Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. He joins you. That is interesting. He gave me a different interpretation. I appreciate that. Mr. President, I think it is basically very weak language. On page 662 of the legislation, in relation to the States, it does not have any penalty. And, furthermore, you have to wait 5 years to find out whether there is going to be any progress made. I think families in this country want progress now. They want accountability now. They want guarantees now. Under our bill, that process of accountability begins in the second year, third year, fourth year, fifth year; and it builds in terms of accountability, in terms of the requirements of the States to help those particular communities, which is not being done today. Does the Senate understand that it is not being done today? We have the most recent surveys done by the Department of Education that polls underserved title I communities. According to the surveys, more than half of the Title I communities have said that when they have asked the States to help them, they have gotten virtually no response whatsoever. This is very weak accountability. I will be glad to recommend that we move ahead and accept this amendment and then get to the Democratic alternative so that the Members of the Senate and the American people will understand and be able to compare and contrast the accountability provisions because this is still woefully inadequate and woefully weak.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I am glad to yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I wish to, if I may, ask my friend and colleague from Washington a question. If I understand this correctly, there are two essential provisions that he includes here. One is, in the 15-State block grant, the Senator prohibits the use of funds for vouchers to private schools; is this correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. As the Senator knows, there are different provisions in the 50-State block grant than in the 15-State block grant. During the exchange in our committee, the principal proponent, Senator Gregg--and I am sure he will speak to it--indicated that he did not dismiss the use of those funds for private school vouchers. Is the Senator from Washington saying--many of us have been critical of the overall program and the use of vouchers, that this is a block grant and voucher program--with this amendment, there would be the elimination of the language in the 15-State block grant that would have permitted the voucher program for private schools?

Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate the Senator's response. I hope the Senator will stay with me because usually when the proponent of a particular measure, such as Senator Gregg, says that it does and then another Senator says he reads the language that it does not--generally speaking, the members of our committee believed that it did, whether we agree with it or not, for the very significant reasons that the Senator from New Hampshire pointed out--so we want to understand now, once and for all, whether you believe it did or did not before. Your understanding is that it eliminates the use of vouchers for the private school partnerships as part of your amendment?

Mr. KENNEDY. We will provide to the leader our first amendment, as I indicated, the Democratic alternative, and then the Murray amendment. I will be glad to give the particulars to the floor manager.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate what the Senator said. I think we can move more rapidly if we exchange the amendments. We have just received the Gorton amendment and we want to be responsive in a timely way. We would be glad to try to stay two amendments ahead so those who have the responsibility to inform their colleagues, as well as to speak on these issues on the floor, have an opportunity to be prepared to address those questions. I hope, out of a spirit of comity, we could try to do that. It is generally done in areas of important policy. There is no reason not to. We know what these matters are. I indicated to the chairman of the committee 2 days ago what our amendments were going to be, and they are the ones we offered in committee. There are no surprises. I hope we could at least try to do that as a way of moving this process forward. This is related not only to the Senator from Washington. We know he has spoken to other groups that he intended to offer an amendment, but we will try to work with the floor managers to exchange these amendments so we can move it forward in a way that will benefit all Members.

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator would explain to me where--this is the controlling law. It states very clearly, on page 662, what the test is going to be. It talks about ``agreement a State has not substantially met the performance. . . .'' There is no definition of what ``substantially met the performance'' is. That has not changed by the Senator's addition. The penalty described on page 662 only applies when there is ``no progress.'' I fail to see how that does very much in terms of accountability. It does not stop at the end of 2 years. Does the Senator's program have the requirement of a reduction of funds administratively at the end of 3 years, as the Democratic program does? It does not. Does it have a further reduction after 4 years? No, it does not. Does it have requirements that the State has to intervene; and that, if not, there could be the closing of a particular school if it does not achieve those kinds of reductions? It does not. The Democratic program does. It is basically feel-good language. I would recommend, if it is going to make the Senator from Washington feel good--and evidently is going to make others on that side feel good--that we are not going to be able to use vouchers for private schools, we have been maintaining that block grants are blank checks for States. We have talked about, this Republican proposal is going to provide vouchers for private schools, and we have been told: Oh, no, that isn't so. We have some of our Republican friends saying: Oh, no, that was not even intended for part of it. We had the proponent of the amendment saying that was so. Now the Senator from Washington wants to eliminate that. Well, I certainly would urge our colleagues to support that.

