Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I call up amendment 2939 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I offer this on behalf of myself, Senator Feingold, our education committee, Senator Sarbanes, and others; and Senator Jeffords, Senator Collins, and Senator Chafee. This is a bipartisan amendment. It is a very simple amendment. At the present time, we are providing $3,300 on the Pell grants. The Budget Committee has raised that up to $3,500. This amendment would make it $3,700. It costs $1.4 billion a year. This amendment applies for 5 years. This chart indicates what the Pell grant has meant to education for children. Back in the 1970s it paid effectively 90 percent of the public education for children. It has gone down, now, to about 40 percent for public education--20 percent in private colleges. Ninety percent of the children who are getting Pell grants have incomes of $9,000 or less. Finally, for families that have incomes of $74,000, 90 percent of their children are going on to higher education, whether public education or private education. For families with $25,000, it is 26 percent. Talk about a digital divide, this is growing and growing and growing. The money in this amendment all goes to tuition; nothing for rooms, nothing for food, nothing for additional services. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from the various groups that support this amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, his tax cuts are over 5 years. The ten year cost is $100 billion, which are unpaid for. All we are saying is, why stretch it for the hard-working Americans when we have the greatest prosperity in the history of this country and we are denying those hard-working Americans 50 cents a year this year and 50 cents a year next year? That is what our proposal does.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senators Stevens, Dodd, Jeffords, Bond, Kerry, Cochran, Murray, Gordon Smith, Lautenberg, Chafee, Durbin, Reed, Warner, Murkowski, and Bingaman for their leadership on this amendment to ensure that children begin school ready to learn. The amendment establishes a reserve fund of $8.5 billion over the next five years to support local investment in early learning and school readiness initiatives for children from birth through age six. Over the past decade medical research has confirmed that stimulation is essential for proper brain development in infants and toddlers. The building blocks for later learning begin to develop during these early years. Stimulation through reading, visual and vocal interaction with adults, and group activities with other children is essential to develop the connection within the brain that result in effective educational, social, and motor skills for each child. It is long past time to put these medical discoveries into practice. Many parents are well aware of the stimulation needed by their infants and toddlers, and they amply provide it. But many working parents face barriers, including their own lack of education and their inability to obtain quality child care for their children. As a result, millions of children never get the chance to reach their full potential. This is a tragedy for the child, and an unacceptable price for the nation to pay, since many of society's most complex and costly long-run problems can be avoided by paying greater attention to children early in their lives. To deal with these problems more effectively, Senators Stevens, Jeffords, Dodd, and I have taken a number of steps to improve early learning. First, we need to fill in the gaps in existing programs, and make activities such as childhood literacy training, parenting support, and parenting education more widely available to all parents who seek these services. Second, we need to support local councils that can assess early learning needs of communities and allocate resources to meet those needs. These councils are already formed in some states. In Massachusetts, it is known as the Massachusetts Community Partnerships for Children. Our amendment brings us closer to enabling such councils to direct resources where they are needed most. Finally, we need to expand access to effective programs like Head Start. More parents are satisfied with Heard Start than any other government program, but only two in five eligible children have access to Head Start today. Today's Senate action is a significant step forward for the nation on this fundamental issue. It shows what can be accomplished when we reach across party lines and work together for educational goals that are clearly in the country's best interest. Early learning should be a high priority for this Congress. It is pro-family and pro-work, and it is one of the best long-term investments we can make in the country's future security and prosperity. The $8.5 billion in additional resources proposed by today's budget amendment will make it much easier to enable more children to obtain the services they need in the years ahead. I look forward to the day when every child begins school ready to learn, and I will continue working to pass legislation that makes this day come as soon as possible.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the proposal that is offered by the Senator is to cut taxes by $100 billion without paying for them. It stretches the minimum wage increase of a dollar over 3 years. According to CBO, it is $100 billion in unpaid tax cuts. We are prepared to work with our friends on the other side for a reasonable proposal to offset any potential kinds of challenges for small business. This is $100 billion in tax cuts over 10 years. Why should minimum-wage workers be held hostage to this kind of proposal? I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment by Senator Jeffords and Senator Dodd to increase funding for IDEA by $2 billion a year for the next five years. For 22 years, IDEA has brought hope to young persons with disabilities that they too can learn, and that their learning will enable them to become independent and productive citizens and live fulfilling lives. For millions of children with disabilities, IDEA has meant the difference between dependence and independence, between lost potential and productive careers. In 1975, 4 million handicapped children did not receive the help they needed to be successful in school. Few disabled preschoolers received services, and 1 million children with disabilities were excluded from public school. Now, IDEA serves 5.4 million children with disabilities from birth through age 21. Every state in the nation offers public education and early intervention services for children with disabilities. Today, fewer than 6,000 disabled children are living in institutional settings away from their families, compared to 95,000 children in 1969. We are keeping families together, and reducing the cost to the taxpayers of paying for institutional care, which averages $50,00 a child each year. The number of disabled students completing high school with a diploma or certificates has increased by 10% in the last decade. The number of students with disabilities entering higher education has more than tripled since the implementation of IDEA. Most important, 57% of disabled youth are competitively employed within five years of leaving school today, compared to an employment rate of only 25% for disabled adults who have not benefited from IDEA. These accomplishments do not come without financial costs. It is time for Congress to meet its commitment to help schools provide the services and support that give children with special needs the educational opportunities to pursue their dreams. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2951.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have tried for over the last 2 years to get an increase in the minimum wage for those Americans who are at the lowest rung of the economic ladder and who have not had any pay increase. This chart shows what has happened to the minimum wage since the 1960s. As the minimum wage has been going down, the poverty line has been going up. There are more Americans working harder today who are living in poverty than at any time in the history of the country. Why is this an important issue? Close to 60 percent of the minimum- wage workers are women. One-third of those workers have children, so it is a women's issue. It is a children's issue. It is a civil rights issue because over one-third of minimum-wage workers are men and women of color. It is fundamentally an issue of fairness. I think in this country individuals who work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year should not live in poverty. We are asking for the opportunity to have a vote on an increase in the minimum wage. Since the minimum wage was last increased, those workers have lost the equivalent of $500 in purchasing power. It is time that the Senate go on record in support of increasing the minimum wage.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is effectively the identical amendment in the sense the time has been changed, but it still provides a 50-cent increase this year, and 50 cents next year. I have every intention of continuing to offer these amendments until we get a vote on the amendment. I think we are entitled to that. This has been an issue we have been raising for over 2 years. We have effectively been denied that opportunity. During that period of time, those at the lowest end of the economic ladder have been falling further and further behind. Six months ago was the last increase we have had on the minimum wage. Since that time, the purchasing power of these men and women has fallen $500. It will continue to do so unless we take action. Who are the minimum-wage workers? They are workers working in nursing homes; they are working in childcare centers; they are working with teachers. Those are hard-working people. They are entitled to this body going on record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, a record 44 million Americans were uninsured last year, and that shameful number grows relentlessly by a million more each year. No man, woman, or child in America should have the quality of their health measured by the quantity of their wealth. The United States remains isolated as the only industrial nation in the world, except South Africa, that doesn't guarantee health insurance to its citizens. Our failure to do so is a national disgrace. A budget is a statement of principles and priorities. This budget states that lavish tax breaks for the wealthy are more important than providing families with health insurance. The amendment I am offering with Senator Lautenberg and Senator Rockefeller is a significant step toward that goal. It reduces the tax breaks for the wealthy by $11 billion over five years, and the savings are used to provide health insurance to the parents of children covered by Medicaid and CHIP. It is supported by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the American Nurses Association, the American Public Health Association, the Center on Disability and Health, Families USA, the National Association of Community Health Centers, the National Association of Public Hospitals & Health Systems, the National Council of Senior Citizens, the National Partnership for Women & Families, and the Service Employees International Union, as well as thirteen other organizations. I ask unanimous consent that their letter of support be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. This year, the nation has set a new record for elementary and secondary student enrollment. The figure has reached an all-time high of 53 million students--500,000 more students than last year. Serious teacher shortages are being caused by this rising student enrollment. The nation's public schools will need to hire 2.2 million teachers over the next ten years just to maintain current student teacher ratios which are already viewed as too high. The teacher shortage is being worsened by the growing number of teacher retirements, and by the fact that too many new teachers leave within the first three years of teaching, including 30-50% of teachers in urban areas. The Troops to Teachers program was established in 1993 by Congress to encourage military personnel who leave the service to become public school teachers. Since its inception, over 3,000 service men and women have made the transition under this program, filling teaching positions in 48 states. This highly successful program is providing teachers in areas where educators face the greatest shortages. The program has worked and has been highly successful in recruiting and retaining high quality teachers, especially in high-need subject areas and disadvantaged neighborhoods. Studies show that these service men and women who become teachers are likely to fill the most urgent current needs: --29% of them are math teachers, compared to 13% of all public school teachers. --29% of them are minorities, compared to 10% of all public school teachers. --The overwhelming majority--90%--are male, compared to 23% of all public school teachers. --24% of them are teaching in inner-city schools, compared to 16% of all public school teachers. They are also highly committed, with very high retention rates. 