepted previously by the Senate on the issue of bankruptcy. That may seem an issue that is distant and remote to many of our colleagues or many around this country, but it is an issue that will affect basically working women who are disproportionately hit by the pressures of bankruptcy because of the allocations of credit at the time of separation or their shortage of alimony or the shortage of child payments. It hits them disproportionately. It hits older workers disproportionately in terms of their medical bills. About half of those bankruptcies are a result of the escalation and the costs of medical bills, coupled with the fact of prescription drug costs and the shortage of prescription drugs. That is another matter of priority. That is another matter we believe ought to be addressed. The failure of this body to address providing decent quality prescription drugs on the basis of need and on the ability to pay is also a major gap in our Medicare system. We should be taking action on that. When we don't, we find increasing numbers of individuals are falling into bankruptcy because they can't afford the prescription drugs. The credit cards last for only so long, and the payments they receive in terms of working families last only so long, and then they get overwhelmed with their payments and they go into bankruptcy. There is a third group of individuals who go into bankruptcy as a result of being downsized. They worked hard all of their lives. The people who go into bankruptcy have the same work habits as those who do not. The overwhelming majority are hard-working Americans who fall into hard times. As has been stated time and time on the floor of this body, it is always useful to ask who is going to benefit from a piece of legislation and who is going to pay a price with the passage of a piece of legislation. I have not seen in this Congress or any recent times the scales so unbalanced. Those that are going to benefit are going to be the credit card companies, banking interests; those harshly treated will be average working Americans who have fallen into difficult times, either economically or because of health care needs or because of age and the job challenges they are facing. Only recently there was an excellent article in Time magazine. The total number of individuals going into bankruptcy is declining. Still, we have this economic power that is trying to jam this legislation through the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States behind closed doors. I was listening to my colleagues talk about actions taken behind closed doors. They find out on the bankruptcy legislation these are matters that are taking place behind closed doors as well. The Time magazine article pointed out what is happening to an average family. Charles and Lisa Trapp are mail carriers in Plantation, FL, where Annelise, 8 years old, developed a muscular disorder and needed around-the-clock nursing care. Lisa had to quit her job, and with $124,000 in doctor bills, insurance will not cover paying off credit cards, which is the least of their worries. They have filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy. The medical costs are what the Trapp family insurance did not cover. They had to use credit cards to buy groceries and they have an accumulation of $59,000 in credit card bills. The point is, they used the funds available on the credit cards for their groceries so they could use what income they had to pay for the needed prescription drugs. This family, under this Republican bill, is treated harshly and poorly. The Trapp family are a brave and courageous family. And this situation is being replicated. It is fundamentally wrong. Mr. President, for over two years, Congress has been struggling to reform the bankruptcy laws. From the beginning, the debate has been unfairly slanted toward the credit card companies and banks at the expense of vulnerable Americans. It is especially disturbing that the final bill may well be drafted without the appointment of conferees or even public meetings. The American people deserve a better process and a fairer bill. A fair bankruptcy reform bill will balance the needs of debtors and creditors. It will not allow credit card companies and other special interests to take unfair advantage of thousands of citizens who find themselves in economic crisis--citizens like the Trapp family recently featured in Time magazine. The Trapps are not wealthy cheats trying to escape their financial responsibilities. They are a middle class family engulfed in debt because of circumstances beyond their control. Like half of all Americans who file for bankruptcy, the Trapp family had massive medical expenses. Charles and Lisa Trapp met while working as mail carriers in Plantation, Florida. They married and have three children--the youngest, Annelise, has a degenerative muscular condition. She requires round-the-clock medical care. In her wheel chair or in bed, she uses a respirator at least eight hours a day. As a result, the Trapps have $124,000 in doctors' bills that insurance won't cover, and $40,000 of credit card debt for groceries and other necessities. The plight of the Trapp family is similar to that of many other American families confronted with serious illness and injury. Over 43 million Americans have no health insurance, and many millions more are under- insured. Each year, millions of families spend more than 20 percent of their income on medical care. Older Americans are hit particularly hard. Too often, each of these families and senior citizens is one serious illness away from bankruptcy. A report recently published in Norton's Bankruptcy Adviser says, The data reported here serve as a reminder that self- funding medical treatment and loss of income during a bout of illness or recovery from an accident make a substantial number of middle class families vulnerable to financial collapse . . . For middle class people, there is little government help, so that when private insurance is inadequate, bankruptcy serves by default as a means for dealing with the financial consequences of a serious medical problem. The data collected in the report make clear that this problem affects both the poor and the middle class. In many cases, health insurance is insufficient to protect a family with medical problems. ``The bankruptcy courts are populated not only with the uninsured, but also with those whose insurance does not cover all the financial consequences of their medical problems''--families facing medical debts that have outrun their policy limits--facing co-payments beyond their means--facing lost income not covered by their insurance. When the health care system fails these men and women and children, the bankruptcy system catches them before they hit rock bottom. What will happen to these families if we fundamentally destroy the bankruptcy system? What will happen to those who can't pay their bills because they were laid off in a merger or downsizing that left them without adequate income or basic benefits? Over half of all Americans say that the reason they file for bankruptcy is because of job loss. That fact is not surprising. Despite low unemployment, a record-setting stock market, and large budget surpluses, Wall Street cheers when companies-- eager to improve profits by down-sizing--lay- off workers in large numbers. Often, when workers lose a good job, they are unable to recover. In a study of displaced workers in the early 1990s, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that only about one-quarter of these workers were later employed in full-time jobs paying as much as or more than they had earned at the job they lost. Too often, laid-off workers are forced to accept part-time jobs, temporary jobs, and jobs with fewer benefits or no benefits at all. For many hard-working men and women, these job benefits--particularly a pension-- can be the difference between a secure retirement and poverty. But instead of action by Congress to expand pension benefits, an offensive anti-pension provision was quietly slipped into the bankruptcy reform bill at the last minute. It is wrong for Congress to let credit card companies and other lenders pressure workers to give up the protection they now have for their pensions in bankruptcy. Clearly this so-called ``pension waiver'' provision should be struck from the final bill. It would also be a mistake to ``cap'' the amount of pension assets that a worker can protect in bankruptcy. Federal law already imposes strict limits on pension contributions. Unlike homestead abuses, retirement plans can't be used as part of a scheme to divert assets before bankruptcy. It was the combination of a medical problem and a job loss that pushed Maxean Bowen--a single mother--into bankruptcy. Maxean told Time magazine that she was a social worker in the foster-care system in New York City when she developed a painful condition in both feet that made her job, which required house calls, impossible. As a result, she had to give up her work and go on the unemployment rolls. Her income fell by 50 percent. She had to borrow from relatives, and she used her credit cards to make ends meet. Like so many others in similar situations, she believed that she would soon be back on her feet and able to pay her debts. But, like thousands who file for bankruptcy, even when Maxean was able to work again, she owed far more than she could repay. She was at the mercy of her creditors. ``They would call me on the job . . . that was very embarrassing. They call you early in the morning. They call you late at night. Sometimes I get calls at 10 o'clock at night. And they are very nasty.'' Maxean tried paying her creditors a few hundred dollars when possible, but it wasn't enough to keep her bills from piling up because of interest changes and late- payment fees. Maxean said she was ``going crazy.'' If she was going crazy, so are many others. Reports show that by the time individuals and families file for bankruptcy protection, more than 20 percent of income before taxes is going toward paying interest and fees on their debts. Time magazine reports that study after study proves that Chapter 7 debtors have little if any ability to repay more of their debts. ``The notion that debtors in bankruptcy court are sitting on many billions of dollars that they could turn over to their creditors is a figment of the imagination of lenders and lawmakers.'' Maxean's plight was made worse by the fact that she is a single mother. In 1999, over 500,000 women who head their own households filed for bankruptcy to try to stabilize their economic lives. 200,000 of them are also creditors--trying to collect child support or alimony. The rest are debtors struggling to make ends meet. Divorced women are four times more likely to file for bankruptcy than married women or single men. The House and Senate bankruptcy bills are especially harsh on divorced women and their children. Under current law, an ex-wife trying to collect support enjoys special protection. Her claims--like very few others--survive her husband's bankruptcy and provide a realistic opportunity to collect support payments from her former husband. Under the pending bill, however, credit card companies are given a new right to compete with women and children for the husband's limited income after bankruptcy. It is true that the bill moves support payments to the first priority position in the bankruptcy code. But that only matters in the limited number of cases in which the debtor has assets to distribute to a creditor. In most cases--close to 99 percent --there are no assets, and the list of priorities has no effect. The claim of ``first priority'' in bankruptcy is a sham to conceal the real problem--the competition for resources after bankruptcy. This legislation creates a new category of debt that cannot be discharged after bankruptcy--credit card debt. And, when women and children are forced to compete after bankruptcy with these sophisticated lenders, the women and children lose. In ways like these, the bankruptcy reform bills currently being negotiated by the House and the Senate are a travesty. They remove the bankruptcy safety net that has been a life-line for the poor and middle class. The credit card companies will receive a huge windfall, and they will walk away with few incentives to act more responsibly. And in a further insult, the House Republican negotiators want to preserve one of the most flagrant fat-cat loopholes--the ability of wealthy debtors to escape their responsibilities by using the homestead loophole in the current bankruptcy code. The Time magazine article makes these points effectively by comparing the plight of two debtors--James Villa and Allen Smith. James Villa is a 42 year-old stockbroker living in a $1.4 million home in Boca Raton, Florida. He was President, CEO and indirect owner of 