Mr. KENNEDY. I see some colleagues here who might want to address this issue. The way I see it is that this language, as the Senator has pointed out, would effectively reduce the block grant. I would say, just out of comity, since this language was prepared by the Senator from New Hampshire, could the Senator indicate to me whether he is supporting this program--just out of comity, since it is directly related to his language?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the problem isn't the Federal Government, the problem is the States. That is the contention. Let's hear the argument from the other side on that during this debate. You say those are interesting reports, Senator, but is this really the case? All you have to do is take the national assessment of title I that was done last year. In 1999, the national assessment of title I says: Among the schools that reported in the 1998 survey that they had been identified as in need of improvement, less than half reported that they could receive additional professional development or technical assistance as a result of being identified for improvement from the States. Here you have communities that are trying to ask for help, and only half are receiving any. States are not responding to half of those communities. What is the other side's answer? Send more money to the States. This is the wrong answer. States didn't care prior to the time we passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965. They didn't care about ensuring that the most disadvantaged children were served. Then we gave them federal funds from 1965 to 1970 and they still didn't take care of disadvantaged children. We have learned that lesson. And now, we want to give States blank checks. Haven't we already learned from the past? States will allocate federal funds according to what the Governor wants to look out after, and there are no guarantees that it'll be targeted to the poorest or most disadvantaged children--the States aren't using their own dollars to do this now. If Members on the other side could say: Senator Kennedy, let me show you where we have 25, 35 States pinpointing as a matter of State priority in education what they are trying to do for the neediest kids and they are showing results, saying give us more help, they would have a strong argument. They can't do it. They don't answer that. You won't hear that. You will hear all the cliches such as, ``What has happened in the past isn't working,'' and ``They want more of the status quo.'' Now, in contrast, let's look at what I have said is happening out there. Needy children are the responsibility of the States. In 1986, the National Governors report said, ``It's Time For Results.'' The task force urged Governors to intervene in low-performing States and school districts and take over closed-down, academically bankrupt school districts. Let's see what happened. In 1987, 9 States were authorized to take over--9 States out of the 50. In 1990, the NGA report on educating America outlined strategies for achieving the national education goals. The task force, cochaired by Governors Clinton and Campbell, recommended States provide rewards, sanctions, linked to school academic performance, including assistance and support for low-performing schools. Take over if those do not improve. In 1990, eighteen States offered technical assistance or intervened in the management of low-performing schools. In 1998, NGA policy supported the State focus on schools. In 1999, 19 States complied. It will take another 50 years to get all the States to take care of poor children. Now the Republicans want to send all that money out there, with virtually no accountability, virtually none. Five years, and then unless the Secretary of Education can demonstrate that they haven't substantially complied with it, States can get another chance at it for five more years. That is what this is all about. Are we going to just send the money out to the States, or are we going to have some real accountability? Now, let me take one area and present our side's alternative. In regard to teacher quality, we maintain in our alternative that there are new, important, tried and tested, and demonstrably effective policies that can enhance academic achievement. As we have pointed out, these policies are: smaller class size, afterschool programs, teacher quality, accountability, technology provisions, and others. These are virtually new. The other side may say that ``they just want to do business as usual,'' but we didn't have technology 10 years ago or 30 years ago. We didn't have the documentation of the importance of small class sizes. We assumed that all States were focused on ensuring that all classrooms were going to have certified teachers. That hasn't been the case. We stand on this side of the aisle to guarantee a well-trained and fully qualified teacher in every classroom in America after 4 years of the date of enactment of this Act. That is our side. Let's hear what the other side has. First of all, on the issue of teacher training, recruitment and empowerment, they have the Republican Teacher Empowerment Act, which gives so much flexibility, States really don't have to do anything to change their current practices. They can continue hiring uncertified teachers, continue to provide low-quality, ineffective professional development and mentoring. In States, they could use most of the funds for a large variety of purposes that dilute the focus and attention on improving the recruitment and mentoring and professional development of teachers. The question is, Does the underlying bill guarantee substantial funds for professional development? No. All the underlying bill says is there will be ``a portion of the funds''; it doesn't say how much will be there. Our amendment guarantees professional development. The underlying bill doesn't guarantee funds for mentoring programs. It just allows the use of funds for those programs. Our amendment absolutely guarantees mentoring. Thirdly, the underlying bill does not guarantee funds for recruitment programs. It just allows the use of funds for recruitment programs. Ours guarantees a recruitment program and gives priority for that. Their bill does not guarantee that teachers are trained to address the needs of children with disabilities or other students with special needs. It just allows the use of funds for such training. Our amendment guarantees that teachers will learn how to teach these children. Their bill does not hold States accountable for having a qualified teacher in every classroom. It doesn't even require teachers to be certified. If you look carefully at the Republican program, it does not really guarantee much. In contrast, we clearly spell out what our bill accomplishes. Their bill does not require a substantial priority for math and science training. If you go and talk to any schoolteacher, any school superintendent, anyone that is involved in educating needy children in this country, and you ask them is: Do you have enough good math and science teachers? They will say that one of their top priorities is getting good math and science teachers in high-poverty areas. Everyone says that. I can give the various reports of what matters most in teaching for America's future. The report of the National Commission on Teaching on America's future was made up of Republicans and Democrats alike. One of their key findings was that if you are going to do anything about teaching, make sure you do something about math and science--there is no mention of a Republican block grant program. Finally, their bill does not require accountability. Instead, it promotes ineffective professional development activities through Teacher Opportunity Payment