82% of them continue in teaching beyond the first year. Troops to Teachers is a program that works. California has hired nearly 300 teachers through the program, including a former Navy pilot who used to hunt submarines, but now faces almost two dozen kindergarten students. He says, ``It doesn't pay as much, but the job satisfaction is incredible.'' Florida hired more than 200 teachers through the program, including a former Navy instructor who now teaches honors algebra to high school students. The students say, ``He gets all excited about this stuff. He definitely knows what he's talking about.'' Though the teacher had to take a pay cut, he said, ``I enjoy the kids, and I enjoy the school.'' We need to do much more to help communities recruit qualified teachers, but Troops to Teachers is a strong step in the right direction. Senator DeWine's Sense of the Senate Amendment makes the authorization and funding of the successful Troops to Teachers program within the Department of Education a priority, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, seven months have elapsed since the House of Representatives passed the bi-partisan Norwood-Dingell bill to end insurance company and HMO abuses, and more than six months have passed since House and Senate conferees were appointed to prepare the final version of this important measure. Today, I am releasing a new study by the Minority Staff of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee that documents how devastating this long delay has been for millions of Americans and their families, and how urgent it is for the House-Senate conference to complete its work as soon as possible. Drawing on data gathered by the University of California School of Public Health and the Harvard School of Public Health, the report documents unacceptably high numbers of patients who are denied needed care, who suffer increased pain, or whose health has seriously declined because too many HMOs and insurance companies put profits ahead of patients. According to the study, 59,000 patients each day--22 million patients a year--report added pain and suffering as the result of the actions of their health plans. Large numbers of patients have specialty referrals delayed or denied. Others are forced to change doctors. Still others are forced to take prescription drugs that are different from the drugs their doctor prescribed. In addition to patients' reports of significant problems as the result of actions of their health plans, thousands of physicians report seeing patients every day whose health has seriously declined as the result of abuses such as the failure to cover recommended prescription drugs, denial of needed diagnostic tests and procedures, and unwillingness to allow referrals for specialty care. This study provides powerful new evidence of the need for Congress to move promptly to pass a strong Patient's Bill of Rights. Millions of families are suffering because of the failure of Congress to act. Families across America deserve protection, and it is time for Congress to fulfill its responsibility and see that they get it. I ask unanimous consent the study be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today Senator Daniel Akaka, Senator Daniel Inouye, Senator Ted Stevens, and I, along with 24 other Senators, are introducing a Senate Joint Resolution to designate May 25, 2000, as a national Day of Honor for minority veterans of World War II. Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas is introducing an identical resolution in the House of Representatives. Forty-five years ago, the bloodiest war in our history came to an end and millions of American service men and women returned to the United States to rebuild their lives after fighting so courageously and successfully to defend our country. These brave veterans included large numbers of minorities. More than 1.2 million African Americans, more than 300,000 Hispanic Americans, more than 50,000 Asian Americans, more than 20,000 Native Americans, more than 6,000 Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders, and more than 3,000 Native Alaskans risked their lives to preserve our democracy. On land, sea and air, far from their homes, they fought brilliantly to defeat fascism and protect our freedom. And large numbers of them did so in spite of the racism and injustice they had suffered in our society, and even in their military service. Too often, when they returned to America and raised the question of freedom and equal justice here at home, the answer came back, ``no.'' Too often, when fundamental issues of equality and respect of their service in the war arose, Jim Crow and racial discrimination replied with a resounding ``no.'' Even during the war itself, these brave men and women in uniform had faced racial discrimination and violent and cruel treatment from their fellow citizens--and often from their fellow American service men and women. Even here on American soil during the war, German prisoners of war were allowed to go to places in the United States where black Americans were not allowed to go. Last December, President Clinton dealt at long last with one example of these injustices when he pardoned Freddie Meeks, one of 50 African- American sailors who were convicted of mutiny and sentenced to prison and hard labor in 1944 for refusing to continue loading ammunition after a deadly explosion at the Port Chicago naval facility new San Francisco. That explosion of 10,000 tons of ammunition at the loading dock resulted in the deaths of 320 persons, two-thirds of whom were black. As President Clinton noted, Meeks had participated in the ``extraordinarily difficult job of picking up human remains'' following the blast. White sailors were given 30-day leaves after the blast, but black sailors were ordered back to work. Meeks and 257 others were court-martialed after they refused to continue loading the ammunitions, because the order was so blatantly racist and the danger was so great. The pardon, granted by the President, was eminently justified. The Navy had agreed in a 1994 review of the case that the sailors had been victims of racial discrimination, but it had not overturned their convictions. Historians feel that the Port Chicago case was a major factor in convincing President Harry Truman to issue his famous Executive order in 1948, banning segregation in the armed forces. Japanese Americans were also subjected to shameful discrimination during the war. The Supreme Court upheld the internment of tens of thousands of U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry during the war, because the government was fearful that their allegiance might to be to Japan. In recent years, reparations have been paid as amends for these shameful deeds against Japanese Americans, but no reparations can ever fully compensate for such gross violations of human liberties. As a nation, we have long