99.5 percent of the stock of H.J. Meyers & Co., Inc--a brokerage firm with offices around the country. During the firm's heyday, Mr. Villa bought expensive cars, boats, and jewelry. But he fell on hard times when Massachusetts securities authorities found that his firm had engaged in fraudulent and unethical practices. Before further action could be taken, the firm closed its doors and Mr. Villa moved to Florida. That state has a broad homestead exemption, which allowed him to protect $1.4 million of assets--his Boca Raton home--from creditors, including clients of the brokerage firm who had lost their savings. How can that be fair, when Allen Smith, a retired security worker, has lost everything? Mr. Smith served in the Coast Guard during World War II and later went to work at Chrysler. He was eventually laid-off during a downsizing. Too young to collect Social Security, he started working as a security guard. He and his wife Carolyn bought a home and lived a solid middle-class lifestyle until their lives started to crumble. Beginning in 1984, Mr. Smith's wife lost her toe, then one leg, then the other leg to diabetes. To accommodate her disability, Mr. Smith renovated their home using money borrowed against the equity. He developed throat cancer, high blood pressure, and a heart murmur and had to leave his job. The family was $115,000 in debt--double their annual income--so the Smiths filed for bankruptcy. They agreed to pay $100 a month under the requirements of Chapter 13. Carolyn Smith died later that year, and Mr. Smith was left--without her companionship or Social Security checks--to struggle alone. Eventually--after being hospitalized with a stroke, after cataract surgery, and after an irresponsible friend didn't pay his mortgage--Mr. Smith's Chapter 13 bankruptcy failed. His situation isn't unusual--two- thirds of all Chapter 13 plans fail--but the consequences were devastating. Mr. Smith will be moved to Chapter 7, and he will lose his home. Any bill sent to the President for his signature must not make Allen Smith's life more difficult while protecting James Villa's ability to live in luxury. Congress must pass a better and fairer bill worthy of the name reform. The President should not hesitate to veto a bad bankruptcy bill that flunks the fairness test. For over a century, the bankruptcy laws have provided needed relief for those who fall on hard times. This Congress should not be a party to unfair reforms designed to benefit the powerful credit card industry and wealthy debtors, at the expense of the large numbers of needy citizens whom the bankruptcy laws are supposed to help, not hurt.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, last Tuesday, the Senate suspended consideration of the education bill. I hope that our Republican friends have just temporarily suspended the bill, and not expelled it. We owe it to the nation's schools, students, parents, and communities to complete action on this priority legislation. So far, we have considered only eight amendments to the bill over six different days. When the bankruptcy bill was on the floor, our Republican colleagues did everything they could to satisfy the credit card companies. That bill was debated for 16 days, and 67 amendments were considered. Obviously, when the credit card companies want a bill, our Republican friends put everything else aside to get it done. But when it comes to education, the voices of parents and children and schools and communities go unheard. We should be debating education. It's a top priority for parents. It's a top priority for communities. It's a top priority for the country. And, it should be a top priority for Congress. It is wrong for the Senate to leave the nation's schools with so much uncertainty about whether and when they will get urgently needed help to ensure better teachers, modern schools, smaller classes, and safe classrooms. Democrats are ready to debate and address these issues now, and finish Senate consideration of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. But, we have no assurance from the Republican majority that we will be able to do so. Clearly, there are strong disagreements about how to address the issue of education reform. But, we should all agree to make it a top priority for final action. Republicans have made block grants the centerpiece of their education proposal. But, block grants are the wrong approach. They undermine the targeting of scarce resources to the highest education priorities. They eliminate critical accountability provisions that ensure better results for all children. The block grant approach abandons the national commitment to help the nation's children obtain a good education through proven effective reforms of public schools. The lack of commitment by our Republican colleagues to genuine education reform is also clear in the recent actions by the Senate and House Appropriations Committee. Both bills eliminate critical funding for reducing class size and improving teacher quality. Instead, they put some of those funds into the title VI block grant. Both bills do nothing to guarantee communities help for modernizing their school buildings. Both bills eliminate critical funding for helping states to increase accountability for results and turn around schools that aren't getting results. At the same time that they expand support for block grants and eliminate support for greater accountability, Republicans are cutting funds to communities to improve education. Under the President's budget request, communities would have received a total of $4.05 billion in the coming fiscal year to reduce class size, modernize school buildings, and improve teacher quality. The Republican bill block grants these programs and cuts total funding by $2 billion below the President's request in the House and $500 million below the President's request in the Senate. Under the Republican block grant scheme, communities get less aid and parents get no guarantee that their children's classes will be smaller, that their teachers will be better qualified, or that their schools will be safe and modern. Block grants are the wrong direction for education and the wrong direction for the nation. They do nothing to encourage change in public schools. In the Republican ESEA bill, states are not held accountable for educational results until after 5 years. By that time, many students will have lost five years of potential gains in student achievement. Block grants also leave the door open for needless waste and abuse. They provide no focus on proven effective strategies to help schools. Senator DeWine, in urging increased accountability, pointed out the poor history of states and local school districts in spending Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities funds. He characterized those dollars as being ``raided'' for pet projects or to support ineffective methods. Under block grants, school districts and schools can use scarce public tax dollars to support fads and gimmicks, with no basis in research or proven practice. They can even use the funds to support the football team, buy computer games, or buy new office furniture, if they decide that these uses serve so-called ``educational purposes.'' In short, block grants provide no assurance that federal education funds will be used where they're needed most--to improve instruction and teacher quality, strengthen curriculum, reduce class size, provide after-school learning opportunities, or support other proven strategies for helping all students reach high standards. The Republican block grant also undermines local control, because it concentrates educational decision-making at the state level. By authorizing the state to decide whether it will enter into a performance agreement, the Republican bill gives the state ultimate authority to determine the parameters of the agreement, including which schools and which school districts will receive funds, and how funds may be spent. Far from giving local districts flexibility, as the policies and waiver provisions under current law do, the Republican block grants will increase the power of governors over local education policy at the expense of local districts, local school officials, and parents. The American people want a strong partnership that includes the important involvement of parents, local school boards, local community authorities, States, and the Federal Government. We are not looking to take over education. We are saying that educating the nation's children is a top national priority, and Congress ought to be a strong partner in efforts to improve education. The Republican proposal says there will only be one member in the education partnership, and that will be the State. It won't be the local community or parents, because they give all of the funds to the States. Then the States make the judgment about how it is going to go down to the local level. Parents want a guarantee that, with scarce resources, we are going to have accountability for results and for getting national priorities. They know and we know small class sizes work. We guarantee there will be a well-qualified teacher in every classroom. We guarantee more afterschool programs, which are absolutely essential to help and assist children and enhance their academic achievement and accomplishment. We guarantee strong accountability provisions. We guarantee resources for technology in schools so we can eliminate the digital divide, as Senator Mikulski speaks to with great knowledge, awareness, and, correctness. But all of those efforts I have just mentioned are at risk with the proposal of the Republicans to just provide a blank check to the States and let the States work out what they might. The Republican block grant approach abdicates our responsibility to do all we can to improve the current federal efforts. All that the GOP approach does is hand off the many current problems to states and local communities to solve. Block grants are particularly harmful, because they abdicate our responsibility to help those most in need, such as homeless children, migrant children, and immigrant children. States rarely spend their own funds to help these children now--and they won't do it under a block grant. These children need targeted federal assistance to help them succeed in school. Prior to the time the Federal Government provided targeted programs for the homeless under the McKinney Act, the Emergency Immigrant Education program, and the Migrant Education program, these children were not getting the help they needed. State help for these children is virtually nonexistent. The only help and assistance for any of these children is the assistance provided in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. But the Republican bill wipes out these programs. The parents of migrant children are among the most industrious, yet neglected, populations in the country. Poverty, mobility, health problems, isolation from the larger community are characteristics common to migrant families. In the 1997 to 1998 school year, an estimated 752,000 migrant children were counted as eligible for the Migrant Education Program. That would be block granted under the Republican blank check approach. Obviously, the States didn't worry about the problems of migrant children because they were here today and gone tomorrow. That has been the history. We are talking 752,000 children who are going to be cast adrift. We had seen important progress, as I mentioned in the debate last week, where those working on the education of migrant children have worked out a process where they were able to get children's school records, provide some waivers that were essential to get children enrolled in the schools. We are having at least some positive impact in helping meet the needs of some of these children. With a block grant that goes to the States, that effort will be ended. Without the Federal Migrant Education Program, there are few incentives for schools to implement a means for improving instruction for migrant children. The Republican block grant bill also wipes out assistance for the homeless children. Nationwide, homeless children are isolated and often stigmatized. They face significant barriers to obtain adequate services of all kinds, including education. According to the December 1999 report of the Interagency Council on the Homeless, most homeless children are young, 20 percent are age 2 or younger; 22 percent are age 3 to 5; 20 percent are age 6 to 8; and 33 percent are between 9 and 17. According to a 1990 report from the Better Homes Fund, a nonprofit charity dedicated to helping homeless families, homeless children face extremely stressful situations. Each year, 90 percent of homeless children move up to three times; 40 percent attend two schools; 38 percent attend three or more schools; 21 percent of homeless