Programs, what they call TOPS. TOPS supports individually selected strategies that aren't necessarily proven effective practices. Effectively, it says that if you are a teacher and you want professional development, you can go out and find any program, anywhere, and it will be paid for. Having the Federal Government reimburse for this untested and untried program as matter of local control makes no sense. Our amendment contains tough and high standards of accountability. Our amendment says if you do not make progress in student achievement, which is the bottom line, with better teachers after 3 years, you cannot continue to receive funding for this program. There it is. We are prepared to say this is the challenge and this the way we ought to go and this is the way it ought to be tried and tested. We are effectively guaranteeing parents in this country good, fully qualified teachers. The other side can't say that because their program doesn't justify that. In addition, I want to look at the existing programs and the proposal that is before us. This is what I consider the ``education report card.'' They certainly get the F in terms of qualified teachers for the reasons that I have outlined. We are talking about secure and gun-free schools and trying to make them safe. We are talking about safe schools. We are talking about small and orderly class sizes. We are talking about afterschool programs. We are talking about strong parental involvement. And, we are talking about, most of all, accountability for better results. This is the heart and soul of what we believe is necessary in order to enhance and strengthen the quality of education for children in this country. These are the various areas of policy that we have to take action on. The existing bill grade is an F. We have a program that we are prepared to debate and discuss, and to be challenged on. I hope we are going to escape the cliches and the slogans in this debate. We have heard the cliches. We have heard the slogans. We are prepared to deal with the real policy issues and the real policy questions because we believe this is a way that we can really respond to children's needs. We need a guarantee. We don't need a blank check. We want to make sure the money is going to get to where it is needed and not go to the Governors' pet programs and pet projects in local communities in their States. That is what has been happening. That continues today. You don't have to get a lot of reports to see what happens when we give Governors a blank check. What happened has been demonstrated in the tobacco bill. We sent money back to the States with the idea that money was going to be used for children in terms of smoking and children's health. We are finding out that it is instead being used to build sidewalks, and cut taxes. We need to take responsibility for helping our neediest children with our scarce federal resources. The democratic alternative allows us to make a difference for children in this country. Finally, I want to mention what has been happening in recent times. I heard, with great interest, my friend from Georgia talk about all the challenges we are facing. We understand that every child who goes to school in America today is facing additional complexities and problems than they were facing 2 or 3 years ago or 5 years ago. It is very challenging for a variety of different reasons that we can talk about. But the fact is that there has been some progress made. Primarily it has been made since 1994. Let me mention the National Association of Educational Progress. Their reports show that there have been significant increases in math scores in the fourth through eighth grades, and reading and math performance among 9-year-olds in high-poverty public schools. Among the lowest achieving, the fourth graders have improved significantly. The achievement gap between blacks and Hispanics and white students has narrowed since 1982. The greatest gains in science were made by black and Hispanic students. Average SAT scores in math and verbal were higher in 1999 than the average for 1983 or 1989. These improvements came at the same time that the proportion of test takers with native languages other than English have been increasing. The dropout rates are lower today than in the 1970s and 1980s, and particularly lower for black youth. In 1972, 21 percent of black youth dropped out of school. In 1979, the rate was 13 percent. The dropout rate for Hispanics fell from 34 percent to 25 percent during that same period, and from 12 percent to 8 percent for whites. In 1997, 89 percent of persons age 16 to 24 completed high school or attained a GED. The number of students taking advanced courses has increased, especially those taking advanced placement courses. No one is saying that we have this challenge solved. We are not saying that. But what we are saying is, we reject the statement made that our alternative is merely the status quo. The programs we are talking about are dramatically different. They are innovative. They are responsive. They have a solid record of achievement. We are making some progress. With this substitute, we believe we will be able to come back in 5 or 6 years and say we have made gains and that we made the right investment for the neediest children in America. Finally, I want to put in a word for those children who are going to be wiped out under the Republican program--the migrant children, the immigrant children, and homeless children. I read in the Record the other day the report that was given in 1987 when we were considering the McKinney Act. We asked States how many homeless children were being educated in their respective State. We had virtually no response to that particular question. In March of 1987, the Center for Law and Education sent the questionnaire regarding State practices and policies for homeless students to the chief State school offices in the 50 States and Washington, DC, and received 23 responses. The majority of the respondents had no statewide data on the number of homeless children within their jurisdiction or whether the children were able to go to school. The majority of States had no plan for ensuring that homeless students received an education. That was prior to the McKinney Act, prior to the time of identifying homeless children, migrant children, and immigrant children. Now our friends on the other side are saying we don't have to deal with those populations anymore, the Governors will know best. They didn't up until 1987. They don't today, without these kinds of program. We are going to be back here, if their program is passed, mourning the day that we have essentially abdicated our responsibility to those children in our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am trying to understand. Exactly of what would the 10 percent reduction be? What is the Senator trying to drive at? As I understand it, the Senator is trying to deal with the provisions of the legislation that relates to accountability. We have the overall State accountability. Then we have the 15-State block grant. The 15-State block grant is going to come under overall State accountability. The provisions of the overall legislation will apply. Could the Senator please clarify? We can probably move to an early acceptance of the Senator's amendment, but I just want to understand exactly what it does and what it does not do. I have difficulty in seeing exactly what this really means in terms of the total accountability. Does this change the overall State requirements that are spelled out on page 662, the ``Failure To Meet Terms.--If at the end of the 5-year term of the performance agreement a State has not substantially met the performance goals . . .''? Does this in any way change that?