since recognized the unfair treatment of minorities as a travesty of justice. The landmark decisions of the Supreme Court and the enactment of fundamental civil rights laws by Congress over the past half century have remedied the worst of these injustices and made our nation a freer and fairer land. But we have yet to give adequate recognition to the service, struggles and sacrifices of these brave Americans who fought so valiantly in World War II for our future. Veterans of that war are now dying at a rate of more than 1,000 a day. It is especially important, therefore, for Congress and the Administration to do their part now to pay tribute to these men and women who served so valiantly in that conflict. This Day of Honor Resolution is part of The Day of Honor Celebration being planned for communities across the country, which is being organized by the Massachusetts-based Day of Honor 2000 Project. Our goal is that the nation will have an opportunity to pause on that day to express our gratitude to the veterans of all minority groups who served the nation so well. Included in that group of honored veterans are two of our outstanding colleagues in the Senate, Senator Akaka of Hawaii and Senator Inouye of Hawaii, and my former colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Edward W. Brooke. Senator Inouye and Senator Brooke both speak eloquently and passionately of their World War II experiences in the film, ``The Invisible Soldiers: Unheard Voices,'' which is a part of the Day of Honor events in local communities. By recognizing May 25th as a national Day of Honor in tribute to these extraordinary men and women, we can help to remedy the many wrongs inflicted on them in years gone by, and we can take another step toward true justice in this country. These men and women are part of what has been called America's greatest generation. In a very real sense, we owe them our liberty today and we shall never ever forget them. I urge all members of the Senate to join in sponsoring this resolution.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, several weeks ago, the Treasury Department and HUD made a significant announcement on Smith and Wesson's willingness to make guns safer and keep them out of the hands of criminals. Momentum is building for Congress to break the stranglehold of the National Rifle Association. It is appalling that this Republican Congress refuses to respond to the urgent need for responsible gun control. Our Republican colleagues should stop listening to the National Rifle Association and start listening to the American people. The American people and America's children are calling on Congress to move forward on commonsense gun provisions. The National Rifle Association continues to talk about Second Amendment rights. But we say what about the right to live of the 12 children a day, every day, who die because of firearms in this country? What about the right of citizens to be free from crime, when criminals can go to gun shows and purchase weapons without a background check? What about the right of law-abiding citizens to live peaceably in their neighborhoods? It is time for Congress to stop kowtowing to the NRA. It is long past time for Congress to act responsibly, and adopt sensible measures to close the loopholes in our current gun laws. That means--closing the gun show loophole--requiring the sale of child safety locks with firearms--prohibiting juveniles from possessing semiautomatic assault weapons--banning imports of large capacity ammunition clips--expanding the number of cities that participate in gun tracing--giving ATF and other federal law enforcement agencies the resources they need for more effective enforcement of our gun laws. Nothing we do will interfere with the rights of responsible gun owners. But, it has everything to do with the rights of men, women, and children to live peacefully in their communities. Ninety percent of the American people support background checks at gun shows; 88% favor child-proofing guns. But every attempt we make to act is met by a stonewall of resistance from our Republican colleagues. And every day, we learn of more tragedies of families who lose loved ones to senseless gun violence because we fail to act. Congress must end its obstruction and enact critical reforms that have been pending for too long. If this Congress won't act, the American people will elect a Congress in November that will act. It has been almost a year since the tragic shooting at Columbine High School. In literally dozens of cases since then, children have brought guns to schools, and there have been at least seven school shootings since Columbine. According to the Department of Education, over 6,000 students were expelled in the 1996-1997 school year for bringing guns to public schools. According to a study by the Centers for Disease Control, 8% of all students reported bringing a gun to school in a 30-day period. It is time for Congress to finish the job we began last year and pass the gun control provisions in the juvenile justice legislation. Students, parents and teachers across America are waiting for our answer. We need to help teachers and school officials recognize the early warning signals and act before violence occurs. We need to assist law enforcement officers in keeping guns away from criminals and children. We need to close the gun show loophole. Above all, we need to require child safety locks on firearms, so that we can do all we can to prevent senseless shocking shootings like the first grade gun killing that occurred a few weeks ago in an elementary school in Michigan. The Senate passed this needed legislation last year. It is time for House and Senate conferees to write the final bill and send it to the President, so that effective legislation is in place as soon as possible. The lack of action is appalling and inexcusable. Each new tragedy is a fresh indictment of our failure to act responsibly. We have a national crisis, and commonsense approaches are urgently needed. If we are serious about dealing with youth violence, the time to act is now. There is no reason why this Congress cannot enact this needed legislation now. The citizens of this country deserve better than what this kow-tow-to-the-NRA Congress has given them so far.