children nationwide repeat a grade due to homelessness, compared with only 5 percent of other children; 14 percent of homeless children are suspended from school, double the rate of other children. This is what the National Coalition on Homeless says: The Federal program requirements that accompany McKinney funds focus upon State responsibility to ensure equal opportunity for homeless children and youth. They set forth the rights of homeless children to receive the same educational opportunities as their nonhomeless peers. Under the Republican proposal, States that opt for the block grant would no longer have to follow these programs. Without the McKinney Act requirements, homeless children and youth are shut out of school again, destroying their chance for school success. It is wrong for Congress to turn its back on these children. Finally, the block grant ignores the pressing needs of immigrant children. In 1997, the foreign-born population in the United States was 25.8 million, the largest in the Nation's history. In fiscal year 2000, States reported that more than 864,000 recent immigrant students were enrolled in schools, with an increase of these students of 55,000 over 1995. Large numbers of immigrant students traditionally have been enrolled in schools in seven States: Arizona, California, Illinois, Florida, New Jersey, New York, and Texas. However, with the increase of immigrant students in other States, the percentage in these States has fallen from 80 percent in 1995 to 71 percent in 2000. This year, a number of other States reported a dramatic increase in the recent immigrant student enrollment: Connecticut, up 72 percent; Georgia, up 39 percent; Louisiana, up 34 percent; Michigan, up 35 percent; Missouri, up 50 percent; Oregon, up 28 percent; Tennessee, up 33 percent; Utah, up 38 percent. Immigrant students, particularly those with limited-English proficiency, are at significant risk of academic failure. Among all youth ages 16 through 24, immigrants are three times more likely to be drop outs than native born students. Our overall goal in this legislation should be to write an education guarantee to parents, children, and schools, a guarantee that we will work with them to improve their schools and ensure every student receives a good education. We want to guarantee a qualified teacher is in every classroom. We want to guarantee small class sizes. We want to guarantee modern and safe schools. We want to guarantee afterschool opportunities for children to help them succeed in school and stay off the street. We want to guarantee the parents have more opportunities for significant improvement in their public schools. We want to guarantee a good education for homeless children, migrant children, and immigrant children. We want a guarantee that States, districts, and schools are held accountable for results. We want to guarantee parents that their children are free from guns in their schools. Yesterday, to celebrate Mother's Day, hundreds of thousands of mothers from across the United States marched on the Nation's Capital to insist we do more to protect children from the epidemic of gun violence that continues to plague our country. The Million Mom March has focused the attention of the entire country on this critical challenge. The question now is whether Congress will at long last end the stonewalling and act responsibly on gun control. For many months, Democrats have continued to ask the Republican leadership for immediate action on pending legislation to close the loopholes in the Nation's gun laws, but every request so far has been denied. In fact, as a conferee on the juvenile violence legislation, in 8 months in caucus, we have had 1 day of meetings. The reason is because, evidently, the leadership is sufficiently concerned that perhaps as a result of a conference between the House and the Senate we might pass sensible and responsible legislation that deals with gun show loopholes in our present laws. Yesterday, hundreds of thousands of mothers from across the United States marched on the Nation's Capital to insist that we do more to protect children from the epidemic of gun violence that continues to plague our country. The Million Mom March has focused the attention of the entire country on this critical challenge. The question now is whether Congress is willing at long last to end the stonewalling and act responsibly on gun control. For many months, Democrats have continued to ask the Republican leadership for immediate action on pending legislation to close the loopholes in the Nation's gun laws, but every request has been denied. Each day we fail to act, the tragic toll of gun violence climbs steadily higher. In the year since the killings at Columbine High School in Colorado, 4,560 more children have lost their lives to gunfire, and countless more have been injured. It is inexcusable that the Republican Congress continues to block every attempt to close the gaping loopholes that make a mockery of the Nation's current gun laws. The guns used to kill 9 of the 13 people murdered at Columbine High School were purchased at a gun show. The woman who bought the guns for the two young killers said she never would have purchased the weapons if she had to go through a background check. Perhaps six year old Kayla Rolland in her first grade class in Flint, Michigan, would be alive today, if the gun her classmate used to kill her had a child safety lock on it. If Congress had listened after the school killing in West Paducah, Kentucky in 1997--or Jonesboro, Arkansas in 1998--or Columbine High School in 1999--thousands more children would have been alive to celebrate Mother's Day yesterday. By refusing to learn from such tragedies, we condemn ourselves to repeat them. How many wake-up calls will it take before Congress finally stops kowtowing to the National Rifle Association and starts doing what is right on gun control? The evidence is all around us that more effective steps are needed to protect schools and children from guns. In a survey of over 100,000 teenagers conducted last month, 30 percent said they could get a gun in a few hours--and 11 percent said they could get a gun in one day. Four in ten of these teenagers said there are guns in their homes; more than half say they have access to those weapons themselves. The fact is there are more than a million children returning home today to homes where there are guns that are loaded and unlocked. No other major nation on earth tolerates such shameful gun violence. According to a study by the Centers for Disease Control in 1997, the rate of firearm deaths among children 0-14 years old is nearly 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrial countries combined. In fact, I heard it said best from a person who was out marching yesterday on The Mall for the Million Mom March. She was asked about the presence of guns in our society and responded that only the United States and the IRA allow virtually unlimited access to guns. At least the IRA are preparing to turn theirs in. At the very least, Congress owes it to the nation's children to take stronger steps to protect them in their schools and homes. Gun laws work. Experience is clear that tough gun laws in combination with other preventive measures have a direct impact on reducing crime. In Massachusetts, we have some of the toughest gun laws in the country. We have a ban on carrying concealed weapons. A permit is required to do so. Local law enforcement has discretion to issue permits, and an individual must show a need in order to obtain the permit. We have a minimum age of 21 for the purchase of a handgun. We have increased penalties for felons in possession of firearms. We have an adult responsibility law. Adults are liable if a child obtains an improperly stored gun and uses it to kill or injure himself or any other person. We require the sale of child safety locks with all firearms. We have a Gun-Free Schools Law. We have a licensing law for purchases of guns. We have enhanced standards for the licensing of gun dealers. We have a waiting period for handgun purchases. It takes up to 30 days to obtain a permit. We have a permit requirement for secondary and private sales of guns. We have a ban on the sale of Saturday Night Specials. We have a requirement for reporting lost or stolen firearms. As Boston Police Commissioner Paul Evans testified last year in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, ``Any successful approach to youth violence must be balanced and comprehensive. It must include major investments in prevention and intervention as well as enforcement. Take away any leg and the stool falls.'' Commissioner Evans also stated that to be effective, efforts must be targeted and cooperative. Police officers must be able to work closely with churches, schools, and health and mental health providers. After- school programs are essential to help keep juveniles off the streets, out of trouble, and away from guns and drugs. There are partnerships between the Boston Public Schools and local mental health agencies. School districts are employing mental health professionals. Teachers and staff focus on identifying problems in order to prevent violence by students. The Boston police work actively with parents, schools and other officials, discussing incidents in and out of school involving students. The Boston Public Health Commission promotes programs by the Boston Police Department. In developing an effective approach like this, Boston has become a model for the rest of the country. The results have been impressive. The success of Boston's comprehensive strategy is borne out in these results: From January 1999 through April 2000, no juvenile in Boston was killed with a firearm. In 1990, 51 Boston young people, ages 24 and under, were murdered by a firearm. Last year, there were 10 such murders. Reports from emergency rooms about firearm injuries are also down dramatically. It's no coincidence that the firearm death rate in Massachusetts is significantly lower than the national average. When we compare states with tough gun laws to those that have weak gun laws, the differences are significant. In 1996, across the nation, the number of firearm- related deaths for persons 19 years old or younger was 2 deaths per 100,000 persons. In states that have the weakest gun laws, the number was significantly higher: Utah had 5.1 firearm-related deaths per 100,000 people--two and a half times higher than the national average. Indiana had 5.9 firearm-related deaths per 100,000--three times higher. Idaho had 6.9 firearm-related deaths per 100,000--three and a half times higher. Mississippi had 9.2 firearm-related deaths per 100,000--four and a half times higher. It is clear that strict gun laws help to reduce gun deaths. Yet, every time that Democrats propose steps to keep guns out of the hands of young people--proposals that would clearly save lives--our Republican friends have nothing to say but no. No to closing the gun show loophole. No to child safety locks. No to support for stricter enforcement of current gun laws. No to every other sensible step to reduce the shameful toll of gun deaths. Nothing in any of our proposals threatens in any way the activities of law-abiding sportsmen and women. Surely, we can agree on ways to make it virtually impossible for angry children to get their hands on guns. We can give schools the resources and expertise they need to protect themselves from guns, without turning classrooms into fortresses. We must deal with these festering problems. There is ample time to act before this session of Congress ends this fall. We could easily act before the end of the current school year this spring. We could act this week, if the will to act is there. All we have to do is summon the courage and the common sense to say no to the National Rifle Association--and yes to the Million Mom March. I want to take a moment or two more to talk about the issue which has been raised by others who say, really the answer is just Federal enforcement of existing gun laws. The National Rifle Association calls in public for more effective enforcement of the nation's gun laws. But it has waged a shameful and cynical campaigns over the years to undermine Federal enforcement activities by restricting the budget for the very enforcement it calls for. Between 1980 and 1987, for example, the number of ATF agents was slashed from 1,502 to 1,180, a reduction of over 20 percent, and the number of inspectors dropped from 655 to 626 even as the number of licensed firearms dealers soared. For the past 25 years, Congress has provided ATF with far fewer funds than necessary to support enough inspectors and agents to effectively enforce the nation's firearms laws. In 1973, ATF and the Drug Enforcement Agency had comparable numbers of agents and nearly equal funding--about $250 million a year. From 1973 to 2001 we see the cuts-- in the number of agents--that have been made when we had the Republican leadership here in the Senate and in the House. By 1998, however, the number of DEA agents had almost tripled, from 1,470 to 4,261, while ATF's remained constant. 