Mr. KENNEDY. The reason I ask this is, I say to the Senator, he is not in any way changing the ``Failure To Meet Terms'' that a State must meet. As I understand it, the Senator is amending a different section, and that is the 15-State block grant. What we find out further, on page 662, is, ``If a State has made no progress toward achieving,'' there will be certain reductions of funds. But that is when there is ``no progress.'' On page 662 it is: ``substantial progress''. I do not see how your 10-percent over the 5- year period of the performance agreements really does very much.

Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate the Senator's attention to this matter because it shows something enormously interesting that is happening here. On one hand, this amendment addresses the issue of voucher programs for private schools under the 15-State block grant program. On the other, it doesn't affect private school vouchers that are permissible under the title I portability program. It seems to me that if you are going to fix it in one program, you ought to fix it in both. If you look at the portability provisions on page 127, it states: . . . an eligible child, for which a per pupil amount shall be used for supplemental education services for the eligible child that are (A) subject to subparagraph (B)-- And this deals with the portability provisions-- provided by the school directly or through the provisions of supplemental education services with any governmental or nongovernmental agency, school, postsecondary educational institution, or other entity, including a private organization or business So you are striking one section, but leaving the other section. Well, that will have to remain there until we address that in our alternative. I, for one, want to move ahead in the debate on this, and I would be glad to urge acceptance of this amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is entirely correct. It is one of those important facts that one has to understand in order to be able to respond to those who say, look, there hasn't been any change for 2 or 3 years. We can demonstrate there has been academic progress made in terms of classes in a number of areas.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we can talk about this all we like, but I draw attention--and I congratulate the Senator from Maine--to the additional views of Senator Collins, which say, I am opposed to using Federal funds for private school vouchers. I believe the language about academic achievement for all programs must be modified to prevent having diversion of Federal funds to private schools. That is exactly our position. The Senator from Washington can deny that is his understanding, and the Senator from New Hampshire said this isn't really a voucher debate. It isn't just on our side, it is on their side too. I am glad the position of the Senator from Maine has prevailed on this issue.

Mr. KENNEDY. Whatever the exchange is that we are having here between the Senator from Washington and myself--I know he is reluctant to somehow say now this is the effect of the amendment. It certainly is my understanding, and I think the other members of our committee would agree, that when it was proposed, very clearly--you can go back into the Record and see--this was the intent of the Senator from New Hampshire. I may stand corrected by the one who put that in, that it was to be an allowable use of these funds to be used under the block grant program. They were going to consolidate the programs and then turn the funds over to the States, and then some would go down into the local communities. But one of the purposes that would have been legitimized for the first time was a voucher program for private schools. On our side, we support the use of title I funds in terms of public school choice. But this was a departure from that. That is exactly the way we read it. Under the Senator's amendment, the option of private school vouchers will not be there. Secondly, in the 15-State demonstration block grant, you add a provision. Could the Senator tell me what the effect of the language for the 15-State block grant is, on line 5, on the ``Achievement Gap Reductions''? What does the Senator intend to achieve by that language?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will take a few moments to respond to these general comments that have been made over the period of the past few days by those who are opposed to our proposal in terms of education reform. The proposed bill basically gives a block grant, a blank check, to the Governors to make these decisions. It is always interesting to me to hear my friends on the other side of the aisle when they say: We are interested in local control, local decisionmaking. That isn't what this is about. This is about giving a blank check--a block grant--to the States. Read the legislation. The States are the ones that are accountable to the Secretary of Education at the end of the day, after 5 years. They get the block grant. They can go out and do whatever they want for another 5 years. Then they can come back and say, look, we have had substantial compliance in what we originally proposed. Then the Secretary is either going to say, no, you have not; or yes, you have. The idea that the Secretary is going to cut off the States on any program is preposterous--anyone who thinks that will happen has not been around for any period of time under Democratic or Republican administrations. But let's get back to some of the facts. First of all, if we are going to provide this money, why allow this money to be taken by the States before the money gets down to the local level? The fact is, various GAO reports indicate that school districts received anywhere from 95 to 100 percent of the federal funds appropriated. This was true in 1995, for the title I programs, the bilingual education programs, the emergency immigrant education program, the safe and drug-free schools program. Specifically, for the Goals 2000 program, 93 percent of federal funds went to the local level; for the Eisenhower program, 91 percent; for IDEA, 91 percent; for the preschool programs, 