Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield, I hope the majority leader's eloquent and compelling support for your side would be included.

Mr. KENNEDY. I see; a special place. OK. Senator Dodd and Senator Bingaman were going to speak, so the next 45 minutes will be fine.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, I express appreciation to the majority leader for calling up this legislation. As has been mentioned by the majority leader, and now by the chairman of the committee, Senator Jeffords, I think this is a matter of very significant importance to families all over this country. Hopefully, the next several days will be a good opportunity for them to develop a better understanding and awareness as to exactly what we are trying to do to enhance academic achievement in our public schools across the Nation. I pay tribute to the chairman of our committee, Senator Jeffords, who has had, over a long period of time, a distinguished career and who has placed the whole issue of quality education as one of his top priorities. We have areas of differences, but I think all of us, certainly on this side, have enormous respect for his continued leadership on the important areas of education. So it is always a pleasure to work with him. We have some important differences on this particular legislation, but all of us, at the start of this debate, acknowledge both the breadth of his understanding of this issue and his strong commitment. We look forward to this debate. I know today we will have general debate and discussion. I think that is important. Hopefully, at the end of the day, Members of the Senate will have a much clearer idea and awareness as to the two very significant and dramatic differences of how we want to use scarce Federal resources, the $14 billion or $15 billion. It is a lot of money, but in a budget of $1.8 trillion it is still a rather small amount. But, nonetheless, it does represent about 7 cents out of every $1 that is spent at the local level. It is important that we try to appropriate it as well as we possibly can. I think we have seen times in the past where we have had some important successes; we have also seen times in the past where we have not. But I think as a result of those times, those failures, today we are in a position to make recommendations to this body as to how best we can use the scarce resources. There are two very dramatic differences in approach, which I think we will try to spell out in the time we have available to us this afternoon. First of all, I will make a brief comment with regard to the majority leader. He does not engage himself often in the debate and discussion of policy issues. He expresses his viewpoints, but he is not as active, in most policy matters, as he is on education. We appreciate that. We have areas of difference, but, nonetheless, when we do debate the issues on education, he is engaged and involved. It is important that his involvement in this be recognized at the outset. I remind the Senate, however, of the two pieces of legislation he mentioned in terms of the achievements of the Congress. One was the Ed-Flex legislation we passed over a year ago. We have had three States that have taken advantage of that particular provision--only one State until fairly recently; two more States have come in. The most notable State to take advantage of it was North Carolina. There have been 12 States that have effectively taken advantage of the 1994 Act, and there hasn't been a single State or an educational community that actually has been turned down under Ed-Flex. I am glad we passed the legislation. Maybe during the course of the debate, we will find out that the principal hindrance, in terms of providing greater cooperation and the commingling of funds at the local level, is the fact that the States themselves have failed to match what we have done in providing Ed-Flex. It is important to recognize that that has been the situation. In the GAO report about what local communities want at the local level, they name as No. 1, resources; No. 2, programs that have demonstrated effectiveness in local communities and enhance legislation; No. 3, additional training for administrative skills. They don't mention the flexibility issue. We are glad that there is flexibility, but in that report they also point out that the States themselves are the ones that have been extremely reluctant to deal with their own problems. The GAO report reviewed 15 States and found only 1 State that had really taken action in order to knock down the hindrances for that State to be able to work most effectively with Federal funds in that local community. Secondly, on the savings account legislation, that piece of legislation was bid up from $1.2 billion over 10 years to $23 billion when it finally left the Senate floor, in a period of 3 days, without any corresponding offsets--just $23 billion. Many of us have been trying to get a prescription drug benefit of some measure. Certainly that $23 billion for the senior citizens would have gone a lot further than the $23 billion which is mostly a tax break for wealthy individuals. The way that it is constructed, it will not guarantee a single additional pencil for a schoolhouse in this nation. It will not guarantee a new teacher for any classroom. It will not guarantee an hour of afterschool programs. What it will do is provide some generous tax breaks for very wealthy people in order to, under the definitions, try to develop educational programs devised by themselves to enhance the academic achievement for either members of their family or develop a voucher program. The Joint Tax Committee pointed out, during the course of the debate, that half of the money that would come under the education savings accounts would go to private schools. Half would go to public schools. We know 90 percent of the children go to public schools. I think those two pieces of legislation are very marginal--a generous word--in terms of dealing with the serious problems about which parents are the most concerned relative to the record of this Congress on education. There is very little with which we might differ in terms of the majority leader's desire and the statement made by my friend from Vermont about enhancing academic achievement and accomplishment. The real question is how that best can be done. It is my opinion--and, I think, the opinion of many of those on this side of the aisle--that the proposition before the Senate this afternoon is a step back from what we have at the present time. We know we have made some progress since 1994, when we put in place some tough accountability standards at the local level and other kinds of requirements in the implementation and the utilization of title I. Now, under the proposal of the majority, they are moving back, significantly eliminating and reducing the requirements which had been applicable at the local level, that ensured Title I funds were used effectively to enhance academic achievement. They have effectively wiped those out, even though they say there is a hold harmless provision on where the funds will go. The kinds of assurances for how these funds can be used, and used effectively, have been wiped out. In place, what they have done is given the prime responsibility to the Governors. This is the major change. With this proposal that has been advanced by Republicans, we are saying that we are going to give the funds to the States and let the Governors make the judgment and decision about how those funds are going to be spent. We hear a great deal about the importance of local control. We hear a great deal about parental involvement. We hear a great deal about what is important in local communities. That is great rhetoric, but what we have to do is look at what the legislation says. That ought to be the point of the debate. Let us refer to the legislation. On page 618, Determination of State Participation: The Governor of a State, in consultation with the individual or body responsible for the education programs of the State under State law, shall determine whether the State shall participate in the performance agreement. Now let's say the State makes its judgment about what they are going to include in their application. Look on page 632, Uses of Funds Under Agreement: Funds made available to a State under this part shall be used for educational purposes, including--(1) carrying out activities focused on improved student learning; (2) providing new books. . . . We can ask ourselves, why not let them do that? The answer is very clear. We learned a lesson on why we should not do that. From 1965 to 1969, that is exactly what we did do--let the States use the funds for any educational purpose. Referring to the excellent report on title I of ESEA, Is It Helping Poor Children, the Washington Research Project points out that funds were used for purchasing tape recorders (14 tape recorders in Milwaukee), purchasing three tubas in Alabama, purchasing football uniforms, band uniforms for $35,000, and the list goes on--in another State, 18 swimming pools in the summer shall be used for educational purposes without any limitation. So the State moves ahead. They decide what they are going to use the funds for; it is going to be decided by the State. What kind of a review will we have to find out what they are doing? All we have to do is look at page 637 to find out what the States are going to do, Performance Review: At the end of the third year for which a performance partnership agreement is in effect for a State, the Secretary shall prepare a written performance review of the activities carried out under the agreement. Isn't that wonderful? Doesn't that really have teeth in it? After 3 years, the State is going to have a review of the activities carried out under the agreement. Then if the Secretary determines in the performance review that it isn't complete or it doesn't meet the agreements, there is, on 639, the real kick-in, the real tough action. This is what it says: The Secretary shall prepare a second written performance review for the State of the activities [shall be developed]. This is the legislation, Mr. President. Finally, on page 640, it says: Renewal Requirements.--The Secretary shall renew the agreement for an additional 5-year term, if (1) at the end of the 5-year term described in subsection (a), or as soon after the term as is practical, the State submits the data required under the agreement; and (2) the Secretary determines, on the basis of the data, that the State that has made substantial progress-- What is substantial progress? If they have made, according to the Secretary of Education, substantial progress, there they go again for another 5 years. Where is local control in here? Where is parental involvement in here? Tell me where are we going to get the guarantee for teachers, smaller classes, or afterschool programs in there? They say: Well, Senator, you have to understand that States know best. Well, there have been some notable exceptions, so let's take a look at what the States have done on this. First of all, the reason we have Title I is because we decided in 1965 that the needs of disadvantaged children were not being addressed. Then we took action in 1965 with a block grant to the States. That was a disaster. So we came back with more targeted programs, some of which have been successful, some of which, have not. What has happened along the way? We have seen an expansion of the title I program. We have reached out to take into coverage the migratory children's programs, the homeless children, the immigrant programs. Why? Because the States failed to meet those priorities. In March of 1987, the Center for Law and Education sent out a questionnaire regarding State practices of policies for homeless children to the chief State offices in the 50 States and the District of Columbia and received 23 responses. The majority of the respondents, however, had no statewide data on the number of homeless children within their jurisdiction, or whether those children were able to obtain an education. The majority of States had no uniform plan for ensuring that homeless students received an education. The same was true with how States were serving the needs of migrant children. We weren't properly addressing the needs of homeless children, migrant children, or immigrant children, and so they became eligible for educational services in targeted programs because they were determined to be disadvantaged children. Are we going to continue addressing the critical needs of these special populations under this proposed legislation? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. This legislation eliminates those special programs. They aren't going to continue those programs in spite of the fact that States historically have done little to address the needs of children in those areas. That has been true regarding programs that would help all three of those groups. Nonetheless, we are going to wipe those out. In 1986, let's look at what the States were going to do in terms of trying to intervene in failing schools. This is 1986. Listen to the national NGA report. It was chaired by Governors Alexander, Clinton, King, and Riley. All four Governors had solid records in terms of education. They spearheaded the efforts for the Governors' report. They recommended that each Governor intervene in low-performing schools and school districts --that is what title I is all about--and to take over or close down, academically bankrupt school districts. Well, in 1987, nine States had the authority to take over and annex educationally deficient schools or school districts. In 1990, here go the Governors again. Educating America; State strategies for achieving national education goals. The task force was co-chaired by Governors Clinton and Campbell. Rewards, sanctions, linkages to school, academic performance, including providing assistance and support to low- performing schools and State takeovers--these do not improve student achievement. In 1988, 18 States offered technical assistance or intervention. In 1998--12 years after the Governors quit caring about poor children as a top priority, we are about to send it all back to them. That is what this legislation does--sends it back to them. In 1998, NGA policy supports the State focus on schools. Reiterating a position first taken in 1988, NGA policy says States should have the responsibility on accountability and clear penalties for sustained failure to improve student performance. In 1999, well, we have 19 States that have procedures for intervening. In the year 2000, 20 States provide some form of assistance to low-performing schools. Included in there are States applying some type of schoolwide sanctions to low-performing schools. That is what the States have been doing in the last 12 years. Now we are having a recommendation by the Republicans--with that as a failed track record--let's send it all back to them. That is absolutely crazy, Mr. President. It is absolutely crazy. We should have learned something from the various actions of the States. States report that school support teams are able to serve only half of the schools in need of improvement. Now, in 1999, here is the final report on the assessment of title I. In this assessment, among the schools reported on in the 1998 survey that have been identified as a need of improvement, less than half reported that they had received additional professional development or technical assistance as a result of being identified for improvement from the States. I mean, this is a year ago, when the local communities' title I were asked--the ones that have been in the most troubled circumstances--what do the States provide, more than half of them said they never heard from the States. That is an indication of the States' interest. We are turning all of this money over to the States and we naively think they will take care of all disadvantaged children. We are giving them a blank check, revenuesharing, a block grant when we are up against this kind of record. The list goes on. We could go through this, but I don't think we will be all that surprised with the results. We went through this a short time ago--our block grant to States in terms of tobacco funds. Many of us are trying to identify those funds that ought to go to children, or children's health, or children's education. We were rolled on that particular thing. Now we find out they are laying more sidewalks in the State of California. That list goes on. What happens? What priority do these children get in terms of the States? They didn't get any priority when this bill was passed in 1965, and they are being shortchanged today, even with requirements that the funds go down to the local community. This legislation is going to effectively give it all to the States, as I mentioned. I think that is basically and fundamentally in error. As I mentioned, what are we trying to do? Let me point out a couple of other items. If a State opts to participate in the Straight A's block grant, the accountability provisions, which, as indicated, are insignificant, apply only at the State level. Therefore, a State could demonstrate statewide overall progress based on progress being made by wealthier communities, while a lack of progress in disadvantaged communities remains statistically hidden. Do we understand that? That means the State, in giving its progress requirement--which is a rather amorphous kind of definition--can use statewide figures and can also be selective with the particular school districts they are going to include in their report. You can say that can't be so, that just can't be so. It is so. On pages 625 and 640, Straight A's contains general language supporting efforts to close achievement gaps, but there is no real requirement that the gaps are closed. The goals for student performance are set at the State level and there is little repercussion for failure. In addition, the proposal would free participants from current law requiring inclusion of all students in State assessments. That is one of the matters that is now going to be put aside. Under the block grant proposal, ``all students'' is defined as ``all students attending public or charter schools that are participating in the State's assessment system.'' There are no provisions requiring States to include all students in that assessment system. Therefore, the States could exclude students from assessment without any accountability for their performance. Talk about a shell game--they have general language about what the States have to do in order to get the next big chunk of money from Uncle Sam. Take a look at what the States have to do in terms of giving their report where they can be selective about who is going to be in and who is going to be out to try to meet that requirement effectively. It is, as we have mentioned, an absolute blank check. We have learned year in and year out that when you give a blank check on education, it isn't the neediest and the poorest children who are going to get it. That is why we have all of the various GAO studies showing that in targeting funds, Federal funds are targeted seven times more to poorer children than State funds expended on education. At the Federal level, with scarce resources, we decided those are going to be the priorities. They present an extraordinary challenge of what we can do and what we can achieve. I think that is a very legitimate debate. But on our side, we have attempted to say we are going to provide to parents some guarantees in the area of education, some guarantees on smaller class size, some guarantees on teacher training, some guarantees on afterschool programs, some guarantees in terms of accountability, and hopefully to try to ensure that we were going to have safe schools and safe and drug-free schools. We are also going to do something about meeting the challenges which so many of our students face with buildings that are in a state of collapse, are antiquated, and should not be used for purposes of educating children. Those are guarantees. The Senate has a choice: Are we going to, on the one hand, give the blank check to the States, or, on the other hand, are we going to follow the tried and tested programs that have demonstrated results for children at the local level? I want to mention what we have done on our side with regard to the issue of accountability. First of all, our framework requires States to set goals for student performance progress on the local level and school districts to set goals for student progress for each school. You will hear the rhetoric about how wonderfully we are doing with schools. Here it is. We will give the reference for the various pages. Let me go through them. If the school or district fails to make progress within 2 years, districts and States must take action to assist the school or district, and supplemental resources are provided. Research-based school improvement strategies must be implemented. If they are going to implement from a range of different options, they have to have demonstrated success in the past based upon solid research. Then they can be used in the local communities. If the school or district continues to fail, the district or State must impose sanctions. The governance structure of the district or school must be changed, intensive professional development must be provided to the school's faculty, and parents must be given the option to send their children to the higher performing public schools. Effectively, if they are unable to be turned around at the end of the 5-year period, they will be on probation after the 3 years. If they are unable to do that, the school is effectively closed. The children will have to go to another school, or the States will come in and reverse that situation. Quite frankly, that has worked. In the State of North Carolina, they have 14 schools which they have had to go into and close down. Of the 14 schools they have closed, 12 of them are now above the State average in terms of performance. We are building on programs that have been tried and have demonstrated success. That is the way we are approaching the underserved schools and school districts. Our bill strengthens the current title I accountability system, and States are required to demonstrate progress and student achievement in each school and each district so that no community is left behind. Our bill requires goals for student progress, not just in the aggregate, but also for economically disadvantaged, racial and ethnic groups, and limited-English-proficient students. This step is necessary to ensure that progress is made in narrowing existing achievement gaps. States are also required to submit a report identifying students excluded from assessments. If for some reason they are going to let students out of these assessments, they are going to have to be identified. This is to guarantee that the system is not being gamed. That is what is happening. We sort of know it in some places where they have the various tests and the kids are being taught to take a particular test. There is a great deal of gaming going on in the system. We have to do everything we can to make sure that is not the case. This is to guarantee that the system is not being gamed by the practice of discarding the scores of certain students or outright excluding them from the assessment in order to improve the aggregate result. It establishes significant consequences for failure--freezes administrative funds and requires the Secretary to withhold an increasing proportion of Federal funds for administrative expenses each successive year the States fails to meet the deadlines. It requires accountability at the district and school level, not just the State level, by requiring LEAs to undertake corrective actions to reform specific failing schools and requiring States to undertake corrective actions to reform failing school districts. Under these provisions, the school district would be required to take action that would change the governance structure of failing schools; It establishes report cards to inform parents about the quality of their schools and their progress in meeting student achievement goals. Our plan also requires notification to parents when either the district or school that their child is enrolled in is undergoing corrective actions. This body doesn't see the difference between what is in the Republican proposal versus the kind of accountability we are talking about in our proposal. There are light years in difference. If we are going to be serious about these funds, we need to move ahead to make sure we are going to have support for programs that will make a difference for children. With regard to the opening comments about accountability, I hope our friends on the other side of the aisle are going to spare us a lot of discussion about local control and parent involvement