1,631 ATF agents were on payroll in 1998--only 9 more than in 1973. Yet there are more licensed firearm dealers in the United States than there are McDonalds franchises. A substantial increase in funding is needed if we're serious about helping ATF enforce the gun control laws. At every opportunity, the NRA and the Republicans say ``We don't need more gun laws. We need to enforce what's already on the books.'' Well, enforcement is exactly what Federal agents and prosecutors are doing. The facts are clear: Overall firearms prosecutions are up. Criticism of Federal prosecution statistics ignores the basic fact that both Federal and State authorities prosecute gun cases, and Federal authorities generally focus on the worst type of offenders. The gun lobby says that the Federal Government should prosecute every case in which a person lies on the background check form, without exception. The fact is that ATF and DOJ do not have the resources to prosecute every case. Instead, their strategy is to have state law enforcement officials investigate and prosecute most of the gun violations while federal law enforcement officials pursue the more serious cases. Although the number of Federal prosecutions for lower-level offenders--persons serving sentences of 3 years or less--is down, the number of higher-level offenders--those sentenced to 5 years or more-- is up by nearly 30 percent--from 1049 to 1345. Do you understand that, Madam President? The number of Federal prosecutions for low-level offenders serving a sentence of 3 years or less is down. The number of higher level offenders of 5 years or more is up more than 30 percent. Why don't our Republican friends quote those statistics? At the same time, the total number of Federal and State prosecutions is up sharply--about 25 percent more criminals are sent to prison for State and Federal weapons offenses than in 1992, from 20,681 to 25,186. The number of high-level offenders is up by nearly 30 percent. The total number of Federal and State prosecutions is up. Twenty-five percent more criminals were sent to prison for State and Federal weapons offenses in 1997 than in 1992. The instant background check, which the NRA initially fought, is a successful enforcement tool. It has stopped nearly 300,000 illegal purchases since 1994. It has also resulted in the arrests of hundreds of fugitives. Violent crimes committed with guns, including homicides, robberies and aggravated assaults, fell by an average of 27 percent between 1992 and 1997, and the Nation's violent crime rate has dropped nearly 20 percent since 1992. The results speak for themselves. The increased collaboration among Federal, State, and local law enforcement has resulted in a more efficient distribution of prosecutorial responsibilities, a steady increase in firearms prosecutions on a cumulative basis, and, most important, a sharp decline in the number of violent crimes committed with guns. Those are the facts. We will hear, as I have heard in the Judiciary Committee and in various debates: This is not really about more laws; what we need to do is prosecute. The Republicans have cut the agents who are responsible for the enforcement of the laws by 20 percent, and on the other hand, we have seen the total prosecutions, not only the prosecutions but the results of those prosecutions--people going to jail as a result of the combination of Federal, State, and local prosecutions--has increased significantly. I hope in these final weeks of debate we will not keep hearing those arguments that have been made. I mentioned Boston a few moments ago and about the stringent gun laws. Also, as Chief Evans has pointed out, we need effective prosecution; we need the laws, but we need prevention as well. In Boston, between 1990 and 1999, homicides dropped by 80 percent. In 1990, there were 152 homicides in Boston as compared to 31 in 1999. Indeed, serious crime across the board is at its lowest level in 30 years. In 1999, no juvenile in Boston was murdered by a gun and none so far this year. In 1990, 51 young Boston people, age 24 and under, were murdered by a firearm. Last year, there were 10; this year, thus far, 3. Between 1990 and 1999, there was an 80-percent drop in young people age 24 and under murdered by a firearm. There can be effective efforts, and they are making them. We ought to continue to eliminate, to the extent possible, the proliferation of weapons in the hands of children and those who should not have them. Every day in this country 12 children die. We need to make sure we take steps, including safety locks, parental responsibility, smart-gun technology, and the range of options to cut into that figure dramatically. We can do that. We cannot solve all the problems of violence in our society, but we can make a very important downpayment on it. That power is in our hands. I hope very much we will heed the mothers of this country who spoke out yesterday and listen to their message. They have spoken the truth with power. We should respond. I look forward to working with my colleagues in making sure we do. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in welcoming the Million Mom March to Washington this weekend. Their campaign for sensible gun control has captured the attention of the nation, and it deserves to capture the attention of Congress too. Their message is irresistible. Gun crimes and gun violence are a serious challenge to the nation, and it is wrong for the United States Senate to bury its head in the sand on this fundamental issue. More than a year has passed since the Columbine tragedy, and we have failed to finish the job we began last year on the Juvenile Justice Bill. Democrats have repeatedly asked for the House and Senate conferees to meet and approve a final bill that includes the Senate-passed gun control provisions. We wait and wait and wait, while schools and children across the country continue to suffer from the epidemic of gun violence that plagues so many of our communities. Too many children are in continuing danger of gun violence in their homes and schools and neighborhoods. These are not new problems, but they have become increasingly serious, and it is irresponsible for Congress to look the other way and ignore them. Our goal is to support parents, youths, educators, law enforcement authorities, and communities. We have a shared responsibility to find solutions to these problems. Fifty million school children are waiting for our answer. The greatest tragedy of the school shootings across the nation is they have not shocked us into doing everything we can to prevent them in the future. By refusing to learn from these tragedies, Congress is condemning the country to repeat them. How many wake-up calls will it take before Congress finally responds? Current statistics on children and guns are unacceptable. For every child killed with a gun, four others are wounded. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the rate of firearm deaths of children 0-14 years old is twelve times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrial nations combined. Over 6,000 students were expelled in 1996-97 for bringing guns to school. The Journal of the American Medical Association reports that between 36% and 50% of male eleventh graders believe they could easily get a gun if they wanted one. In a 1997 survey, 9% of high school students had carried a weapon to school during the 30 days preceding the survey; 6% had a gun. Between July 1, 1994 and June 30, 1998, there were 173 violent deaths in schools. In a recent survey of over 100,000 teenagers conducted last month, 30% said they could get a gun in a few hours and 11% more said they could get a gun in one day. 1 in 5 of these teenagers have felt afraid at school since the Columbine High School shootings a year ago. 4 in 10 of these same teenagers said there are guns in their homes, and more than half of them say they have access to those weapons. In 1996, more than 1300 children aged 10-19 committed suicide with firearms. Unlike suicide attempts using other methods, suicide attempts with gun are nearly always fatal, which means that a temporarily depressed teenager will never get a second chance at life. Two-thirds of all completed teenage suicides involve a firearm. The firearm injury epidemic, due largely to handgun injuries, is ten times larger than the polio epidemic of the first half of this century. The nation's gun laws are a disgrace. We need to close the gun show loophole, support child safety locks on guns, and provide greater resources for strict enforcement of the gun laws now on the books. The guns used to kill nine of the 13 people murdered at Columbine High School were purchased at a gun show. The woman who bought the guns for Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold said that she would never have purchased those guns if she had to submit her name for a background check. More than 800 Americans, young and old, die each year from guns fired by children under the age of 19. It shouldn't take a Columbine, a Jonesboro, or an urban drive-by shooting to persuade us to act. Perhaps six-year-old Kayla Rolland would be alive today if the gun that her classmate used had a child safety lock on it. Perhaps a 13-year-old school girl in Deming, New Mexico and a school vice-principal in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania would still be alive if the young shooters did not have access to the guns. American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrial nation. In a recent year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 children in Great Britain, 57 children in Germany, 109 children in France, 153 children in Canada--and 5,285 children in the United States. Shame on the National Rifle Association, shame on the Republican Party, and shame on the United States Congress for tolerating figures like that. My fervent hope is that the Million Mom March will succeed where so many other efforts in recent years have failed, and that Congress at long last will be persuaded to act. The irresistible force of the Million Mom March is about to meet the immoveable object of Congress--and I intend to do all I can to see that the immoveable object of Congress finally moves.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Senator Daschle, Senator Moynihan, and I, and the majority of the members of our caucus are introducing legislation to provide prescription drug coverage under Medicare. It is a program supported not only by the Senate Democrats but by House Democrats and the President as well. Senior citizens deserve prescription drug coverage under Medicare. Democrats are committed to providing it and providing it this year. It is long past time for Congress to mend the broken promise of Medicare. Medicare is a guarantee of affordable health care for every senior citizen, but that promise is being broken every day because Medicare does not cover prescription drugs. The need is urgent. Too many elderly citizens face an impossible choice between food on the table and medicine they need to stay healthy or to treat their illnesses. They take half the pills their doctors prescribe, or do not even fill a needed prescription at all because they cannot afford the high cost of the prescription. They pay twice as much for the drugs they need because they pay full price, while almost everyone with private insurance pays less because of negotiated discounts. Too many seniors end up in the hospital at immense cost to Medicare because they cannot afford the drugs they need, or can't afford to take them correctly. Opponents say we cannot afford this coverage, in spite of the budget surplus. The issue is priorities. Health care for the elderly is more important than new tax breaks for the wealthy. Others say this coverage should be available only to the elderly who are poor. But senior citizens want Medicare, not welfare. They should not be forced into poverty in order to obtain the medications they need. The ongoing revolution in health care makes this coverage more essential now than ever. Coverage of prescription drugs under Medicare is as critical today as coverage of hospital and doctor care. Senior citizens need help now. The President knows it, Democrats and the House and Senate know it, senior citizens know it, and so do their children and grandchildren. Congress should listen to their choices. The time for excuses is over. The time for action is now. I will take a few moments of the Senate's time to review where we are on the issue of Medicare and Medicare coverage. This chart shows the number of