88 percent. Ninety-five percent to 100 percent of federal funds get to the local community. That is where it is happening at the present time. So the other side of the aisle says: All right. What we need to do is to have more flexibility. The Federal Government and its mandates are denying local flexibility. Let's look at the GAO report dated January 25, 2000: ``Elementary and Secondary Education, Flexibility Initiatives Do Not Address Districts' Key Concerns About Federal Requirements.'' Do we hear that? We specifically asked the General Accounting Office to look into local communities to find out if we are effectively restricting them in their ability to use money effectively to enhance local decisions. The GAO report, on page 9, says, that what the local communities want, No. 1, are resources, funding. No. 2, they want to have management technology and techniques and training for the local schools. And third, they want information about what is working in other communities. That isn't only the Democrats speaking. That is what the General Accounting Office reported. Local school districts have enough flexibility at the present time. What does the other side say? They say: We do not want to do business as usual. We just want to send the money out there. It is interesting when we look at what the situation is at the local level. Let's look at the IG's report from March 2000. It reviewed State education agency officials in 15 States. They received complete responses back from 10 States. Of the 10 States that responded, 6 States do not permit any combining of funds whatsoever--no combining of local, State, or Federal funds; that is, 6 of the States prohibit that. When we provide flexibility, we say, if that decision is going to be made, it has to be done there at the State level. Two States, of the 10 States reporting, allow combining of Federal funds only. One State allows combining of State and local. Only one State out of the 15 States looked at by the IG of the Department of Education permits the combining of funds at the State, Federal, and local levels. (Mr. GREGG assumed the chair.)

Mr. KENNEDY. Can the Senator tell me exactly what are the penalties that will be included in here if they do not achieve that?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank my good friend, the Senator from Washington, for her comments. I yield myself 8 minutes. We are going to have two votes in about 20 minutes. In closing this debate, I want to ensure my colleagues in the Senate fully understand the amendment offered by the Senator from Washington, Mr. Gorton. I certainly understand it was written to ensure that the Straight A's provision cannot be used to divert funds for private school vouchers. The Office of General Counsel at the Department of Education has reviewed the language and informs me they are concerned that, because of the convoluted approach this language takes, it would be very difficult to sustain in court an interpretation that vouchers are prohibited by the amendment. Quite frankly, a direct prohibition in this amendment could have resolved that concern. For that same reason, the author of the amendment chose not to do so. The underlying bill, through its child- centered program, also known as portability, clearly authorizes the use of funds for what are, in effect, private school vouchers. The amendment offered by the Senator from Washington does not purport to change that program at all. Therefore, notwithstanding any interpretation of the amendment on which we are about to vote, we would continue, according to the general counsel's belief, to have a private school voucher program. I believe it is probably marginally better in terms of reducing the possibilities of a voucher than exists in the bill. I urge my colleagues, even with this hesitation, to support the amendment. For the last few minutes, I will go back to the comparison of the accountability provisions of S. 2 and the Daschle bill. I will mention seven different areas. I want the attention of those on the other side so they can address it, which they did not do over the course of this day. Must States dedicate funds specifically for turning around failing schools? Under S. 2, the answer is no. Under the Daschle proposal, the answer is yes. Under title I, they have to allocate 3 percent in the years 2001 and 2002 and 5 percent for every year after so there will be funds available in the States to turn around failing schools. Our answer is yes; their answer is no. Must schools show annual gains in student performance? The answer for S. 2 is no. In our legislation, the answer is yes, States have a period of time to reach proficiency in 10 years for all children, but they have to define how they are going to get there. We let them do it, but they must meet the benchmarks along the way. We define it and hold States accountable; they do not. Is there any assurance of real accountability? Do failing schools face any real consequences? As we have pointed out time and again, there is virtually no accountability for the first 5 years under S. 2. The answer to that is no. Under the Daschle bill, after 2 years, there has to be changes that the schools will take part in or otherwise, after the 4 years, the whole governance of that school will be replaced. There are funds for that, and there is the commitment spelled out in our legislation to do it. Is accountability based on the performance of all students, including poor children and limited-English-proficient children? The answer under S. 2 is no. The State can choose what children--this is the unbelievable part. I reviewed this in the Record yesterday. Under S. 2 requirements, they can select or choose which children they are going to put in the aggregation to report back to the Secretary of Education. It is a shell game. Under the Daschle bill, there is a requirement for disaggregation not only in school districts but in schools on race and income, so we will know actually what school, not what school district, not just a general area, but we will know that every single year this legislation is in place. Do schools and districts face consequences