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this month marks the 16th annual observance of Tuftonia's Week by Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts. As part of this impressive celebration, large numbers of the 80,000-plus Tufts alumni from around the world return to honor their outstanding university. We are fortunate to have many distinguished Tufts alumni working on Capitol Hill, so many of us are well aware of the high quality of these graduates. This celebration always has special meaning for me. My daughter, Kara, is a graduate of Tufts, and I've also worked closely with many Tufts scholars on a wide range of public policy issues. I am proud to count myself as a member of the Tufts family, and to add my congratulations to the official proclamations by Governors and Mayors across the country. For the past 148 years, Tufts has trained many of our nation's outstanding scholars and distinguished political leaders. Tufts has provided outstanding leadership in medicine, engineering, nutrition and education. In addition to Tufts' strong academic tradition, it is a national leader in emphasizing service learning and providing opportunities for students to combine community service with their academic life. This program called ``TuftServe'' was highlighted when President Clifton held his Summit for America' Future in 1997, and it continues to be a model for the country. Campus Compact, housed at Tufts, has assisted Massachusetts colleges in participating in America Reads and America Counts, two initiatives that continue to improve the lives and futures of children in public schools. I commend Tufts for the wide range of opportunities that it continues to offer to its students and alumni, and I also commend Tufts' President, John DiBiaggio, and all the members of the Tufts community for their impressive accomplishments in enhancing education and contributing so effectively to Massachusetts, the nation, and the world.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today Senator Daniel Akaka, Senator Daniel Inouye, Senator Ted Stevens, and I, along with 24 other Senators, are introducing a Senate Joint Resolution to designate May 25, 2000, as a national Day of Honor for minority veterans of World War II. Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas is introducing an identical resolution in the House of Representatives. Forty-five years ago, the bloodiest war in our history came to an end and millions of American service men and women returned to the United States to rebuild their lives after fighting so courageously and successfully to defend our country. These brave veterans included large numbers of minorities. More than 1.2 million African Americans, more than 300,000 Hispanic Americans, more than 50,000 Asian Americans, more than 20,000 Native Americans, more than 6,000 Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders, and more than 3,000 Native Alaskans risked their lives to preserve our democracy. On land, sea and air, far from their homes, they fought brilliantly to defeat fascism and protect our freedom. And large numbers of them did so in spite of the racism and injustice they had suffered in our society, and even in their military service. Too often, when they returned to America and raised the question of freedom and equal justice here at home, the answer came back, ``no.'' Too often, when fundamental issues of equality and respect of their service in the war arose, Jim Crow and racial discrimination replied with a resounding ``no.'' Even during the war itself, these brave men and women in uniform had faced racial discrimination and violent and cruel treatment from their fellow citizens--and often from their fellow American service men and women. Even here on American soil during the war, German prisoners of war were allowed to go to places in the United States where black Americans were not allowed to go. Last December, President Clinton dealt at long last with one example of these injustices when he pardoned Freddie Meeks, one of 50 African- American sailors who were convicted of mutiny and sentenced to prison and hard labor in 1944 for refusing to continue loading ammunition after a deadly explosion at the Port Chicago naval facility new San Francisco. That explosion of 10,000 tons of ammunition at the loading dock resulted in the deaths of 320 persons, two-thirds of whom were black. As President Clinton noted, Meeks had participated in the ``extraordinarily difficult job of picking up human remains'' following the blast. White sailors were given 30-day leaves after the blast, but black sailors were ordered back to work. Meeks and 257 others were court-martialed after they refused to continue loading the ammunitions, because the order was so blatantly racist and the danger was so great. The pardon, granted by the President, was eminently justified. The Navy had agreed in a 1994 review of the case that the sailors had been victims of racial discrimination, but it had not overturned their convictions. Historians feel that the Port Chicago case was a major factor in convincing President Harry Truman to issue his famous Executive order in 1948, banning segregation in the armed forces. Japanese Americans were also subjected to shameful discrimination during the war. The Supreme Court upheld the internment of tens of thousands of U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry during the war, because the government was fearful that their allegiance might to be to Japan. In recent years, reparations have been paid as amends for these shameful deeds against Japanese Americans, but no reparations can ever fully compensate for such gross violations of human liberties. As a nation, we have long since recognized the unfair treatment of minorities as a travesty of justice. The landmark decisions of the Supreme Court and the enactment of fundamental civil rights laws by Congress over the past half century have remedied the worst of these injustices and made our nation a freer and fairer land. But we have yet to give adequate recognition to the service, struggles and sacrifices of these brave Americans who fought so valiantly in World War II for our future. Veterans of that war are now dying at a rate of more than 1,000 a day. It is especially important, therefore, for Congress and the Administration to do their part now to pay tribute to these men and women who served so valiantly in that conflict. This Day of Honor Resolution is part of The Day of Honor Celebration being planned for communities across the country, which is being organized by the Massachusetts-based Day of Honor 2000 Project. Our goal is that the nation will have an opportunity to pause on that day to express our gratitude to the veterans of all minority groups who served the nation so well. Included in that group of honored veterans are two of our outstanding colleagues in the Senate, Senator Akaka of Hawaii and Senator Inouye of Hawaii, and my former colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Edward W. Brooke. Senator Inouye and Senator Brooke both speak eloquently and passionately of their World War II experiences in the film, ``The Invisible Soldiers: Unheard Voices,'' which is a part of the Day of Honor events in local communities. By recognizing May 25th as a national Day of Honor in tribute to these extraordinary men and women, we can help to remedy the many wrongs inflicted on them in years gone by, and we can take another step toward true justice in this country. These men and women are part of what has been called America's greatest generation. In a very real sense, we owe them our liberty today and we shall never ever forget them. I urge all members of the Senate to join in sponsoring this resolution.