senior citizens who have prescription drug coverage. Senior citizens lack affordable, reliable, quality coverage. The only group of senior citizens who have coverage today that is reliable, affordable, and dependable are the 4 million seniors covered under Medicaid. Today, we have 12 million senior citizens who effectively have no coverage at all; that is a third of all of our senior citizens. Eleven million seniors have employer sponsored coverage, and I will come back to that because employer sponsored coverage is disappearing. Three million seniors have coverage under Medicare HMOs, 4 million are covered under Medigap--and we will examine that particular phenomenon--4 million under Medicaid, and 3 million now switched plans during the year or have other coverage. We have a about a third who have no coverage whatsoever. Another third have employer-sponsored coverage, but we are finding that this coverage is declining rapidly. Medicare HMO coverage is also declining, and Medigap coverage is often unaffordable. That is the current situation. Let's look a little further. If we look at the income of senior citizens, what we see is that 57 percent of senior citizens have incomes under $15,000; 21 percent have incomes above $15,000 but under $25,000. If you add those together, obviously 78 percent are below $25,000. Elderly people in our country have very modest means--very, very modest means. The average income for a person over 65 is just above $13,000. The cost of coverage is going up. I just showed a chart of the different types of coverage we had, pointing out one-third of our senior citizens have no coverage, and another third have health coverage that is related to their former job. The next chart shows firms offering retiree health coverage. The chart indicates coverage ``drops 25 percent.'' There was a 25-percent drop in employers covering prescription drugs for their retirees in the 3 years from 1994 to 1997. This is a dramatic reduction in coverage. Remember I showed the other chart that said a third had coverage through employer sponsored retiree benefits? This shows that the number of firms offering retiree health benefits is dropping absolutely dramatically. We saw there were a number of our senior citizens, about 4 million, who had coverage through Medicare HMOs. Look at what is happening to Medicare HMO coverage. It is inadequate and unreliable. First of all, the drug benefit is offered only at the option of HMOs, so some HMOs offer coverage and others do not. More than 325,000 Medicare beneficiaries lost their HMO coverage this year. That is because the HMOs moved out of the areas where those seniors live. Seniors lost their coverage. Look at this: 75 percent of Medicare HMOs will limit prescription drug coverage to less than $1,000 this year. That is an increase of 100 percent in the number of HMOs capping coverage since 1998. And 32 percent of Medicare HMOs have imposed caps of less than $500 this year. So even though you have 4 million Americans who have prescription drug coverage through Medicare HMOs, what you find out is there is a cap on the amount of prescription drugs they are able to receive. After that, they pay for all prescription drugs themselves. What the trend is, the dramatic trend, is that the dollar cap is going down and down, with a third of HMOs having a cap of $500. Many seniors in Medicare HMOs will exceed the cap. What we find is that Medicare HMO prescription drug coverage is increasingly inadequate and increasingly unreliable. There is a dramatic reduction in the number of employers providing coverage for retirees, and a dramatic increase in the amount of money that individual seniors are paying out-of-pocket, even if they have some coverage under their HMO. The third group I pointed out were those who had Medigap coverage, drug coverage which basically is unaffordable. These are sample Medigap premiums for a 75-year-old. In Delaware, just over $2,600; just under $2,000 in New York and Iowa; and just under $2,400 in Maine and Mississippi. Against that background, what has been happening to the cost of drugs? The average seniors income is just above $13,500. A third of all of our seniors have no coverage; another third are losing it dramatically. We find that 4 million of the remaining have increasingly limited coverage due to caps, so they are paying more and more out of pocket. Medigap, which is another way they are able to get some coverage, is going right up through the roof. So they are being hard- pressed, and all at a time that 78 percent of all the elderly people have incomes below $25,000. Let's see what is happening to the cost of prescription drugs. Since 1995, drug costs have been growing at double-digit rates. On this chart: Percent increases in drug costs. Let's look at the increase in the cost of the drugs: almost 10 percent in 1995, 10 percent in 1996, 14 percent in 1997, almost 16 percent in 1998, 16 percent in 1999. Let's compare that to the Consumer Price Index for all goods. It is 2.5 percent in 1995, it is 3.3 percent in 1996, 1.7 percent in 1997-- 1.7 percent cost-of-living increase and look at the cost of the prescription drugs-- 14 percent. In 1998 it is 1.6, and 2.7 in 1999, and look at the cost of these drugs. This is not just a peripheral issue for our seniors. When we passed the Medicare program in 1964, as we heard so eloquently today from both our leader on this side, Senator Daschle, and Congressman Gephardt, we had a lot of the same kinds of criticisms that are being made now against this program: This is the beginning of a takeover by the Federal Government; this is the beginning of socialism. Of course, they were wrong then and we were right because the Medicare program has worked. But one area we did not take care of was prescription drugs because private coverage at that time did not provide for drug coverage. I daresay prescription drugs are as necessary for our senior citizens today as hospital care or doctor care. Prescription drugs coverage is necessary for elderly people. Yet it is left out. In a very important way, our Medicare system is not living up to its guarantee--for the men and women who fought in the wars and brought this country out of the depths of the Depression and have educated their children--to live their golden years with a degree of security and peace with respect to their health care needs under Medicare. We are now finding now with that major gap--today, more than 95 percent of the private sector provides prescription drug coverage although they are dropping it for retirees--that Medicare does not provide prescription drug coverage. It is a major gap. We are saying: Let's fill that gap; let's meet our commitment to our seniors; let's include under Medicare a program that is going to be worthy of our names and which is absolutely essential if we are going to have our seniors--our parents and grandparents--live in the peace, dignity, and security they deserve. That is why we believe the program ought to be voluntary, there ought to be coverage for all, it ought to provide basic coverage and have catastrophic coverage, and it ought to be affordable. The President has embraced and endorsed the program, and it is endorsed by the overwhelming majority of our caucus in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, and it is strongly supported by our leader and Mr. Gephardt. The President in the Rose Garden today asked our Republican friends to join in this effort to pass this legislation this year. We have to pass something that is going to be meaningful and worthy of our efforts. He invited our Republican friends to join us in this effort and outlined the program and spelled out the details as well as the cost of this program. When we pass this program and send it to the President's desk, we in the Congress will say: Why did it take us so long? Every day we delay passing this program, millions of our fellow citizens are being asked to make decisions about their very lives which they should not have to make. That is wrong. We ought to respond. We know how to do it. The question is whether we have the will. We are going to insist this Senate and House of Representatives address this issue in this Congress. We give those assurances to the American people, and we invite our friends on the other side of the aisle to join us in meeting our responsibilities to our senior citizens.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to an outstanding officer of the U.S. Navy. Captain George Street, a World War II submarine war hero and Medal of Honor winner, proudly served our country in the United States Navy for over 39 years. Sadly, he passed away on February 28, in Andover, Massachusetts, his home for many years after his retirement from the Navy in 1966. Captain Street was a native of Richmond, Virginia, and a 1937 graduate of the United States Naval Academy. He served on two naval surface combat ships, the USS Concord and the USS Arkansas, before reporting to submarine school. His first submarine assignment was in the USS Gar where he made nine wartime patrols in the Pacific. On his very first patrol, as the submarine's Torpedo Data Computer Operator, his leadership and courage earned him the Silver Star for actions in which the Gar sank over 10,000 tons of enemy shipping. On a subsequent patrol, he earned a second Silver Star as the Gar's Assistant Approach Officer. Operating in Japanese-controlled waters, he played a vital role in sinking three enemy ships, and was also instrumental in enabling the Gar to evade a barrage of enemy countermeasures and return safely to port. Captain Street continued to build upon his brilliant service as the war went on. In November 1944, he took command of the USS Tirante and on March 3, 1945, he led the submarine out of Pearl Harbor on her first war patrol. Within a month, Captain Street and the crew of the Tirante sank three enemy ships off the shores of Japan and survived a seven-hour counterattack by Japanese ships. Captain Street continued his patrol in the East China Sea, near Japan's southern coast, wreaking havoc on Japanese shipping. On April 14, 1945, the Tirante began a major battle that would earn the crew a Presidential Unit Citation and result in President Harry S. Truman awarding Captain Street the Congressional Medal of Honor. Receiving intelligence that a major Japanese transport ship and escort vessels had anchored in a harbor on Quelpart Island off the coast of Korea, Captain Street took the fight to the enemy. He surfaced the Tirante and manned his gun crews since the Tirante would have to fight her way out on the surface if attacked. He maneuvered to penetrate the mined, shoal-obstructed, and radar-protected harbor. He evaded enemy patrols and, once in the inner harbor, fired two torpedoes into a large Japanese ammunition ship, completely destroying it. The resultant explosion revealed the Tirante's position to the enemy. In the light of the burning ammunition ship, two Japanese Mikura class frigates spotted the Tirante and attacked. Quickly bringing his submarine to bear on the leading frigate, Captain Street counterattacked with a torpedo, and then swung his boat around and fired his last torpedo at the other frigate. Clearing the harbor at emergency full-speed-ahead, he slipped undetected along the shoreline and safely evaded a depth charge attack by a pursuing patrol. The ammunition ship and both frigates had been sunk. Captain Street was awarded the Navy Cross for another bold action two months later. On June 11, 1945, the Tirante sank several hostile freighters and other vessels, then moved through treacherous shallow waters into the heart of Nagasaki Harbor, where he sank another Japanese ship and destroyed docking facilities vital to the enemy. The Tirante surfaced and escaped from the harbor under hostile gunfire from ship and shore batteries. After World War II, Captain Street continued to serve with distinction as the commanding officer of three naval surface ships, as a submarine division commander, and as the commander of a submarine group. On his retirement in 1966, he became an active member of numerous local, state, and national veterans organizations and was a popular speaker at patriotic and community functions in Massachusetts and New England. Captain Street often helped veterans and veterans organizations, and had a strong interest in talking with and inspiring school children. Captain Street's dedication and service to his country and community were extraordinary. I am grateful, as I know the entire nation is, for his lifetime of outstanding service. He was a great American hero, role model, and citizen. He will be missed, but his memory and example will live forever.