because it just isn't there, it just isn't there. It might be there in the minds of people, but it isn't there in terms of legislation. It just isn't there. We want to put it there. We know how to put it there. If we want to do that, that is all well and good. We welcome the opportunity. We tried to do that in the course of the program. I will make a brief comment about some of the challenges that remain. We still have a long way to go. We are strongly committed to deal with those issues. Let me mention what happened in some areas and some communities. In Connecticut, reading scores went up when the State had a major investment in attracting the Nation's best and brightest teachers. That has been recognized generally by all those in education. They have done the most effective job in ensuring a well trained teacher in every classroom. Experts are reaching the conclusion that is an indicator as to how much the children have moved up. Important research has supported that concept. The bottom line is, with well trained teachers who are certified by the States--which is the case in our bill, not in their bill--in every classroom, the students' scores increase. Our legislation, that will be introduced by Senator Daschle in the form of a substitute to the underlying legislation, will have certification by the States within the 5-year period. In Boston, MA, at the Harriet Baldwin School, there is a program that serves 283 students; 93 percent are minorities, and 80 percent are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches. From 1996 to 1998, their math and reading improved substantially above the national median. In 1996, 66 percent of third graders scored at math levels I and II with little or partial mastery of basic skills; in 1998, 100 percent scored at levels III and IV with solid performance, superior performance, beyond grade level. In 1997, 75 percent of the fourth graders were at level I and II and with only 25 percent at high proficiency. In 1998, more than 50 percent were at higher levels of proficiency. We find programs with tough accountability, good teachers, and smaller class, we are seeing superb results. One of the underlying differences between the bill presented by our Republican friends and our proposal is with regard to the professional development. That is a key element. Hopefully, we will have an opportunity to address that issue independently as the debate goes on. It is of special importance as we consider the underlying legislation. Our Republican colleagues argue that the block grants provide the needed flexibility to improve teacher quality. The Republican Teacher Empowerment Act gives so much flexibility that States do not have to do anything to change their current practices. They can continue hiring uncertified teachers and continue providing low-quality, ineffective professional development and mentoring. They can 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. Why is this so? The proposed Teacher Empowerment Act does not guarantee any substantial funds for professional development. Page 210 says, for professional development activities: Each local educational agency that receives a subgrant to carry out the subpart shall use a portion of the funds made available through the subgrant for professional development. . . . They qualify with ``use a portion'' of the funds. We don't know what that ``portion'' of the funds is. It does not guarantee funds for mentoring programs, one of the most effective teacher professional development activities. Studies show, without mentoring programs, half of all the new teachers in urban and poor areas drop out within the first 5 years. Put in effective mentoring programs, and 70 to 75 percent of the teachers are staying in the schools, according to studies. Regarding mentoring, programs that provide mentoring to newly hired teachers, such as mentoring for master teachers, are merely allowed. Mentoring is only ``allowed,'' not required, even though virtually all of the major studies show that mentoring programs work. It does not guarantee funds for recruitment programs, it just allows the use of the funds. It does not guarantee that teachers are trained to address the needs of children with disabilities. Our bill guarantees that teachers are trained to meet the needs of children with disabilities and limited English proficient children. It does not hold States accountable for having a qualified teacher in every classroom. It does not even require teachers to be certified. Imagine that. I was listening to the majority leader talk about the importance of having good teachers in every classroom. Their proposal does not even require that teachers be certified in Mississippi. It also does not require a substantial priority for math and science training. No one can look at the challenges that underserved children are facing in our schools in urban and rural areas and not understand that in math and science there are special needs. Talk to any educator who has dealt with the problems of urban education, and they will say you need someone who will be teaching math and science. We provide an allocation for the math and science teachers, giving them the first priority. They don't require any substantial priority for math and science training. Their proposal does not require accountability. Instead, it promotes ineffective activities through the TOPS Program that are contrary to promising practices by supporting individually selected strategies for teachers. That means if you are a teacher in Chicopee and decide you would find a program you think is pretty good for elsewhere in Massachusetts, be my guest, you can take it. It gives them all the flexibility on this to be able to go out there and take it, instead of using what has been the recognized way of enhancing academic achievement and professional development; that is, having it school- related, tied to the curriculum, working with teachers, working with students. That is what all the studies, teachers, and scholars alike have said. Not under the Republican program; it is business as usual. They have used the programs in various communities around the country. I hope those who are trying to defend the Republican program will be able to demonstrate how and where their effectiveness has been. It hasn't been there. It is not there. But they have accepted that. That, I think, really fails to meet the basic thrust of the importance of a qualified teacher. There are others who want to speak, but let me just spend a few minutes on what we have done on teachers. In our particular program with regard to recruitment and professional development, to help schools and districts States can keep up to 6 percent for State activities, including strategies to raise teacher salaries, improve alternate routes to State certification, and reduce the numbers of teachers placed out of field or who are emergency credentialed. It requires the first $300 million will be used for professional development, mentoring, and recruitment in math and science, and it requires 60 percent of State funds be used for high-quality professional development and mentoring activities. That is funds that would go by formula to districts on the basis of 80-percent poverty and 20-percent population. It guarantees that 30 percent of the State funds go for State-run competitive local recruitment programs to high-need districts and to recruit and train high-need candidates. It guarantees teachers are trained to address the needs of children with disabilities, female students, and other students with special needs and bilingual programs. It holds States accountable for having a qualified teacher within 4 years of enactment of the law, otherwise their funds halt in this program. They are accountable for having a qualified teacher in every classroom within 4 years of enactment of the law. It holds local districts accountable for results. They may not hire any teachers who are not qualified using title II funds. If we needed something to say we need to give a high priority to well-trained teachers, all we have to do is just look at the Wall Street Journal of about a month ago. It is dated February 29, ``Schools To Turn To Temp Agency For Substitute Teachers.'' Most school districts begin every day with a nerve-wracking hunt for substitutes to fill in for absent teachers. With the tight labor market making the task especially tough, a few are starting to outsource the job. Kelly Temp Services unveiled the first nationwide substitute teacher program, and now handles screening and schedules for 120 schools in 10 States. This is a national indictment of our failure to deal with the problems of development of qualified teachers for our schools. We have, I think, an effective program which really reflects the judgment on the major professional development programs. I will just mention what the various studies say they need to do. They say high-quality professional development must be connected with teachers' work with their students, linked to concrete tasks of teaching, organized around problem solving, be informed by research, and sustained over time by ongoing conversations and coaching. There is a series of recommendations which we have worked on with regard to mentoring as well as the other aspects of it. Let me just conclude with these observations. On the one hand, you have what we are attempting to do, and what we will attempt to do with our substitute amendment, which is to guarantee to parents tough, strong, effective, tried-and-tested programs that are going to result in enhanced academic achievement and accomplishment. There is a significant break with the past with our very tough-minded accountability standards. We owe a great deal to Senator Bingaman and others who have done yeoman work in that area of accountability, and have for a long period of time going back to the Governors' meetings. We have that. On the other hand, we have the contributions, a blank check to the States. It is a blank check to the States for them to effectively use that money in a State program, virtually free from the requirements that are going to result in, first, the funding getting to where the needs are, and, second, the effective and tough-minded programs that can make a difference to those children in the underserved areas. ``It isn't there.'' You will hear the conversations, you will hear the speeches, you will hear the words, but ``it isn't there.'' You can't show it. We will take every section of the bill and go through it--I have--and show it does not give the accountability that is required. It fails the parents in this country, giving assurance to them for these programs. I have not even gotten into the question of portability, the whole sense of block grants. What has happened historically when we have gone back to block granting is, on each and every occasion that we have block granted, we have found out those funds have been dramatically reduced over a period of years. We can go back into that. I will at another time. But just take that because the fact is the focus and purpose for which those funds are developed becomes blurred. That has been the record. That is what we are going to see with regard to the Federal participation, partnership. It ought to be a partnership with the State and local communities. There are many in this body who do not think we ought to be in there at all. I understand that and respect it. It was not that long ago when they were advocating the elimination of the Department of Education. That was the Republican position. I understand it. I believe every one of us on our side believes when the President meets with his Cabinet there ought to be someone in there talking about education, education, education. That has been their position. Second, they have tried to cut back funding on education over the period since 1994. I understand that. They don't want Federal involvement. This must be the new way. Now we are getting vouchers, block grants, and give it to the States and let them make the judgment without tough- minded accountability. It is the wrong way to go. We should know better. I hope in this debate we will have the opportunity to demonstrate it further. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to approve this resolution, which Senator Helms, Senator Lautenberg and I submitted on the travel ban and other U.S. restrictions on contacts with Libya. The resolution was approved on April 13 by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. At the end of March, a team of State Department officials visited Libya as part of a review of the ban that has been in effect since 1981 on U.S. travel to that nation. State Department officials were in Libya for 26 hours, visiting hotels and other sites. Based on the findings of this delegation, the State Department is preparing a recommendation for the Secretary of State to help her determine whether there is still ``imminent danger to . . . the physical safety of United States travelers,'' as the law requires in order to maintain the ban. Under the provisions of the travel ban, American citizens can travel to Libya only if they first obtain a license from the Department of the Treasury. In addition, the State Department must first validate a passport for travel to Libya. The travel ban was imposed originally for safety reasons and predates the terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. But lifting the ban now, just as the two Libyan suspects are about to go on trial in The Netherlands for their role in that atrocity, will undoubtedly be viewed as a gesture of good will to Colonel Qadhafi. After the State Department announced that it would send this consular team to Libya, a Saudi-owned daily paper quoted a senior Libyan official as saying the one-day visit by the U.S. team was a ``step in the right direction.'' The official said the visit was a sign that ``the international community was convinced that Libya's foreign policy position was not wrong and there is a noticeable improvement in Libya's relations with the world.'' Libya's Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation said the visit demonstrated that the Administration ``has realized the importance of Libya'' and that Libya feels ``the negative chapter in our relations is over.'' Libya's Secretary for African Unity told reporters that the visit to Libya by U.S. officials was a welcome step and that ''. . . we welcome the normalization between the two countries.'' The good will gesture was certainly not lost on Colonel Qadhafi, who said on April 4, when asked about a possible warming of relations with the United States: ``I think America has reviewed its policy toward Libya and discovered that it is wrong . . . it is a good time for America to change its policy toward Libya.'' I have been in contact with many of the families of the victims of Pan Am Flight 103, and they are extremely upset by the timing of this decision. They are united in their belief that the U.S. delegation should not have been sent to Libya and that it would be a serious mistake to lift the travel ban before justice is served. The families want to know why the Secretary of State made this friendly overture to Colonel Qadhafi just six weeks before the trial in the Netherlands begins. They question how much information the State Department was able to obtain by spending only 26 hours in Libya. They wonder why the State Department could not continue to use the same sources of information it has been using for many years to make a determination about the travel ban. There is no reason to believe that the situation in Libya has changed since November 1999, when the travel ban was last extended on the basis of imminent danger to American citizens. Indeed, in January 2000, President Clinton cited Libya's support for terrorist activities and its non-compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions 731, 748, and 863 as actions and policies that ``pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and vital foreign policy interest of the United States.'' These American families have waited for justice for eleven long years. They felt betrayed by the decision to send the consular delegation to Libya. They have watched with dismay as our close ally, Great Britain, has moved to reestablish diplomatic relations with Libya, before justice is served for the British citizens killed in the terrorist bombing. The State Department denies it, but the families are concerned that the visit signals a change in U.S. policy, undermines U.S. sanctions, and calls into question the Administration's commitment to vigorously enforce the Iran Libya Sanctions Act. That Act requires the United States to impose sanctions on foreign companies which invest more than $40 million in the Libyan petroleum industry, until Libya complies with the conditions specified by the UN Security Council in its resolutions. The bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, in which 188 Americans were killed, was one of the worst terrorist atrocities in American history. Other American citizens are waiting for justice in other cases against Libya as well. Libya is also accused in the 1986 La Belle discotheque bombing in Germany, which resulted in the deaths of two United States servicemen. The trial of five individuals implicated in that attack began in December 1997 and is ongoing. In March 1999, six Libyan intelligence agents, including Colonel Qadhafi's brother-in-law, were convicted in absentia by a French court for the bombing of UTA Flight 772, which resulted in the deaths of 171 people, including seven Americans. A civil suit against Colonel Qadhafi based on that bombing is pending in France. The State Department should not have sent a delegation to Libya now and it should not lift the travel ban on Libya at this time. The Department's long-standing case-by-case consideration of passport requests for visits to Libya by U.S. citizens has worked well. It can continue to do so for the foreseeable future. The resolution the Senate is now considering states the Sense of the Senate that Libya's refusal to accept responsibility for its role in terrorist attacks against United States citizens suggests that the imminent danger to the physical safety of United States travelers continues. It calls on the Administration to consult fully with the U.S. Congress in considering policy toward Libya. It states that the travel ban and all other U.S. restrictions on Libya should not be eased until all cases of American victims of Libyan terrorism have been resolved and the government of Libya has cooperated fully in bringing the perpetrators to justice. I urge my colleagues to approve this resolution.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on the issue of education, the elementary and secondary education legislation will be coming to the floor in the next several days, according to what the leader has announced. I wish to indicate, once again, the position of those of us on this side of the aisle and what we tried to do in the markup of the education proposal several weeks ago. We attempted to follow some of the rather radical, but significant, changes we have seen as a result of enhanced and improved academic achievement at the local level. We want some guarantees because of the scarce resources available to us. As my colleagues know, 7 cents out of every dollar for education comes from the Federal Government. We are strongly committed on this side of the aisle to building on tried and tested programs that are indicating enhanced achievement for the children of this country, rather than the alternative, which is a block grant program our Republican friends have supported. We will have a chance to go through their legislation. It is S. 2. Instead of providing targeted resources to local communities for improving teacher quality, smaller class size, afterschool programs, the majority, in this lengthy legislation, says it should be ``. . . determination of State participation, the Governor of a State''--not the local parents, not the local school board, not the local community, but the Governor of a State--``in consultation with the individual body responsible for the education of the State shall determine. . . .'' We will go through the legislation next week, Their legislation says 5 years later there is going to be an accounting. We, on this side, do not want to wait 5 years to find out if their particular block grant program has been effective. All one has to do is go back to 1965 to 1969. We provided block grants to the States under the title I program. We will go through some of this during the debate. The State of Tennessee--all States have indicated how they utilized the money--purchased 18 portable swimming pools in the summer of 1966 at $3,500 each. The justification was that funds originally approved for a summer remedial program would not be spent and the money would otherwise go unspent. There is the buying of football uniforms in some States, and the buying of musical instruments for groups not even affected by title I. We will go through what has happened historically with the block grant program. Our programs are targeted to make sure we have a well-trained teacher in every classroom. We believe the overwhelming majority of American parents understand that and want that. We want to make sure we have smaller class sizes. We do not need more studies. We have had all the studies, and we have the results. We understand, as Senator Murray has pointed out so effectively, that smaller class sizes result in enhanced academic achievement. We believe, with the scarce resources available, we ought to invest in a guaranteed program with guaranteed results of having the smaller class sizes. We believe in afterschool programs which are so important. Modern, safer schools: Our schools are too crowded, out-of-date, and dilapidated. We owe it to our children to modernize our schools--to have more classrooms, to provide modern teaching facilities, and to provide our children with a safe and orderly learning environment. Accountability for results: We should hold schools accountable for results. We don't want to write a blank check to the states. We want federal education dollars to go to proven programs that will bring about real change. And we should require schools to use scarce federal dollars to bring about that change. A greater role for parents: Children and schools need the support of parents. Senator Reed will propose an amendment to give parents a stronger role in the education of their children and in the decision- making in their local schools. Gun safety: We should give gun safety top priority when it comes to our children and our schools. Child safety locks on guns should be a requirement. And we should close the gun show loophole that has proven so deadly to our children and our schools. The Senate passed such legislation last year, but it languishes in conference. We should act again--this time in earnest--to protect our children and our schools from gun violence. Republican colleagues will talk about change--they talk about having better teachers and safer schools. But if you read their bill, they just perpetuate the status quo. All they want to do is give more money to the governors and the states to use for their favorite programs. There is no guarantee under the Republican bill that your local school will spend the money on smaller classes, safer schools, or better teachers.