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Robb's amendment which encourages the Senate to make school modernization a top priority by providing $1.3 billion in discretionary spending for grants and loans for the urgent repair and renovation of public elementary and secondary schools in high-need areas, and to leverage $25 billion in interest-free bonds in FY2001. I also commend Senator Robb and Senator Harkin for their leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that is necessary to help the nation meet the critical need to modernize and rebuild crumbling and overcrowded schools. Nearly one third of all public schools are more than 50 years old. 14 million children in a third of the nation's schools are learning in substandard buildings. Half of all schools have at least one unsatisfactory environmental condition. The problems with ailing school buildings are not the problems of the inner city alone. They exist in almost every community--urban, rural, or suburban. In Massachusetts, 41 percent of schools report that at least one building needs extensive repairs or should be replaced. 80 percent of schools report at least one unsatisfactory environmental factor. 48 percent have inadequate heating, ventilation, or air conditioning. And 36 percent report inadequate plumbing systems. In addition to modernizing and renovating dilapidated schools, communities need to build new schools in order to keep pace with rising enrollments and to reduce class sizes. Elementary and secondary school enrollment has reached an all-time high this year of 53.4 million students, and will continue to grow. The number will rise by 324,000 in 2000, by 282,000 in 2001, and by 250,000 in 2002. It will continue on this upward trend in the following years. For example, in Fitchburg, Massachusetts, enrollments are rising by 200 students a year. Educators there would like to reduce class size, extend special education and bilingual education programs, and hire new teachers, but the school system does not have the facilities or resources to accomplish these important goals. Instead, Fitchburg has been forced to construct four portable facilities--and a fifth is under construction--to deal with overcrowding. According to a report this year, total unmet school modernization needs, including technology and infrastructure, totals $307 billion-- almost three times the amount estimated in 1995. Massachusetts has $9.9 billion in unmet technology and infrastructure needs. The time is now to do all we can to help rebuild and modernize public schools, so that all children can succeed in safe, technologically- equipped schools. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Robb's amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, to get back to the Bingaman amendment, I will take a few moments of the Senate's time to spell out where we are today in the area of education. I think most Americans believe there ought to be a partnership between the Federal Government, the States, and local communities. Most parents want to make sure their children are advanced in terms of academic achievement and accomplishment. Most Americans want to see opportunities for continued education available to their children. Most Americans understand and support programs that will assist gifted and talented needy children who want to continue their education by getting some help to further their education. It is important, as we are considering the budget amendment of Senator Bingaman, that we look over exactly where we are and examine what has been the record of the Republican leadership on the help and assistance to education in recent years. The 2001 GOP budget resolution, I believe, deserves a failing grade on education. It is anti-education, it is anti-children, and it is anti-family. The Republicans claim their budget makes a substantial investment in education, but, as we have had to do every year since the GOP took the majority in Congress in 1995, we must be equally vigilant of Republicans when it comes to education funding. Over and over, we have heard their rhetoric, but the reality is just the opposite. They say they want to invest in education, but their record shows they won't and don't. Year after year it is the same story. If we look back at the contrast between 1980 and 1999, the Federal share of education funding has declined. This demonstrates what percent of the Federal budget was going for elementary and secondary education: 11.9 percent in 1980; 7.7 percent in 1999. In higher education, it was 15.4 percent, and now we are down to 10.7 percent. This is what we have had over the last few years: a major withdrawal of Federal participation in the area of aid to both elementary-secondary as well as higher education. Having seen the percentage of our budget allocated to education, look at what has happened to the enrollment in K through 12. In 1990, 46.4 million students were enrolled in school. We are up to 54.4 million and continuing to rise. We have seen this incredible expansion of the number of children attending K through 12, increasing pressures on local communities, increasing pressures on the State, and increasing pressures, obviously, if we are going to meet our responsibility. The total number of enrollment has been growing steadily--every community in this country can tell us that. Talk to the school boards, talk to the parents, talk to the teachers. However, our percent of GNP is decreasing in education. Look what is happening in higher education, the millions of Americans who are attending colleges and universities across this country. It has gone from 12.2 million in 1985 up to an estimated 15.6 million in 2005. An increase in the total number of K through 12 students, an increase in the number of students attending higher education, and what has been the corresponding Federal response? A decline in terms of helping and assisting families across the country. Let's look at the record of the Republican history of cutting education funding in appropriations bills. In 1995, when the Republican leadership took control of the House and the Senate, we had a rescission. The money had