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Daschle and Mr. Kennedy pertaining to the introduction of S. 2541 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Senator Daschle, Senator Moynihan, and I, and the majority of the members of our caucus are introducing legislation to provide prescription drug coverage under Medicare. It is a program supported not only by the Senate Democrats but by House Democrats and the President as well. Senior citizens deserve prescription drug coverage under Medicare. Democrats are committed to providing it and providing it this year. It is long past time for Congress to mend the broken promise of Medicare. Medicare is a guarantee of affordable health care for every senior citizen, but that promise is being broken every day because Medicare does not cover prescription drugs. The need is urgent. Too many elderly citizens face an impossible choice between food on the table and medicine they need to stay healthy or to treat their illnesses. They take half the pills their doctors prescribe, or do not even fill a needed prescription at all because they cannot afford the high cost of the prescription. They pay twice as much for the drugs they need because they pay full price, while almost everyone with private insurance pays less because of negotiated discounts. Too many seniors end up in the hospital at immense cost to Medicare because they cannot afford the drugs they need, or can't afford to take them correctly. Opponents say we cannot afford this coverage, in spite of the budget surplus. The issue is priorities. Health care for the elderly is more important than new tax breaks for the wealthy. Others say this coverage should be available only to the elderly who are poor. But senior citizens want Medicare, not welfare. They should not be forced into poverty in order to obtain the medications they need. The ongoing revolution in health care makes this coverage more essential now than ever. Coverage of prescription drugs under Medicare is as critical today as coverage of hospital and doctor care. Senior citizens need help now. The President knows it, Democrats and the House and Senate know it, senior citizens know it, and so do their children and grandchildren. Congress should listen to their choices. The time for excuses is over. The time for action is now. I will take a few moments of the Senate's time to review where we are on the issue of Medicare and Medicare coverage. This chart shows the number of senior citizens who have prescription drug coverage. Senior citizens lack affordable, reliable, quality coverage. The only group of senior citizens who have coverage today that is reliable, affordable, and dependable are the 4 million seniors covered under Medicaid. Today, we have 12 million senior citizens who effectively have no coverage at all; that is a third of all of our senior citizens. Eleven million seniors have employer sponsored coverage, and I will come back to that because employer sponsored coverage is disappearing. Three million seniors have coverage under Medicare HMOs, 4 million are covered under Medigap--and we will examine that particular phenomenon--4 million under Medicaid, and 3 million now switched plans during the year or have other coverage. We have a about a third who have no coverage whatsoever. Another third have employer-sponsored coverage, but we are finding that this coverage is declining rapidly. Medicare HMO coverage is also declining, and Medigap coverage is often unaffordable. That is the current situation. Let's look a little further. If we look at the income of senior citizens, what we see is that 57 percent of senior citizens have incomes under $15,000; 21 percent have incomes above $15,000 but under $25,000. If you add those together, obviously 78 percent are below $25,000. Elderly people in our country have very modest means--very, very modest means. The average income for a person over 65 is just above $13,000. The cost of coverage is going up. I just showed a chart of the different types of coverage we had, pointing out one-third of our senior citizens have no coverage, and another third have health coverage that is related to their former job. The next chart shows firms offering retiree health coverage. The chart indicates coverage ``drops 25 percent.'' There was a 25-percent drop in employers covering prescription drugs for their retirees in the 3 years from 1994 to 1997. This is a dramatic reduction in coverage. Remember I showed the other chart that said a third had coverage through employer sponsored retiree benefits? This shows that the number of firms offering retiree health benefits is dropping absolutely dramatically. We saw there were a number of our senior citizens, about 4 million, who had coverage through Medicare HMOs. Look at what is happening to Medicare HMO coverage. It is inadequate and unreliable. First of all, the drug benefit is offered only at the option of HMOs, so some HMOs offer coverage and others do not. More than 325,000 Medicare beneficiaries lost their HMO coverage this year. That is because the HMOs moved out of the areas where those seniors live. Seniors lost their coverage. Look at this: 75 percent of Medicare HMOs will limit prescription drug coverage to less than $1,000 this year. That is an increase of 100 percent in the number of HMOs capping coverage since 1998. And 32 percent of Medicare HMOs have imposed caps of less than $500 this year. So even though you have 4 million Americans who have prescription drug coverage through Medicare HMOs, what you find out is there is a cap on the amount of prescription drugs they are able to receive. After that, they pay for all prescription drugs themselves. What the trend is, the dramatic trend, is that the dollar cap is going down and down, with a third of HMOs having a cap of $500. Many seniors in Medicare HMOs will exceed the cap. What we find is that Medicare HMO prescription drug coverage is increasingly inadequate and increasingly unreliable. There is a dramatic reduction in the number of employers providing coverage for retirees, and a dramatic increase in the amount of money that individual seniors are paying out-of-pocket, even if they have some coverage under their HMO. The third group I pointed out were those who had Medigap coverage, drug coverage which basically is unaffordable. These are sample Medigap premiums for a 75-year-old. In Delaware, just over $2,600; just under $2,000 in New York and Iowa; and just under $2,400 in Maine and Mississippi. Against that background, what has been happening to the cost of drugs? The average seniors income is just above $13,500. A third of all of our seniors have no coverage; another third are losing it dramatically. We find that 4 million of the remaining have increasingly limited coverage due to caps, so they are paying more and more out of pocket. Medigap, which is another way they are able to get some coverage, is going right up through the roof. So they are being hard- pressed, and all at a time that 78 percent of all the elderly people have incomes below $25,000. Let's see what is happening to the cost of prescription drugs. Since 1995, drug costs have been growing at double-digit rates. On this chart: Percent increases in drug costs. Let's look at the increase in the cost of the drugs: almost 10 percent in 1995, 10 percent in 1996, 14 percent in 1997, almost 16 percent in 1998, 16 percent in 1999. Let's compare that to the Consumer Price Index for all goods. It is 2.5 percent in 1995, it is 3.3 percent in 1996, 1.7 percent in 1997-- 1.7 percent cost-of-living increase and look at the cost of the prescription drugs-- 14 percent. In 1998 it is 1.6, and 2.7 in 1999, and look at the cost of these drugs. This is not just a peripheral issue for our seniors. When we passed the Medicare program in 1964, as we heard so eloquently today from both our leader on this side, Senator Daschle, and Congressman Gephardt, we had a lot of the same kinds of criticisms that are being made now against this program: This is the beginning of a takeover by the Federal Government; this is the beginning of socialism. Of course, they were wrong then and we were right because the Medicare program has worked. But one area we did not take care of was prescription drugs because private coverage at that time did not provide for drug coverage. I daresay prescription drugs are as necessary for our senior citizens today as hospital care or doctor care. Prescription drugs coverage is necessary for elderly people. Yet it is left out. In a very important way, our Medicare system is not living up to its guarantee--for the men and women who fought in the wars and brought this country out of the depths of the Depression and have educated their children--to live their golden years with a degree of security and peace with respect to their health care needs under Medicare. We are now finding now with that major gap--today, more than 95 percent of the private sector provides prescription drug coverage although they are dropping it for retirees--that Medicare does not provide prescription drug coverage. It is a major gap. We are saying: Let's fill that gap; let's meet our commitment to our seniors; let's include under Medicare a program that is going to be worthy of our names and which is absolutely essential if we are going to have our seniors--our parents and grandparents--live in the peace, dignity, and security they deserve. That is why we believe the program ought to be voluntary, there ought to be coverage for all, it ought to provide basic coverage and have catastrophic coverage, and it ought to be affordable. The President has embraced and endorsed the program, and it is endorsed by the overwhelming majority of our caucus in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, and it is strongly supported by our leader and Mr. Gephardt. The President in the Rose Garden today asked our Republican friends to join in this effort to pass this legislation this year. We have to pass something that is going to be meaningful and worthy of our efforts. He invited our Republican friends to join us in this effort and outlined the program and spelled out the details as well as the cost of this program. When we pass this program and send it to the President's desk, we in the Congress will say: Why did it take us so long? Every day we delay passing this program, millions of our fellow citizens are being asked to make decisions about their very lives which they should not have to make. That is wrong. We ought to respond. We know how to do it. The question is whether we have the will. We are going to insist this Senate and House of Representatives address this issue in this Congress. We give those assurances to the American people, and we invite our friends on the other side of the aisle to join us in meeting our responsibilities to our senior citizens.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome the opportunity to call the attention of the Senate to neurofibromatosis, or NF, a cruel neurological disorder that affects so many of our citizens. In the past, groups who come together to fight NF have asked Congress to designate May as ``World Neurofibromatosis Awareness Month.'' This year, they are directing their energies to more substantive issues. I commend NF Inc. and other advocates across the nation for their leadership and their strong commitment to this cause. NF is a genetic disorder of the nervous system that can cause tumors on nerves anywhere in the body at any time. It is a progressive disorder that affects all ethnic groups and both sexes equally. It is one of the most common genetic disorders in the United States-- affecting one in every 4,000 births. There are two genetically distinct forms of this disorder--NF-1 and NF-2. The effects are unpredictable and have varying manifestations and degrees of severity. NF-1 is the more common type, occurring in about 1 in 4,000 people in the United States. Symptoms include five or more light brown skin spots known as cafe-au-lait macules, as well as tumors that can grow on the eyes or spine. In most cases, the symptoms are mild and people can live normal and productive lives. In some cases, however, NF-1 can be severely debilitating. NF-2 is less common, affecting about 1 in 40,000 people, and much more severe. Tumors grow near the auditory nerve and often cause pressure on other nerves in the head and the body. Tumors also grow on the spine, and attack the central nervous system. People with NF-2 often experience deafness, frequent headaches and facial pain, facial paralysis, cataracts, and difficulty with balance. There is no known cure for either form of the disorder, even though the genes for both NF-1 and NF-2 have been identified. Currently, NF has no treatment, other than the surgical removal of tumors, which sometimes grow back. The disorder is not infectious. Only half of those affected with it have a prior family history of NF. If someone does not have NF, they cannot pass it on to their children. Talented