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, over the past few days, there has been a great deal of discussion on the rights of victims and the need for increased participation of victims in the criminal justice system. I believe that all of us support victims' rights, greater federal recognition of these rights. Clearly, they deserve enforceable rights that are guaranteed by law. But, just as clearly, these rights can be achieved without taking the extraordinary step of amending the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is the foundation of our democracy, and it reflects the enduring principles of our country. The framers deliberately made it difficult to amend the Constitution, because it was never intended to be used for normal legislative purposes. Chief Justice Rehnquist captures the essence of why this proposed amendment is misguided, when he states that a statute, rather than a constitutional amendment, ``would have the virtue of making any provisions in the bill which appeared mistaken by hindsight to be amended by a simple act of Congress.'' The Constitution is not a billboard which to plaster amendments as if they were bumper sticker slogans. In this Congress alone, over a dozen constitutional amendments have been introduced. With every new proposed amendment of this kind, we undermine and trivialize the Constitution and threaten to weaken its enduring strength. One of the guiding principles that has served the nation well for two hundred years is that if it is not necessary to amend the Constitution, it is necessary not to amend it. We have amended the Constitution only 17 times in the two centuries since the adoption of the Bill of Rights. We should consider such amendments only in rare instances, when the enactment of a statute is clearly inadequate. We do have a responsibility to act to assure victims of crime that their rights in the criminal justice system will not be ignored. But amending the Constitution is not the appropriate remedy, and the debate over such a remedy in recent years has, as a practical matter, delayed the implementation of basic protections that are needed and that should be accomplished by statute. For too long, our criminal justice system has neglected the hundreds of thousands of victims of crime whose lives are shattered by violence or threats of violence each year. I believe, along with every other member of the Senate, that the rights of victims deserve better from our criminal justice system. Another irony is worth emphasizing in this debate. Many of the Senators who support the rights of victims and feel so strongly about this constitutional amendment are the same Senators who refuse to allow federal action, even by statute, to protect victims of hate crimes. For the past two years, the Senate has failed to send hate crimes legislation to the President's desk for signature. I hope that this debate will at least have the beneficial affect of encouraging Congress to take action to protect victims of hate crimes. Their needs too can no longer be ignored. Too often, the legal system does not provide adequate relief for victims of crime. They are not given basic information about their case--such as the case status, scheduling changes of court proceedings, and notice of a defendant's arrest and bail status. Victims deserve to know about their case, They deserve to know about hearings and other proceedings. They deserve to know when their assailants are being considered for parole. And they certainly deserve to know when their attackers are released from prison. Victims of crime and their families deserve legislation that will guarantee their basic rights and provide urgently needed support. However, particular provisions in the proposed constitutional amendment are of grave concern. It is no surprise that victims' rights groups and domestic violence groups oppose the constitutional amendment for a very practical reason. If a victim of domestic violence acts in self- defense, the batterer would be entitled to all of the constitutional rights created by S.J. Res. 3, including the right to attend court proceedings and the right to be heard. Clearly, we can deal with this problem by statute, and I urge the Senate to do so. I would welcome the opportunity to work with my colleagues to enact bipartisan legislation to accomplish the goal we share of genuine protections for victims' rights. Finally, I commend all of my colleagues who have so eloquently defended the Constitution and opposed this misguided amendment, especially Senator Byrd and Senator Leahy. They have given Congress and the country an excellent lesson in the role of the Constitution in protecting our liberties. Rarely has there been a better example of Senators living up to our oath of office ``to support and defend the Constitution.'' When we began this debate earlier this seek, the conventional wisdom was that the proposed constitutional amendment was within a vote or two in the Senate of obtaining the two-thirds majority needed for passage. The debate has so clearly demonstrated the fundamental flaws of this amendment that the amendment is likely to be withdrawn. It is a proud moment for the Senate, and I believe the founders who wrote the Constitution would be proud of us too.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Montana and commend the reasoning he has presented to this body. What he has pointed out is we could move ahead on this issue and reach a fair resolution of the injustice of the marriage tax penalty if we just had the opportunity to have a reasonable debate and discussion on these measures. We are effectively being denied, closed out from that opportunity. I just thank him for reiterating that. As a leader on the Finance Committee on this issue, I think he has made this case in a very powerful way.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as we continue to wage our ongoing battle in Congress for a fair increase in the minimum wage for millions of workers across America, it is important to understand that low-income workers in all parts of the country are doing all they can themselves to obtain fair increases in pay from their employers. One of the most important examples in recent weeks has been the strike by janitors in Los Angeles, who were seeking a long overdue reasonable increase in wages during this time of remarkable prosperity for most Americans. At the beginning of last week, an excellent column by respected journalist David S. Broder appeared in The Washington Post and many other newspapers across the country, calling national attention to the strike, and emphasizing the issues of fundamental fairness at the heart of this dispute. Mr. Broder noted recent reports of the lavish salary and bonus packages totaling millions or even tens of millions of dollars a year available to the top executives of major firms across the country, and he compared these extraordinary benefits with the low salaries of the janitors in this dispute, whose lives ``are lived on the ragged edge of poverty.'' I had the opportunity to meet with many of the striking workers and their union leaders on a visit to Los Angeles during the recess, and to express my support for them in their battle and to commend them for their courage. Fortunately, a tentative agreement on the issues in the strike was reached over the weekend, and a settlement granting a significant pay increase and other benefits was overwhelmingly approved by a vote of the workers yesterday. The President of the local union called the agreement ``the beginning of a new era for organized labor.'' Justice for these janitors means progress toward justice for all working men and women across America. Their cause was just, and because of timely and important articles like David Broder's, more and more people across America are becoming aware of these fundamental issues and their extraordinary importance for our society. I commend Mr. Broder for his eloquent analysis and insight, and I ask unanimous consent that his column in The Washington Post on April 16, entitled ``Of Janitors and Billionaires,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support greater recognition of the rights of victims of crime. Clearly, they deserve enforceable rights that are guaranteed by law. But, just as clearly, these rights can be achieved without amending the Constitution. The Constitution is the foundation of our democracy, and it reflects the enduring principles of our country. The framers deliberately made it difficult to amend because it was never intended to be used for normal legislative purposes. We have a responsibility to assure victims of crime that their rights in the criminal justice system will not be ignored. That is why my colleagues and I are re-introducing the Crime Victims Assistance Act. Our bill clearly defines the rights of victims, and it establishes an effective means to implement and enforce these rights. It does so without taking the drastic and unnecessary step of amending the Constitution. Acting through legislation allows us to act quickly to give victims the rights to which they are entitled. It also allows us to react quickly to changing circumstances. By contrast, the proponents of a constitutional amendment are asking victims to wait, possibly for years, before any of the provisions in the amendment are adopted, much less implemented. Our bill provides enhanced protections to victims of federal crimes. It assures victims a greater voice in the prosecution of the criminals who injured them and their families. It gives victims the right to be notified and heard on detention and plea agreements, the right to be notified and heard at probation revocation hearings, the right to be notified of the escape or release of a criminal from prison, and the right to a speedy trial and prompt disposition, free from unreasonable delay. In addition, our bill enhances victims' rights to obtain restitution, to be notified and heard at sentencing, and to be present at trial. The rights established by our bill will fill the existing gaps in federal criminal law and will be a major step toward ensuring that victims of crime receive appropriate and sensitive treatment. Our bill will achieve these goals in a way that does not interfere with the efforts of the States to protect victims in ways appropriate to each State's unique needs. Our bill also contains measures to ensure that victims receive the counseling, information, and assistance they need in order to participate in the criminal justice process to the maximum extent possible. It creates and funds additional federal victim assistance personnel. It authorizes the use of funds to establish effective pilot programs. It provides funds for increased training of state and local law enforcement agencies and court personnel, to enable them to respond effectively to the needs of victims and to notify them of important dates and developments. Our bill also establishes ombudsman programs to ensure that victims are given unbiased information about navigating the criminal justice process. To make all of these improvements possible, the proposed statute also improves federal financial support for victim assistance and compensation. There is no need to amend the constitution to achieve these important goals. In my view, when it is not necessary to amend the constitution to achieve a particular goal, it is necessary not to amend it. That is why I ask my colleagues to establish effective and enforceable rights for victims of crime by supporting the Crime Victims Assistance Act.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, April 24 marks the 85th anniversary of the beginning of one of the most tragic events in history, the Armenian Genocide. In 1915, the Ottoman Turkish Government embarked on a brutal policy of ethnic extermination. Over the next eight years, 1.5 million Armenians were killed, and more than half a million were forced from their homeland into exile. In the years since then, the Armenian diaspora has thrived in the United States and in many other countries, bringing extraordinary vitality and achievement to communities across America and throughout the world. The Armenian Assembly of America, the Armenian National Committee of America, and other distinguished groups deserve great credit for their impressive work in maintaining the proud history and heritage of the Armenian people, and guaranteeing that the Armenian Genocide will never be forgotten. One of the enduring achievements of the survivors of the Genocide and their descendants has been to keep its tragic memory alive, in spite of continuing efforts by those who refuse to acknowledge the atrocities that took place. In Massachusetts, the curriculum of every public school now includes human rights and genocide, and the Armenian Genocide is part of that curriculum. As this new century unfolds, it is time for all governments, political leaders and peoples everywhere to recognize the Armenian Genocide. These annual commemorations are an effective way to pay tribute to the courage and suffering and triumph of the Armenian people, and to ensure that such atrocities will never happen again to any people on earth.