already been appropriated. The President signed it. We had a request to cut back, but of all the different areas of the Federal Government, we only cut funding in the area of education. This is about the same time the Republican leadership wanted to abolish the Department of Education. Their 1996 budget would have reduced the Federal investment in education by one-third over 7 years, forcing deep cuts in Head Start and aid to elementary and secondary education, freezing funding for Pell grants, and slashing $10 billion from student loans. Their 1997 budget would have slashed education by 20 percent over six years, causing 1.3 million students to lose Pell grants, and 344,000 children to lose Title I support. Their 1999 and 2000 budgets were no different. They claimed to invent in education, but the numbers always added up to a loss for students, families, schools, and colleges across the country. This is the fact, Mr. President. We can go through all kinds of shenanigans and gimmicks, but these are the facts. They are printed in the Record. The current Republican budget will cut education by $4.7 billion below President Clinton's level. It is no surprise that they refuse to address basic education priorities. Once again, the GOP budget fails to meet the obvious need. Parents want the help today. Parents want to improve the quality of education now. The Republican budget claims a $4.5 billion increase in Department of Education programs in fiscal year 2001. But, $2.3 billion of that amount is for a new mandatory program that is not contained in current law, and if it were, it would not direct funding to states until at least 2005. That leaves an increase of $2.2 billion for discretionary education programs in the jurisdiction of the Department of Education. But, the Republican budget also assumes a $700 million increase in Pell grants, to increase the maximum grant by $200 to $3,500--bringing it to the President's level. In addition, it claims a $2.6 billion increase for elementary and secondary education programs. That's a total increase of $3.3 billion specified for K-12 education programs and Pell grants. But, the Republican resolution only allows for a $2.2 billion increase. That means the Republican budget robs Peter's education to pay for Paul's education. It would force $1.1 billion in cuts, below last year for higher education. Now, the Budget Committee will say: Well, we have $2.3 billion that we may appropriate, and it will be mandatory spending to try to help schools improve themselves. We want to try to help improve the schools today. That is what the President wants--that is what this amendment is about. It is about today and trying to get sufficient resources to try to help families across the country. So that is the spread, Mr. President. Look at what happens when we look at the particular expenditures in the areas of higher education, as well as in K through 12. With the President's request, we have a $500 million increase in the fiscal year 2001. This includes all higher education funding, except Pell grants. The President's would be $500 million. The Republican's 2001 budget resolution forces $1.1 billion in cuts, below last year for higher education. Do we understand that? That is the reality. We are talking now about higher education funding, except for Pell grants. Where are these cuts? I haven't heard a great deal of talk from those on the Budget Committee. The College Work-Study program would be cut by $282 million below the President's request, reducing the ability of 286,000 students to work their way through college. Massachusetts students would lose $14 million in funding for college work study opportunities. TRIO would be cut by $222 million below the President's request, denying an additional 195,000 disadvantaged students the opportunity to prepare for college and attend college. This is a reduction in the TRIO Program, which is the program to try to help gifted and talented, first generation college students go on to college. Under the Republican budget, GEAR UP would be cut by $169 million below the President's request, denying 810,000 low-income middle and high school students access to academic and support services needed to increase their academic achievement and to prepare them to pursue a college education. With the money appropriated last year, 80 percent of the seventh graders in the city of Boston will have a chance to move on to graduate together and hopefully will be guaranteed, when they do graduate, that they will be qualified and able to go to college. Colleges and middle schools are working together to provide additional help and assistance to students by educating their families about the importance of a college degree. They are getting whole school communities to think that college is a reality for their children. The TRIO Programs have been an excellent model for building cohorts of young people from different schools. GEAR UP's objective is to build the capacity of under-achieving schools by getting all of their students to think about college early, prepare for college, and move on to achieve the highest education level possible. We have seen extraordinary success in different parts of the country where this program has been implemented. These important programs would be significantly cut back by the budget resolution. The Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants program would also be cut by $199 million below the President's request, reducing support for 346,000 needy undergraduate students. Massachusetts would lose $9 million that helps its colleges and universities provide needy undergraduate students with additional financial aid. That adds up to a $1.1 billion cut. Make no mistake about the great importance of this amendment. If you are concerned about the higher education cuts, now look what happened here on K through 12 education programs. The Republican budget cuts K through 12 education programs by $1.4 billion below the President's request. The other side can say they put on an additional $1 billion in special education. We agree on increasing funding for IDEA--our amendment will match that level. But, it's still not enough. All we are trying to do is make sure these other programs are getting adequate funding. The Republican budget does nothing to ensure the pressing education needs of families and communities across the country will be met, and ensure new, substantial investments in what works. But I remind our friends that when we had the opportunity, even a year ago, when the Republicans had their $780 billion tax cut and a number of us offered an amendment to try to provide full funding for special education needs and reduce the tax cut for wealthy