researchers across the country are making impressive strides in finding a cure for this serious disorder. Thanks in great part to the research sponsored by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke at NIH, scientists have already identified the two genes that cause NF, and significant progress in developing new treatments is being made. Much of the cutting-edge research on NF is being performed at the NF Clinic at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which was founded in 1982 by Dr. Robert Martuza. It was one of the first clinics to recognize the unique multi-disciplinary problems that NF patients and their families face--and the vital role that a dedicated clinic plays in the research community. The McLain Hospital in Belmont, Massachusetts also has a vital role in supporting important research, particularly for NF-2. One of the most difficult aspects of having NF, or caring for a patient with NF, is not knowing what the future will bring. Our lack of knowledge about the cause of the tumors associated with the disorder also makes the evaluation of potential therapies difficult. In association with Children's Hospital of Boston and the House Ear Institute in Los Angles, the NF Clinic at MGH is participating in an international study to define the types of tumors most commonly associated with NF. Congress has a responsibility to provide these dedicated medical professionals and researchers with the resources and support necessary to continue their lifesaving work. President Clinton has asked for increased funding to fight this disorder and many other neurological illnesses. We must also ensure that a person's genetic information cannot be used as a basis for discrimination. To receive appropriate care for NF, patients must have access to genetic tests, free from the concern that the results of those tests will be used to discriminate against them in any way. I commend the dedicated researchers and physicians across the country for their commitment to this important issue, and I commend advocates like NF Inc. for their leadership. I look forward to rapid progress in the years ahead, and I am confident that Congress and the Administration will do as much as possible to support their all- important efforts. Together, we can cure NF.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have just witnessed this week another example of indifference by Congress to the needs of lower-wage and hard-working American workers. While our minimum wage bill still languishes in the Congress in spite of all our efforts, the House Appropriations Committee just passed a bill that will eliminate the cost-of-living adjustments for the low-wage workers in the legislative branch. They cut the COLAs of the Library of Congress, the Government Printing Office, and other vital congressional agencies. This is after the Members of Congress got a cost-of-living increase of $4,600 last year. The Republican leadership has cut out a COLA increase for these workers who happen to be the lowest-paid Congressional workers. If you are a truck driver for the Government Printing Office, you are out of luck. Again, when it comes to the staffs of the Members, they made sure their interests were protected. Drawing that kind of a line with workers who work for this institution is absolutely scandalous. What is it about our Republican friends that they believe they have to be so harsh with the lowest-income working families in this country, refusing to permit us to vote on a pay increase, an increase in the minimum wage, of 50 cents this year and 50 cents next year? They have taken convoluted parliamentary tricks to block us from considering that, and then we find their own priorities are that this institution takes $4,600 for its COLA increase and cuts out the COLA increase for the lowest-paid workers who are serving the Congress. That is wrong. I hope the House of Representatives will change it. I hope it will not be tolerated. There will be an effort on the Senate floor to make amends because that is wrong and unjust. We are not going to permit it to stand. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself a moment. I commend my friend from Arkansas. The Senator from Arkansas has a varied and wide agenda of public policy issues. I think all Members in the Senate know the issue of teacher quality and recruitment and also how to get quality teachers in rural areas and underserved areas. That has been an area of great specialization. Those who had the alternative have benefited from her knowledge, including Senator Lieberman, as well from her energy in these particular needs and by the very sound judgment of her positive suggestions. I thank the Senator. She has placed the important aspect of education on her agenda and we have benefited from her interaction and her recommendations.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent the principal author of the amendment be recognized for 2 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on my time, I welcome that fact. I think it is worthwhile to take note about what has been happening in Owensboro and to try to share that kind of success story, which the President of the United States was extremely impressed with and quite willing to talk about. I have the notes back in my office about the percentage of progress that was made. What he was talking about was well trained teachers, smaller class size, and support programs for children who are in need. Those are concepts we have tried to have in this program. I know we have some differences on that, but I wanted any reference to the President's trip to Owensboro also to relate the quality and very strong improvement in the education he witnessed down there. I think it is worthwhile taking note. We all ought to know what works and be encouraged by it. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes. Mr. President, first of all, I thank Senator Lieberman and his cosponsors for the focus and attention they have given to really the central priority for all families in this country in the area of education. The restlessness those Senators and others have with regard to making sure we are going to try to reach every needy child in this country is something we all should embrace and support. I am not sure at this hour of the day, so to speak, in terms of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, if it is possible to bring about the kind of change and focus that is desirable. But there are broad areas of support and agreement for that concept in terms of enhanced resources and enhanced accountability. I certainly look forward to working with him in the future on this whole area of education. I think the ideas that have been out there in terms of Safe and Drug- Free Schools, which has been basically a bipartisan effort in giving national focus and attention to that, and a sense of urgency, are still important to preserve. Senator DeWine and Senator Dodd worked out an effort in that area in our committee. I think it is important to preserve it. The progress we have made in technology I think is worth preserving. The afterschool programs are really the most heavily subscribed programs. They also have bipartisan support and are a matter of national urgency. I don't think they have gotten the kind of attention they should have in the Lieberman amendment. Finally, there are several programs that are working very well in terms of being included in the consolidation program. One of them I have particular interest in is ``Ready to Learn.'' There is $11 million on ``Ready to Learn.'' It is done through the Public Broadcasting System. It reaches 94 percent of the country, 87 million homes, 37 million children, and received 57 Emmys. If you ask any public broadcaster in the 130 stations nationwide what the best children's program is, they will mention this one. I don't want to see that lost and sent back to any State thinking that could be recomposed. The Star Schools Program works through nonprofits, again, led by strong bipartisan support, to try to reach out to schools that may not have a math and science teacher and up-to-date educational programs, and has been done through a number of States. It has been very effective through nonprofits. That is another program. It is a small program, but it has enormous educational values. With reluctance, because I have great friendship and affection for my friend from Connecticut, I will not vote in support of it. But I want to certainly guarantee to him and to all of those who have been uniformly strong sponsors in our committee that I want to work closely with our colleagues on the other side to try to give greater focus and attention to the problems of the neediest students in the country. I yield the remainder of my time. I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I believe we have an agreement on the time on our side. Am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, when the Senator brings this to the attention of the Senate, it is a matter of enormous importance and significance. I pay tribute to him and to our chairman, Senator Jeffords, who has been a strong supporter. I know there are others on that side, but they have been real giants in this area of concern and have been enormously constructive and helpful in moving us towards a legislative initiative in this area. I am very grateful to my colleagues, Senator Kerry and Senator Dodd, for the extraordinary work they have done. I am very hopeful that at an early time we can have favorable consideration. Exhibit 1 Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Education, Malden, MA, May 5, 2000. Hon. Edward M. Kennedy, Russell Senate Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Kennedy: I want to express my strong support for the Early Learning Opportunities Act as an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. High quality early care and education programs are vital to children's development as well as to the national goal for all children to enter school ready to learn. It is also essential that the methods used to increase support for families and young children be flexible and responsive to the diverse needs and resources of communities and families across the country. The program outlined in this proposal is quite consistent with our state preschool program, Community Partnerships for Children. For example, Massachusetts has many local councils working collaboratively to design comprehensive early care and education programs that ensure that funds are used in ways that are consistent with local needs. Our programs also conduct many family support and family literacy activities such as those described in your plan. Through our experience with Community Partnerships, we know that these elements as well as transportation and professional development are essential to helping early childhood programs achieve their potential to support young children and families. With the in mind, I would like to express one concern. As is, the program is created within Health and Human Services and is ``entirely independent of ESEA.'' Historically, child care has been administered through human services agencies and it is likely that the program would be passed on through the states' social services infrastructure. At the same time, many of the program's purposes are based on the potential of early childhood programs as educational for children and parents. Based on many years of watching how our local collaborations evolve, it is clear that state and local linkages among Head Start, private child care and public preschools and elementary schools are becoming increasingly important, but are not easy. I believe the separation from ESEA at the national and state levels would not encourage these linkages. Although the program should support the growth and improvement of private child care and Head Start programs, a close connection with ESEA at the national and state levels would model the educational intention of the program and would build on existing Title I preschool programs programs at the local level. To reiterate--the plan that has been proposed is very promising and I strongly support this amendment. Secerely, David H. Driscoll, Commissioner of Education.