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the budget resolution that Republicans put before the American people today proposes an unacceptable change of course, at a time when the Nation needs to stay the course of the investments that are driving our historic economic expansion. This is a budget that reverts to the days of trickle-down economics, despite all the evidence that it will only widen the unconscionable gap that already exists between rich and poor in our society. It fails to respond to the challenges the Nation so obviously faces in education, health care, prescription drugs for the elderly, youth violence, firearm safety, hunger, scientific research and development, and environmental protection. The Senate improved the House budget resolution in important respects last week, but the House position prevailed on every issue during conference. The document before the Senate today is far less satisfactory than the budget the Senate sent to conference last Friday. The Senate resolution dedicated just $2.7 billion of the $150 billion Republican tax cut to Pell Grants that help low-income, high-achieving students attend college. But the House Republicans killed even this modest incentive for college education, preferring to keep every possible dollar for more tax breaks for the wealthy. The Senate resolution included an $8.5 billion reserve fund to expand early learning opportunities, so that young children enter school ready to learn. This was a bipartisan amendment that Senator Stevens, Senator Jeffords and I offered. But House Republicans blocked it. The Senate resolution included a pledge that the minimum wage should be increased by $1, but the House Republicans rejected it. The Senate minimum wage provision expressed our fundamental commitment that many of the hardest working Americans working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year, ought not to have to continue to live in poverty, nor should their children. But it was rejected by the House conferees. The Senate resolution even included a provision by Republican Senator Arlen Specter to increase funding for medical research. But again, House Republicans rejected it. Instead, the Republican budget resolution that emerged from conference is a shortsighted scheme to protect narrow special-interests instead of the national interest. I'm proud to join my Democratic colleagues in voting against it. We will continue the battle for a fair budget in weeks and months ahead. But the final battle may well be on election day, when the American people at long last will have the choice to elect the Congress that will make the right investments, not the wrong investments, for the Nation's future. During last week's budget debate we heard many statistics that are misleading at best. When we cut through all the ``smoke and mirrors,'' what matters is that this unacceptable budget resolution supports a huge tax break for the wealthy that the Nation can't afford. The independent Congressional Budget Office confirms that the Republican budget resolution reduces domestic discretionary spending by an average of 6.5%. It is impossible for this Congress to write honest appropriations bills with cuts that drastic. Our Republican colleagues couldn't make the numbers add up without massive accounting gimmicks last year, and they can't do it this year. Our Republican friends say that they designed this budget resolution to curb the gimmicks used last year. But we all know there will be new ones used to pretend to meet the urgent needs our country faces. This budget also prevents us from acting to reduce the number of low- income working families who have no health insurance--to rebuild our crumbling public schools, to reduce the hunger that still afflicts 3 out of every 100 American households--to make college affordable for low-income students --and to achieve the scientific advances that are so close. Tax breaks for the wealthy are what this budget resolution is all about. No other subject is treated so often and so thoroughly. There are reconciliation instructions on tax cuts, reserve funds for tax cuts, and even provisions for more tax cuts if the surplus grows. The only things that this budget resolution requires committees to report are tax cuts. The only procedural protection under ``reconciliation'' provided by the resolution is for tax cuts. Democrats support affordable, targeted tax cuts, and they should be enacted promptly. But the merit of a tax cut depends on its size and its distribution. It is obvious that these GOP tax cuts are excessive and irresponsible. They offer plums for the rich and crumbs for everyone else, and President Clinton will be right to give them the veto they obviously deserve. The budgets we vote for say a great deal about our values. It is easy to pay lip service to meeting the Nation's unmet needs. But a budget clearly shows whether we are willing to allocate resources to address those needs effectively. This budget does not pass the laugh test. It does not seriously address the range of important challenges facing America. It does not meet our national needs in education, in health care, in medical and other scientific research, in security for senior citizens, in environmental protection, and in public safety. On all these issues, it is a failed budget, because it fails America. It gives the most to those who already have the most. It pretends that the Nation has no unmet needs--and it deserves to be defeated. Mr. President, one very important aspect of the budget that was altered and changed in the budget conference report concerns the issue of prescription drugs. This issue was before the Senate Finance Committee. We had debate on this measure on the floor during the budget consideration. We hoped to be able to have debate on this issue when we talked about the marriage tax penalty. Look at the contrast between the way the budget conference considered tax breaks and how the conference committee addressed prescription drugs--an issue that is calling out for action by this Congress, and calling out for action now. We made some progress in the budget resolution that passed the Senate earlier, but look at what happened in that conference. Look at what happened on one of the most important issues in this country today. Providing America's seniors with the help they need in order to survive, through a responsible, comprehensive prescription drug benefit that will be affordable and that will include basic benefits, as well as catastrophic coverage must be a priority. Look at the difference on what we call reconciliation of revenue reductions in the Senate. In other words, what did the budget resolution say in the conference with regard to tax cuts? It says that the Senate Committee on Finance shall report to the Senate a reconciliation bill not later than July 14 of the year 2000, and not later than September 13, 2000, that consists of changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the total level of revenues by $11.6 billion in 2001 and $150 billion for fiscal years 2001-2005. Not later than July 14 or September 13. This is what is in the conference report with regard to prescription drugs. Whenever the Senate Committee on Finance reports a bill which improves access to prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise to accommodate such legislation $20 billion over the period of fiscal years 2001 through 2005. Then the (b) section talks about Medicare reform. We have changed some rather specific instructions on prescription drugs--improving access to prescription drugs. The seniors of this country know the difference between access to prescription drugs and a benefit package that includes prescription drugs. Access to prescription drugs may mean a bus ticket for a senior living in Maine or any of the border States to go over to Canada. That is access to prescription drugs. We are not talking about access. We are talking about a benefit package that is going to be meaningful to our senior citizens. That is what this debate has been about. Our seniors understand which benefits they receive and they understand which benefits they don't receive. One benefit they do not receive is a prescription drug benefit. In addition, the $20 billion which may have access to prescription drugs at this time is half the amount the President has recommended. This is a clear abdication of this body's responsibility to our seniors. We cannot go home without taking action on an effective prescription drug program. We on this side of the aisle feel strongly that one of the priorities that should have been attended to prior to a tax break is an effective prescription drug program; one that is universal, basic and catastrophic, and affordable--affordable to the individuals and affordable to our government. But, no, we get lip service on the issue of prescription drugs in this particular proposal. That in and of itself should be enough reason to reject the proposal. If you vote for this budget, you are not serious about making sure our seniors are going to have prescription drugs. You cannot vote for this budget and say you are serious about prescription drugs because this budget does not provide the necessary assurance to our senior citizens. I will take a final minute to talk about the drug crisis America's seniors are facing. Prescription drug coverage is going down at the same time drug costs are going up. I shared with the Senate the other day the reality our senior citizens across this country face. A third of all senior citizens don't have any prescription drug coverage at all; another third are losing coverage. These seniors have employer- based coverage, which is declining dramatically every single year. Then there are seniors with coverage through HMOs; their coverage is being squeezed out. The only group that has reliable coverage are the poorest of the poor who are covered under the Medicaid program. Prescription drug coverage is not just another benefit, it is life and death for our seniors. This chart demonstrates what has been happening to drug costs. We are seeing double-digit increases in drug costs. From 1995, going up; in 1997, up 14 percent; and in 1998, up 15 percent; in 1999, up 16 percent. These increases were at a time when we had an average of a 2-percent increase in the rate of inflation. This issue affects Americans all across this country; it isn't an issue just in the Northeast. It is an issue in the Northeast, the Southeast, the Midwest, the Northwest and the Southwest. It is a universal issue. Our senior citizens deserve better action by the Budget Committee in the conference. It is a tragedy. But we are strongly committed on this side of the aisle not to give up on this issue. We are going to take every opportunity to fight for prescription drugs. We believe our seniors are entitled to an effective drug program. We think a prescription drug program is absolutely essential. It has to be one of our top priorities. It should have been done right by the Budget Committee. The prescription drug benefit is more deserving than the tax breaks which are included in this resolution. That was the issue that was before the Budget Committee. That is the issue that is before the Senate of the United States this afternoon. That is the most important reason I will vote ``no.''

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join Senators Jeffords, Harkin and Rockefeller in calling on the Senate to strengthen our Nation's pension laws. This amendment reaffirms the value of defined benefit pension plans for workers, and our commitment to protecting workers from age discrimination in the provision of pension benefits. Too many American workers have discovered that the pension promises made to them by their employers are virtually worthless. It is disturbing in this period of unprecedented economic prosperity and rising profits that major corporations are shortchanging their older and longer serving workers. These companies have changed the rules unfairly, by converting traditional defined benefit pension plans to so-called ``cash balance'' plans. Companies have made these conversions quietly, without informing workers of the impact of the changes on their retirement security. When workers ask for an explanation, all too often they are given devious responses. Some employers have done the right thing and allowed older and longer service workers to remain covered under the original plan, but other employers have not. In addition, many cash balance plans deny benefits to older workers for a period of time after the conversion, using a discriminatory practice known as ``wear away.'' This practice prevents older and longer service workers from earning new benefits under the cash-balance plan until that benefit exceeds the original promised benefit. We must end the practice of wear away immediately. Our amendment calls on Congress to enact legislation this year requiring, at a minimum, that employers provide workers with adequate notice of a change in their pension plan that reduces future benefits. It also prohibits the discriminatory practice of wear away. Our amendment makes clear that Congress will take whatever action is necessary to assure older workers that they will not be short-changed when it comes to their retirement security. It is long past time for Congress to act and protect our older and longer service workers. We value older workers in America--we don't ``wear them away.''