if they fail to help poor children, minority children, and limited-English-proficient children learn to high standards? The answer under the Republican bill is no; under ours it is yes, for the reasons I have identified. Is there a sensible requirement enabling students in failing schools to transfer to higher-quality schools? The answer in the Republican bill is virtually no. They can use the whole amount of money for transportation. We challenge them. Show us where the limitation is. It is not there. We put the limitation cap at 10 percent. Finally, must States help migrant children, delinquent or neglected children or homeless children reach high standards? Under S. 2, no, they effectively abolish the homeless program, the immigrant program, and the migratory programs. We protect those. If they are looking for accountability--and we have heard those words from the other side all day long today, ``We want accountability''-- they have to answer those questions. They have not answered them. They did not answer them in their opening statements when they presented this issue, and they refuse to respond to the challenges that Senator Bingaman and everyone on this side has posed to them. Republicans want a blank check that is a stamp of approval on the status quo. It gives a blank check to the Governors and does not require anything to change. The Democrat's substitute cancels the blank check and instead provides parents a guarantee of better results for kids. It guarantees accountability for results, as I have spelled out-- a qualified teacher in every classroom, as was pointed out earlier in the debate, smaller class size, as Senator Murray has pointed out, modern and safe schools, as Senator Harkin and others have pointed out, and strong parental involvement, as Senator Reed from Rhode Island has pointed out. All of this has been included in our alternative. That is a Marshall Plan for change, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield back the remainder of the time.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join with my other colleagues, first of all, in thanking a very special friend and someone we admire and care so much about, our colleague, Paul Wellstone, as Tom Harkin has said, for bringing us together. I thank him for persuading our leaders who have responded positively that we take a few moments from the business of the Senate to give recognition to an individual who has given so much of his life to this institution and, really, to our country. I am grateful to join with my colleagues in adding a word about this extraordinary individual because, in a very important way, his life has been the U.S. Senate. I was fortunate enough, along that pathway of his, to have the opportunity to work with him, as several of my colleagues did, those who are here now, such as Senator Sarbanes, and some who are not with us, Phil Hart and Claiborne Pell, as well as Senator Byrd. So I welcome this chance to join with others in recognizing Mike Epstein's extraordinary service. Mike Epstein came to the Senate Judiciary Committee after 9 years at the Department of Justice, where he served as a Federal prosecutor. He used those same skills that made him a top-notch prosecutor to investigate some of the most difficult issues before our country. If there was a lead, he pursued it. If there was a fact to be found, he would find it. He left no stone unturned. He served the committee well, and I am proud that he was a member of my staff. It was during that period that Mike's love for this institution grew and matured. Though he left briefly in 1974, he couldn't stay away for very long. Within months, he was back working for the Senate Intelligence Committee, and later for three additional committees, and then for several of my colleagues. It is a mark of the man that Mike worked for so many different committees and Senators. His career in the Senate reflects an extraordinary breadth of interests and a genuine love for this institution. He is well-versed on issues ranging from international affairs to education; from health care to drug treatment and prevention. In fact, the country owes Mike a debt of gratitude for his tireless work on the 1988 drug policy legislation. He was an articulate advocate for a more balanced and comprehensive approach to drug policy. Because of his landmark work, the country began to enhance its enforcement efforts by also considering the importance of drug prevention and treatment, as well as a fairer approach to sentencing. Mike's work on each of these issues was guided by a love for national policy and also for the Senate and its procedures. He understands so well the relationship between the rules and the outcome of a legislative debate, which is so key in being a useful and productive and effective Member of this body. The rules form a framework that ensures the fairness of the debate and an outcome that can be respected. Mike knows that, and it is reflected in his work. In so many instances, his knowledge of the ways of the Senate was drawn upon by so many of our colleagues in ways to advance the cause of our common humanity and decency. Mike Epstein's work in the Senate will be long remembered--the legislative battles he helped us win, and the losing battles he helped us fight so well. But his true legacy will be his commitment to public service, and his dedication to the institution. He is among the ranks of those who choose to give deeply of themselves to make a significant difference in the lives of so many people across this country. That achievement will stand as a shining example to everyone who works in the Senate--Senators and staffers alike. I grew up in a family where members of the family were taught that they should and they could make a difference, and that each of them should try. I remember listening to the members of our family who said you do not have to be a United States Senator to make a difference. All you have to do is give of yourself and work towards a purpose. This country is a better country because of Mike Epstein. Today there are scores of people--there are children who are getting better opportunities, young people who are getting better educations, older people whose lives have been enhanced--who will never know the name of Mike Epstein. But because of Mike, their lives are more graceful and more useful and more productive, and their sense of hope is realized-- all because of the extraordinary service of an extraordinary human being. We love you, Mike, and we always will.