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, I express my appreciation for the excellent statement that the Senator from Alaska has just given and thank him for his leadership on this issue. I also thank the chairman, Senator Jeffords, for his hard work on this issue as well. Both of them have helped us understand how parents and other caregivers can have a very positive impact on children and infants at very early ages. I thank colleagues on our side, including my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator John Kerry, who has been particularly interested in this issue and has spent a great deal of time on it, and also the Senator from Connecticut, Senator Chris Dodd, who has led our efforts on issues involving children for many, many years. Finally, I want to thank Stephanie Robinson of my staff, who is sitting here on my left, for her insight and diligence as we have worked through the details of this early learning proposal. I think the Senator from Alaska has really outlined a compelling case for this issue. If we go back a little while and think of the first studies--the Perry Preschool Program, which Senator Stevens mentioned-- almost 30 years ago, where the results have been followed over a period of years and have documented how early interventions for children resulted in more positive academic and lifestyle outcomes for many children. I think that the Perry Preschool study caught the attention of a lot of educators. Then we had the meeting in 1990 when the Governors were together--the Charlottesville meeting. Many of the issues we have been talking about these past few days recall the discussion surrounding early learning that the Governors initiated back in 1990. And there the Republican and Democratic Governors together announced that our first priority should be to have children ready to learn when they enter school. They understood what was happening in the States, and that early learning was a matter of enormous positive consequence for all educational and social service efforts. Even before brain research provided a clear medical basis, Governors sensed that ``the earlier the better'' in terms of early interventions. Then we had the studies done by the Carnegie Commission in 1993, which focused on impacts of these early interventions. Later, when we had the Year of the Brain in 1996, I believe, we found further information as described by the Senator from Alaska, about the importance of proper stimulation to the formation of brain synapses in young children. Important work continued throughout the 1990's by Dr. Brazelton and Dr. Zigler, who are really the godparents of this concept of early intervention. The bottom line is that quality early learning experiences help children develop self-confidence, curiosity, social skills, and motor skills. These are the building blocks that children use to expand their interest in learning when they get to school. They may also develop a sense of humor. They certainly learn consideration of others. These are basic benefits of early learning, and they last a lifetime. They are absolutely essential in terms of learning and academic achievement, but also essential in terms of interpersonal skills, their own personal happiness, and their own productivity and contributions as members of a society. As we debate education policy, we must continue to find common ground that enables us to act effectively. One of the most important opportunities is in early learning. Last month's Senate Budget Resolution included a bipartisan amendment that reserved $8.5 billion to improve early learning services throughout the Nation. The Senate is clearly moving toward a commitment to ensure that each of the 23 million American children under age six is able to enter school ready to learn. Senator Stevens and I worked together to build a strong bipartisan coalition for this reserve fund in the Senate resolution, and now is the time to continue these efforts. As we consider the investments that are needed in education, we cannot ignore early childhood learning. Education occurs over a continuum that begins at birth and extends throughout life. The need to do more to make greater educational opportunities available in a child's very early years is clear. Study after study proves that positive learning experiences very early in life significantly enhance a child's later ability to learn, to interact successfully with teachers and peers, and to master needed skills. It is long past time to put this research into practice. Just last week Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, a 700-member bipartisan coalition of police chiefs, sheriffs, and crime victims, released yet another convincing report. It finds that children who receive quality early learning are half as likely to commit crimes and be arrested later in life. Early learning programs are good for children, good for parents and good for society as a whole. Unfortunately, far too many parents lack access to quality early learning activities for their children while they work. Although two thirds of mothers work outside the home, only 58% of 3- and 4-year-olds living above the poverty level, and 41% of those living below the poverty level, are enrolled in center-based early learning programs. A dramatic recent survey found that more parents are satisfied with Head Start than any other federal program. But only two in five eligible children are enrolled in Head Start - and only one in 100 eligible infants and toddlers are enrolled in Early Head Start. As a result, literally millions of young children never have the chance to reach their full potential. What a waste! We must do better. We can do better. The Committee for Economic Development reports that we can save over five dollars in the future for every dollar we invest in early learning today, the investment significantly reduces the number of families on welfare, the number of children in special education, and the number of children in our juvenile justice system. Investment in early learning is not only morally right - it is economically right. We must steadily expand access to Head Start and Early Head Start. We must make parenting assistance available to all who want it. We must support model state efforts that have already proved successful, such as Community Partnerships for Children in Massachusetts and Smart Start in North Carolina, which rely on local councils to identify the early learning needs in each community and allocate new resources to meet them. We must give higher priority to early childhood literacy. In ways such as these, we must take bolder action to strengthen early learning opportunities in communities across the Nation. The Rand Corporation reports: ``After critically reviewing the literature and discounting claims that are not rigorously demonstrated, we conclude that these [early learning] programs can provide significant benefits.'' Governors, state legislatures, local governments, and educators have all called for increased federal investments in early learning as the most effective way to promote healthy and constructive behavior by future adults. As we strengthen education policy, we cannot lose sight of the evidence that education begins at birth--and is not a process that occurs only in a school building during a school day. We must examine children's experience during the five or six years before they walk through their first schoolhouse door. Our goal is to enable all children to enter school ready to learn, and maximize the impact of our investments in education. It is especially important that low-income parents who accept the responsibility of work under welfare reform to have access to quality early learning opportunities for their children. The central idea of welfare reform is that families caught in a cycle of dependence can be shown that work pays. Today I am proud to stand with so many Senators who agree that children's development must not be sacrificed as we help families move from welfare to work. A decade ago the Nation's Governors agreed that helping children enter school ready to learn should be America's number one priority. We have made some progress since then, but we are still falling far short of our goal. In Massachusetts, the Community Partnerships for Children Program currently provides quality full-day early learning for 15,300 young children from low-income families. Yet today in Massachusetts over 14,000 additional eligible children are waiting for the early learning services they need--and some have been on the waiting list for 18 months. A 1999 report by the Congressional General Accounting Office on early learning services for low-income families was unequivocal-- ``infant toddler care [is] still difficult to obtain.'' Even as the need to provide these opportunities increases, it is clear that many current facilities are unsafe. The average early learning provider is paid under seven dollars an hour--less than the average parking attendant or pet sitter. These low wages result in high turnover, poorer quality of care, and little trust and bonding with the children. Here in the Senate, we have worked together for several months on a proposal to enable local communities to fill the gaps that impair current early learning efforts. Our amendment provides $3.25 billion for early learning programs over the next three years. Local councils will direct the funds to the most urgent needs in each community. The needs may include parenting support and education-- improving quality through professional development and retention initiatives--expanding the times and the days children can obtain these services--enhancing childhood literacy--and greater early learning opportunities for children with special needs. These funding priorities are well-designed to strengthen early learning programs in all communities across the country, and give each community the opportunity to invest the funds in ways that will best address its most urgent needs. I urge the Senate to approve it as a long overdue recognition of this important aspect of education reform. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that several letters of support for this amendment be printed in the Record immediately after my remarks.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Is it necessary to set aside the pending amendment?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will take about 3 minutes because we do want to hear particularly from the cosponsors. Since I was mentioned in the remarks of my good friend from New Hampshire, I think I should respond. I have been listening for the last 4 days in the Senate to how the schools that are serving underserved children and disadvantaged children are in crisis in America. We have heard that in speech after speech on the other side of the aisle and many on this side as well as from myself because of the challenges we are facing. The fact remains today the Governors have 96 cents out of every dollar. Do my colleagues understand that? The Federal Government has maybe 6 or 7 cents out of the dollar. They have 96 cents. If the schools are not working well, I believe perhaps we ought to have educational recommendations in programs that have been tried and tested and are working. The Governors have had their chance, and they have come up short on this issue. We have been making that case. Finally, on title I funds, 98.5 cents out of every title I dollar goes to the local level; 1 percent is retained at the State level. I would like to hear from my friend from New Hampshire what the basis of his study is, but we have the GAO reports, studies, and allocations. I know, for example, with respect to the old block grants that used to go to the States in higher education, very little of that ever got out of the State offices because the Governors in those States, including my own State of Massachusetts, used that money to fund the departments of education for child and maternal care. I doubt a nickel of that ever-- also in my own State of Massachusetts--helped people because it was all absorbed as a result of the flexibility. We are trying to get away from that. I yield the floor. I thank the Senator from Indiana for his patience.

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object--I will not object-- historically, although we get away from the history, those who are the principal proponents are generally recognized to make the case before opposition speaks. So we have tried to go back and forth. We have done pretty well. Since there are a number on our side who are prime sponsors, generally, as a courtesy, we have followed that historically and traditionally. We have gotten away from that. I think the proposal is eminently fair. If it is all right, we might let them go in order to make the presentation, and then I would be glad to hear from two or three on the other side. These are all prime sponsors. Generally, in order to be able to make the case, I think we ought to have a chance to hear from them, certainly before the noon hour. I ask that we extend the time a bit before going into recess because I think they ought to be heard in outlining the presentation on the agreement. I have no objection.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I appreciate what the Senator has said. As I understand, he will make the best effort to come back to it this week, but we will have an opportunity to come back to it next week. Is that the leader's plan?