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support legislation which would provide tax relief to the working families who are currently paying a marriage penalty. Such a penalty is unfair and should be eliminated. However, I do not support the proposal the Republicans have brought to the floor. While its sponsors claim the purpose of the bill is to provide a marriage penalty relief, that is not its real purpose. In fact, only 42 percent of the tax benefits contained in the legislation go to couples currently subject to a marriage penalty. The majority of the tax benefits would actually go to couples who are already receiving a marriage bonus and to single taxpayers. As a result, the cost of the legislation is highly inflated. It would cost $248 billion over the next 10 years. As with most Republican tax breaks, the overwhelming majority of the tax benefits would go to the wealthiest taxpayers. This bill is designed to give more than 78 percent of the total tax savings to the wealthiest 20 percent of the taxpayers. It is, in reality, the latest ploy in the Republican scheme to spend the entire surplus on tax cuts which would disproportionately benefit the richest taxpayers. That is not what the American people mean when they ask for relief from the marriage penalty. With this bill, the Republicans have deliberately distorted the legitimate concerns of married couples for tax fairness. All married couples do not pay a marriage penalty. In fact, a larger percentage of couples receive a marriage bonus than pay a marriage penalty. The only couples who pay a penalty are those families in which both spouses work and have relatively equivalent incomes. They deserve relief from this inequity, and they deserve it now. We can provide relief to the overwhelming majority of the couples simply and at a modest cost. That is what the Senate should do. Instead, the Republicans have insisted on greatly inflating the cost of the bill by adding extraneous tax breaks primarily benefiting the wealthiest taxpayers. A plan that would eliminate the marriage penalty for the overwhelming majority of married couples could easily be designed and cost less than $100 billion over 10 years. The House Democrats offered such a plan when they debated this issue in February. The amendment which Senator Bayh intends to offer to this bill would also accomplish that goal. If the real purpose of the legislation is to eliminate the marriage penalty for those working families who actually pay a penalty under current law, it can be accomplished at a reasonable cost. The problem we have consistently faced is that our Republican colleagues insist on using marriage penalty relief as a subterfuge to enact large tax breaks unrelated to relieving the marriage penalty and heavily weighted to the wealthiest taxpayers. The House Republicans put forward a bill which would cost $182 billion over 10 years and give less than half the tax benefits to people who pay a marriage penalty. That was not enough for the Senate Republicans. They raised the cost to $248 billion over 10 years. A substantial majority, 58 percent of the tax breaks in the Senate bill, would go to taxpayers who do not pay a marriage penalty. Nor is this the only tax bill the Republicans have brought to the floor this year. They attached tax cuts to the minimum wage bill in the House of close to $123 billion and tax cuts to the bankruptcy bill in the Senate of almost $100 billion. They have sought to pass tax cuts of $23 billion to subsidize private school tuition and reduce the inheritance tax paid by multimillionaires. Not including the cost of this bill, the Republicans in the House and Senate have already passed tax cuts that would consume $443 billion over the next 10 years. The result of this tax cut frenzy is to crowd out necessary spending on the priorities which the American people care most about--education, prescription drugs for senior citizens, health care for uninsured families, strengthening Medicare and Social Security for future generations. Finally, I want to bring another matter to the attention of the Senate. It is another marriage penalty, and that is, there are 13 States--which represent 22 percent of the American people--that have laws saying when one gets married, they lose the coverage under Medicaid they might otherwise have if they were single. For example, in the State of Maine, one is eligible as a single person for Medicaid up to $14,000, but if it is a couple, each earning $7,000 so the family income is $14,000, neither of them gets Medicaid coverage. That is true in 13 States. If we are going to take a look at the marriage penalty for the wealthier individuals in this country, what about the marriage penalty for some of the working poor who are trying to make ends meet? That is an issue I hope to have an opportunity to debate when we get into a discussion of the proposal put forward by the Democratic leader.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Helms and Lautenberg in submitting this resolution on the travel ban and other U.S. restrictions on Libya. At the end of March, a team of State Department officials visited Libya as part of a review of the ban that has been in effect since 1981 on U.S. travel to Libya. State Department officials were in Libya for 26 hours, visiting hotels and other sites. Based on the findings of this delegation, the State Department is preparing a recommendation for the Secretary of State to help her determine whether there is still ``imminent danger to . . . the physical safety of United States travellers,'' as the law requires in order to maintain the ban. Because of the travel ban, American citizens can travel to Libya only if they obtain a license from the Department of the Treasury. In addition, the State Department must first validate a passport for travel to Libya. The travel ban was imposed originally for safety reasons and predates the terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. But lifting the ban now, just as the two Libyan suspects are about to go on trial in The Netherlands for their role in that atrocity, will undoubtedly be viewed as a gesture of good will to Colonel Qadhafi. After State Department announced that it would send this consular team to Libya, a Saudi-owned daily paper quoted a senior Libyan official as saying the one-day visit by the U.S. team was a ``step in the right direction.'' The official said the visit was a sign that ``the international community was convinced that Libya's foreign policy position was not wrong and there is a noticeable improvement in Libya's relations with the world.'' Libya's Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation said the visit demonstrated that the Administration ``has realized the importance of Libya'' and that Libya considers ``that the negative chapter in our relations is over.'' Libya's Secretary for African Unity told reporters that the visit to Libya by U.S. officials was a welcome step and that `` . . . we welcome the normalization between the two countries.'' The good will gesture was certainly not lost on Colonel Qadhafi, who said on April 4, when asked about a possible warming of relations with the United States: ``I think America has reviewed its policy toward Libya and discovered that it is wrong . . . it is a good time for America to change its policy toward Libya.'' I have been in contact with many of the families of the victims of Pan Am Flight 103, and they are extremely upset by the timing of this decision. They are united in their belief that the U.S. delegation should not have been sent to Libya and that it would be a serious mistake to lift the travel ban before justice is served. The families want to know why the Secretary of State made this friendly overture to Colonel Qadhafi now--just six weeks before the trial in the Netherlands begins. They question how much information the State Department was able to obtain by spending only 26 hours in Libya. They wonder why the State Department could not continue to use the same sources of information it has been using for many years to make a determination about the travel ban. There is no reason to believe that the situation in Libya has changed since November 1999, when the travel ban was last extended on the basis of imminent danger to American citizens. Indeed, in January 2000 President Clinton cited Libya's support for terrorist activities and its non-compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions 731, 748, and 863 as actions and policies that ``pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and vital foreign policy interest of the United States.'' These American families have waited for justice for eleven long years. They felt betrayed by the decision to send the consular delegation to Libya. They have watched with dismay as our close ally, Great Britain, has moved to reestablish diplomatic relations with Libya, before justice is served for the British citizens killed in the terrorist bombing. The State Department denies it, but the families are concerned that the visit signals a change in U.S. policy, undermines U.S. sanctions, and calls into question the Administration's commitment to vigorously enforce the Iran Libya Sanctions Act. That Act requires the United States to impose sanctions on foreign companies which invest more than $40 million in the Libyan petroleum industry, until Libya complies with the conditions specified by the U.N. Security Council in its resolutions. The bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, in which 188 Americans were killed, was one of the worst terrorist atrocities in American history. Other American citizens are waiting for justice in other cases against Libya as well. Libya is also accused in the 1986 La Belle discotheque bombing in Germany, which resulted in the deaths of two United States servicemen. The trial against five individuals implicated began in December of 1997 and is ongoing. In March 1999, six Libyan intelligence agents, including Colonel Qadhafi's brother-in-law, were convicted in absentia by a French court for the bombing of UTA Flight 772, which resulted in the deaths of 171 people, including seven Americans. A civil suit against Colonel Qadhafi based on that bombing is pending in France. The State Department should not have sent a delegation to Libya now and it should not lift the travel ban on Libya at this time. The State Department's long-standing case-by-case consideration of passport requests for visits to Libya by U.S. citizens has worked well. It can continue to do so for the foreseeable future. The resolution we are submitting today states the sense of the Senate that Libya's refusal to accept responsibility for its role in terrorist attacks against United States citizens suggests that the imminent danger to the physical safety of United States travelers continues. It calls on the Administration to consult fully with the U.S. Congress in considering policy toward Libya. It states that the travel ban and all other U.S. restrictions on Libya should not be eased until all cases of American victims of Libyan terrorism have been resolved and the government of Libya has cooperated fully in bringing the perpetrators to justice. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I ask unanimous consent that a Washington Post article and editorial on this subject be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, since its enactment in 1938, the Fair Labor Standards Act has played a fundamental role in ensuring a fairer standard of living for all American workers. The act created basic rights for workers by establishing a federal minimum wage, a 40 hour work week and overtime pay for additional hours. It also protects children from abusive working conditions and helps ensure that women and men receive equal pay. Throughout its existence, the act has been indispensable in improving the standard of living for vast numbers of Americans. The Department of Labor has effectively carried out its responsibility to interpret the law with this purpose in mind. Given the high value of the act in protecting workers' rights to a fair workplace, Congress must remain vigilant to ensure that any changes in this important law do not undermine the wage and hour protections guaranteed to workers under the act. I support the current bill because it helps ensure that employers cannot misuse the act as an excuse to exclude rank and file workers from the stock option plans, stock appreciation rights, and stock purchase plans they provide to higher paid employees. I commend Senator Dodd, Senator Jeffords, Senator Enzi, and Senator McConnell for developing this narrow, but important, clarification of the act. It is a needed modernization of the law, and it arose from unique circumstances. I am confident that the Secretary of Labor will promulgate regulations interpreting this bill in a way that protects the fundamental right of workers to receive overtime pay and not be forced to work overtime to participate in stock plans. It is of the utmost importance that any change in the act serves to strengthen the protections for workers, not weaken them.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Teaching Hospital Preservation Act that we are introducing today will restore much-needed support for the nation's teaching hospitals by freezing the Medicare Indirect Medical Education adjustment at 6.5 percent. The so-called IME payments under Medicare go to teaching hospitals to help defray their added costs of caring for the sickest patients, training physicians, and providing an environment in which clinical research can flourish. Under current law, the IME payments will be reduced from their current level of 6.5 percent to 6.25 percent for fiscal year 2001 and 5.5 percent for fiscal year 2002 and future years. If these reductions take place, they will have a devastating impact on the nation's teaching hospitals. Enactment of this relief is essential to complete the task we began last year in the Balanced Budget Restoration Act of 1999. Across the country, teaching hospitals continue to suffer severe financial losses. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, even with enactment of last year's measure, the typical teaching hospital will still lose more that $40 million in Medicare payments between 1998 and 2002. At the most recent meeting of the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee, it was reported that the margins of major teaching hospitals dropped from 5.1 percent in 1997 to 2.3 percent in 1998. Notwithstanding major efforts by the leadership of this institutions to reduce their costs, there is every reason to believe this ominous trend is continuing. In Boston, teaching hospitals lost $22 million just in the first quarter of the current fiscal year, and Boston is far from alone. The financial problems of the nation's pre-eminent teaching hospitals around the country are well-known. Cutbacks in care for patients, research, and teaching have already been implemented by many of these respected institutions, and are being considered by many others. These teaching hospitals are the backbone of our health care system, and Congress should not stand silent in the face of these distressing developments. Teaching hospitals are facing substantially higher costs for drugs, labor, medical devices and new technologies. The tight labor market is pushing wages higher and higher. Despite these heavy financial pressures. Medicare is scheduled to impose serious cutbacks in its reimbursements to teaching hospitals. The result of this shortfall may well be disastrous for these indispensable institutions. A significant part of the problem was caused by the excessive and unintended Medicare reductions required by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Last year's Balanced Budget Restoration Act delayed reductions in the IME adjustment. That relief was an important first step, but it was only a first step. The legislation we are introducing today will ensure that Medicare support for teaching hospitals remains at its current level. The pre-eminence of American academic medicine is at stake. The nation's teaching hospitals provide the highest quality health care to the sickest patients. They ensure the highest quality physicians training, and an unparalleled research capability. In addition, teaching hospitals are the safety net for 44 percent of the uninsured, despite comprising only 6 percent of all hospitals. They perform a vast array of services to their communities, from neighborhood health programs to drug treatment programs to well baby clinics. All of these programs are in jeopardy if the currently scheduled cutbacks take place. We cannot afford to let teaching hospitals fail. I urge my colleagues to join us in enacting this important bill this year.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, a few days ago, the president of the Kennedy Center, Lawrence J. Wilker, announced that he will resign his position at the Center at the end of this year. He plans to launch a new Internet entertainment company, and I know that he will bring the same ability, energy, and enthusiasm to that initiative as he brought to the Kennedy Center. Larry Wilker has been a superb president for the Kennedy Center over the past decade. He has made outstanding improvements in the Center's facilities and its programming. He has led the Center effectively during a time of significant growth and expansion. One of his most impressive achievements has been the creation of the Millennium Stage, which offers free performances every afternoon at the Center. I know that Larry Wilker will continue to be a leader in the national performing arts community and an enduring part of the Kennedy Center, and I wish him well in his important and pioneering new undertaking. Today's Washington Post contains an excellent editorial praising Larry and his many contributions to the Kennedy Center and the arts in the nation. I ask that the editorial may be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Washington Post, April 11, 2000] A Kennedy Center Departure Lawrence Wilker, president of the Kennedy Center since 1991, is taking off for the dot-com world, leaving an institution more vital and deeper in talent than before his arrival. Former chairman James Wolfensohn, who hired Mr. Wilker, did much to set the direction of the center toward showcasing national and regional arts, livelier relations with the local scene and a strong focus on arts education. Under Mr. Wilker and center chairman James Johnson those changes deepened and took institutional hold. Signs of this emphasis range from the hugely popular free ``Millennium State'' events daily at 6 p.m. in the Grand Foyer--catering, as often as not, to a jeans-and-sweaters crowd--to the splashy black-tie gala that marked the unveiling of a refurbished Concert Hall in 1997. Outreach doesn't accomplish much if the quality isn't there to back it up. That lesson also has reverberated in the Wilker era with the arrival of recognized names such as the Washington Opera's Placido Domingo and the National Symphony Orchestra's Leonard Slatkin. Mr. Wilker's own background in theater production bolstered Kennedy Center sponsorship of the Fund for New American Plays, which distributes as much as $25,000 (gleaned mostly from corporate sources) for production of promising works by young playwrights all over the nation--some of which end up in Washington, some not. Mr. Wilker says his Internet venture will make arts and entertainment more widely available. His Kennedy Center tenure has been, in large measure, an exercise in that same mission, and one that has achieved success--despite being waged not on the Net but in the clunkier coin of bricks, mortar and federal budget battles.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I have 15 seconds remaining.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, disadvantaged communities need more help to ensure that all public schools give children a good education. Increased funding for Title I sends a strong signal that we will increase support for low-achieving children attending schools with high concentrations of poor students. Nationwide, Title I reaches more than 50,000 schools in over 13,000 school districts. It serves over 11 million students. Approximately 99% of Title I dollars go to local school districts. In addition, Title I is much more targeted to high-poverty districts than state and local funds. Title I is working effectively in schools. It has contributed to the rapid development of challenging state standards that apply to all students in Title I schools. Teachers are using these standards to guide instruction. States that have implemented high standards and assessments consistent with Title I show increased achievement levels in high-poverty schools. It is clear that Title I is driving higher standards in poor districts and schools. The National Assessment of Educational Progress has shown significant increases in math scores in the 4th, 8th, and 12th grades. Reading and math performance among nine-year-olds in high-poverty public schools and among the lowest-achieving fourth-graders has improved significantly. The achievement gap between minority students and white students has narrowed since 1982, one of the greatest gains in science were made by black and Hispanic students. Average SAT scores--math and verbal--were higher in 1999 than the averages for either 1983 or 1989. These improvements have come at the same time that the proportion of test-takers with a native language other than English has been increasing (to 8 percent in 1999). Test results are continuing a 10-year trend of stable or increasing scores. At the same time, record numbers of students are taking the tests. More than 80 percent of poor school districts, and almost half of all districts nationwide, report that Title I is ``driving standards-based reform in the district as a whole.'' In addition, Title I funds, as well as all federal education funds, are more targeted to high-poverty districts than state and local funds. Title I now supports 95% of the highest-poverty schools and is helping these schools to dramatically improve student performance. In Atlanta, Georgia, Burgess Elementary School is a Title I school that serves 430 students. 99% of them are black, and more than 80% are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches. In 1998, 64% of students performed above the national norm in reading, an increase of 35% over 1995. 72% scored above the national norm in math, an increase of 38% over 1995. In Baltimore County, Maryland, all but one of the 19 Title I schools showed increased student performance between 1993 and 1998. The success has come from Title I support for extended year programs, implementation of effective programs in reading, and intensive professional development for teachers. In Boston, the Harriet A. Baldwin School is a Title I program that serves 283 students. 93 percent of them are minorities, and 80 percent are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches. From 1996 to 1998, math and reading scores improved substantially, and are currently well above the national median and are much higher than district scores. In spite of this progress, there is still a substantial achievement gap between students in the highest poverty schools and students in low-poverty schools. The time is now to build on these successes and make them available to more schools in more communities. We should increase support for Title I to show the nation that we are committed to a level playing field to help all children achieve high standards. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2962.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in 1997, as a result of a bipartisan effort, the Senate and Congress went on record to provide $24 billion, over 5 years, in a program called CHIP; that is, to try to provide health insurance for poor children. Those are above the Medicaid level. We are making progress on that. This amendment says we are going to now try to provide the health insurance for the parents of those children to try to keep the families together. It amounts to $11 billion off the tax break over a 5-year period. This is a family values issue to try to keep needy families together. It permits the States to make the judgment as to how it is going to be implemented. Every single State now has a CHIP program. This builds on the CHIP program. It is accepted by the States. It is virtually free from bureaucracy. It will make a major difference to 7 million parents in this country.