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Laura Chow, a legislative fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges during the entire debate on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on Friday, April 28, 2000, we remembered and honored the sacrifices of the men and women across the years who have lost their lives on the job. We also marked the 30th anniversary of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which has done so much to reduce such casualties by improving conditions in the workplace for employees across the country. On this day, we renewed our commitment to fair and safe working conditions for every American. The progress that we have made over the past 30 years is remarkable. In 1970, the year the Occupational Safety and Health Act was signed into law, 13,800 workers died on the job. Since then, workplace fatality rates have fallen by 74 percent. Over 200,000 lives have been saved. Injury rates have fallen by more than a third. In observance of this important day, we must also remember the lives and the families that have been irrevocably changed by workplace injuries and illnesses. Despite the progress, 154 people still lose their lives on the job on the average day. Last year in Massachusetts, 91 workers died on the job--more than double the number in 1998. Currently, it is estimated that 1,000 deaths a year result from work- related illnesses, and 1,200 workers a year are diagnosed with cancer caused by their jobs. Clearly, those high numbers are unacceptable. As the global economy continues to expand and change the new workplace, new challenges are created for ensuring adequate safety protections. The modern workplace is being restructured by downsizing staff, larger output quotas, mandatory overtime, and job consolidation. This restructuring creates new pressures on workers to be more productive in the name of efficiency and competitiveness. New technologies in the workplace make it easier to do jobs faster, but they pose new hazards as well. For ten years, workers have been struggling to achieve a workplace free from ergonomic injuries and illnesses. Since 1990, Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole announced the Department of Labor's commitment to issuing an ergonomics standard, more than 6 million workers have suffered serious job injuries from these hazards. Each year, 650,000 workers lose a day or more of work because of ergonomic injuries, costing businesses $15-20 billion per year. Ursula Stafford, 24 years old, worked as a paraprofessional for the New York City school district. She was injured assisting a 250-pound wheelchair-bound student. She received no training on how to lift the student, nor did her employer provide any lifting equipment. After two days on the job, she suffered a herniated disc and spasms in her neck. As a result of her injuries, her doctor told her that she may not be able to have children, because her back may not be able to support the weight. Charley Richardson, a shipfitter at General Dynamics in Quincy, Massachusetts, sustained a career-ending back injury when he was ordered to install a 75-pound piece of steel to reinforce a deck. Although he continued to try to work, he found that on many days, he could not endure the pain of lifting and using heavy tools. For years afterwards, his injury prevented him from participating in basic activities. The loss that hurt Charley the most was having to tell his grandchildren they could not sit on his lap for more than a couple of minutes, because it was too painful. To this day, he cannot sit for long without pain. OSHA has proposed an ergonomics standard to protect workers from these debilitating injuries. Yet in spite of the costs to employers and to workers and their families, industry has launched an all-out, no- holds-barred effort to prevent OSHA from issuing this important standard. A stronger standard would go a long way to reducing this leading cause of injury. Ergonomics programs have been shown to make a difference in reducing the number of injuries that occur on the job. Johns Hopkins University initiated a program which significantly reduced the rate of such injuries by 80 percent over seven years. A poultry processor's program lowered the incidence of workers' compensation claims by 20 percent. A program by Intel Corporation produced a savings of more than $10 million. Hopefully, after this long battle, a national ergonomics standard will finally be put in place this year. If so, it will be the most significant workplace safety protection in the 30 years since OSHA became law. The ergonomic standard will be a landmark achievement in improving safety and health for all workers in America. May this Workers Memorial Day serve as a monument to the progress we are making, and as a constant reminder of our obligation to do more, much more, to achieve the great goal we share.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Mr. Warner, as well as my colleagues on the committee, Senator Levin, our ranking member, and especially Senator Snowe, for their efforts in doing the right thing for our Medicare-eligible military retirees. Today, there was introduced in the Senate, on behalf of Senator Warner, legislation that will have an extremely positive impact on our military retirees and their ability to acquire prescription drugs. This is enormously important for our retirees and will be strongly supported in this body. Hopefully, it will be a part of the defense authorization bill that will come to the floor in the next few weeks. This initiative gives all military retirees over 65 the same pharmacy benefit that one-third of them already have under the Base Realignment and Closure pharmacy program, a mail order and a retail pharmacy benefit. It makes sense, and is only fair that all military retirees over 65 have one consistent pharmacy benefit. This pharmacy benefit is a significant and affordable first step in healing the growing rift with the military retiree community caused by the Government's failure to deliver on the promise of health care for life. The pharmacy benefit is the number one issue and priority of military retirees, since pharmacy needs are the biggest drain on the pensions of military retirees. Expanding the BRAC pharmacy benefit to all Medicare-eligible military retirees is the right thing to do for service members who have dedicated their lives to protect and serve our country. Approximately 450,000 of the 1.3 million Medicare-eligible military retirees already have access to a retail and mail order pharmacy benefit. This was the result of DOD base closures. When the Base Realignment and Closure Commission recommended the closure of several military bases, part of what was lost was access to pharmaceutical benefits for many retired military personnel who were receiving their prescription drugs benefits at those facilities. To address their needs, Congress created the BRAC pharmacy benefit which was a mail order, as well as a retail benefit, for needed prescriptions. Unfortunately, that benefit only covered about a third of all of those who have retired, so we had a dual system where, by accident of where you had retired and by the results of the Base Closure Commission, some retirees received the benefit and others did not. This legislation would treat military retirees across the country the same. Basically this bill makes prescription drugs accessible and available to military retirees over the age of 65, at a very reasonable cost--a 20 percent co-pay when they acquire the prescription drugs in retail pharmacy and an $8 co-pay if they buy them through mail order. There is no deductible and no enrollment fee. This is recognition that there are incredibly important and significant health needs for our retirees. This pharmacy benefit is one that our military retirees richly deserve. The BRAC pharmacy benefit was initiated by the Congress in the Fiscal Year 1994 Defense Authorization Act to ensure that Medicare-eligible retirees, who depended on the base's medical treatment facilities for their pharmacy needs, would be taken care of after the base was closed. This benefit includes the mail order pharmacy program for the co- payment of $8 for up to a 90-day supply and use of the Tricare retail network pharmacies for a 20-percent co-pay for up to a 30-day supply. We ask our armed forces to leave their families, risk their lives, fight our wars, help countries ravaged by disasters, and enforce peace all over the world. Americans who devote their lives to serving our country deserve this benefit. It is wrong for pharmacy benefits to be taken away for the sole reason that a retiree has reached the age of 65. That is what happens at the present time. Once they turn 65, they go under the Medicare system. Under the Medicare system, there are no prescription drug benefits, which they had otherwise been receiving, so they are left out in the cold. This initiative lets all military retirees know that we have not forgotten them. It lets all of the service members know that if they dedicate their lives to the service of our country, we will take care of their health care needs from the pharmaceutical point of view. Again, I express great appreciation to Senator Warner and the others--Senator Thurmond and a number of our colleagues on the committee--particularly Senator Snowe, who has taken great interest in this prescription drug issue. I think all of us know that the issue of prescription drugs is something of enormous concern to the elderly in this country. It was a benefit that was basically excluded from the coverage of Medicare when Medicare was passed in 1965. In 1965, the private companies were trying to make Medicare effectively the same kind of benefit package that existed in the private sector. At that time, very few in the private sector had a prescription drug benefit. Today, we see that progress has been made in the private sector. Now, more than 95 percent of the private sector plans provide prescription drug coverage, but Medicare doesn't. That is part of the great debate that, hopefully, we will have in this body before we adjourn; that is, are we going to provide prescription drug benefits for our senior citizens? What the Armed Services Committee, under the leadership of Senator Warner, has said is that eligible retirees are going to have those health care needs met, and they do it in a way that makes prescription drugs accessible to them through a mail order and a direct retail system through Tricare. This is basically a nationwide system with only a 20-percent co-payment, no enrollment fee, and no deductible, which will make these prescription drugs accessible and affordable for people who are living in retirement in the armed services community. I think this is enormously important. I think it is a great step forward. It is in response to the health care needs of men and women who have served this country, and I think it bodes very well for Congress as we try to work together to try to find ways of meeting the needs of others who are retired and need these prescription drugs desperately. Mr. President, again, I thank Senator Warner and others for their leadership and for this extremely important and significant step. It bodes well for this institution, and it is an expression of great appreciation to the men and women who have served in the Armed Forces of our country. I hope that we can follow this precedent and come to grips with the challenges that exist for the elderly in our Nation, and that we are able to develop a prescription drug benefit for them, too, the way we have been able to do it for military retirees. I think that would be great work by this Congress, and there is very little reason that we cannot do it. We should do it. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make sure that it is done. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.