individuals, virtually every Member of this side voted in favor of it and there was Republican opposition to it. We are glad we have an additional billion dollars. But if we are going to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, we can say this is an increase of $2.6 billion, and that would be $4 billion, but you still have the dramatic spread in the area of K through 12. The Bingaman/Kennedy/Murray Education amendment would reverse these unacceptable cuts in the GOP budget and increase the national investment in education by $5.6 billion in FY2001 and $34.7 billion over 5 years. It will give parents and communities the support they need to provide every child with a good public school education, and to send every qualified student to college. It would reduce the tax cut by 15% in the first year, and 18% over 5 years. It would use 14% of the on-budget surplus over 5 years. The Republican budget cuts $450 million from the President's request for the bipartisan class size reduction program, preventing the hiring of 20,000 additional qualified teachers to reduce class size in grades 1-3. Massachusetts communities would lose $7.3 million to help them further reduce class size next year. Our amendment continues the national commitment to smaller classes by providing $1.75 billion to continue the effort to hire 100,000 teachers to reduce class size in the early grades. The funding will bring the total number of qualified teachers hired to 49,000. Research has documented what parents and teachers have always known-- smaller classes improve student achievement. In small classes, students receive more individual attention and instruction. Students with learning disabilities are identified earlier, and their needs can be met without placing them in costly special education. In small classes, teachers are better able to maintain discipline. Parents and teachers can work together more effectively to support children's education. We also know that overcrowded classrooms undermine discipline and decrease student morale. Project STAR studied 7,000 students in 80 schools in Tennessee. Students in small classes performed better than students in large classes in each grade from kindergarten through third grade. Follow-up studies show that the gains lasted through at least eighth grade, and the gains were larger for minority students. STAR students were less likely to drop out of high school, and more likely to graduate in the top 25% of their classes. STAR students in smaller classes in grades K-3 were between 6 and 13 months ahead of their regular-class peers in math, reading, and science in grades 4, 6, and 8. Michigan, California, Nevada, Florida, Texas, Utah, Illinois, Indiana, New York, Oklahoma, Iowa, Minnesota, Massachusetts, South Carolina, and Wisconsin have initiated or considered STAR-like class size reduction efforts. Our amendment helps communities modernize their schools by providing $1.3 billion in grants and loans for the urgent repair of 5,000 public elementary and secondary schools in high-need areas. States will be able to issue $25 billion in interest-free bonds to help build and modernize 6,000 schools. Nearly one third of all public schools are more than 50 years old. 14 million children in a third of the nation's schools are learning in substandard buildings. Half of all schools have at least one unsatisfactory environmental condition. The problems with ailing school buildings are not the problems of the inner city alone. They exist in almost every community--urban, rural, or suburban. In addition to modernizing and renovating dilapidated schools, communities need to build new schools in order to keep pace with rising enrollments and to reduce class sizes. Elementary and secondary school enrollment has reached an all-time high this year of 53.4 million students, and will continue to grow. The number will rise by 324,000 in 2000, by 282,000 in 2001, and by 250,000 in 2002. It will continue on this upward trend in the following years. According to a report this year, total unmet school modernization needs, including technology and infrastructure, totals $307 billion-- almost three times the amount estimated in 1995. This amendment expands after-school opportunities for children by increasing funding for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers from $453 million to $1 billion for FY2001. Each day, 5 million children, many as young as 8 or 9 years old, are home alone after school. Juvenile crime peaks in the hours between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. Children unsupervised are more likely to be involved in anti-social activities and destructive patterns of behavior. Children who attend quality after-school programs while their parents work have better peer relations, better emotional adjustments, better grades, and better conduct in schools. They have more learning opportunities and more enrichment activities. Research also shows that students participating in after-school programs have higher achievement in reading and math, are more interested in learning, are more likely to stay in school, and are less likely to be involved in crime. Our amendment supports tough accountability for results, by increasing funding for Title I Accountability grants by $116 million to $250 million, to accelerate efforts by states and school districts to turn around failing schools. Stronger accountability in education is imperative. Effective accountability steps--what business leaders call quality control measures--can make sure that public tax dollars are used wisely and produce better results for children. Despite concerted efforts by states, school districts, and schools, the accountability provisions in Title I have not been adequately implemented due to insufficient resources. In 1998, only 8 states reported that their support teams have been able to serve the majority of schools in need of improvement. Less than half of the schools in need of improvement reported that they received additional professional development or technical assistance. We must make all our schools accountable for good teaching and improved student achievement. We cannot turn our backs on low- performing schools. We must do all we can to improve them. Schools, school districts, and states need additional support and resources to address weaknesses soon after they are identified. The amendment increases support for Title I by $1 billion to ensure that the neediest students get the extra help they need to succeed in school. Disadvantaged communities need more help to ensure that all public schools give children a good education. Title I is working in many schools across the country. We should help bring that success to every community. Ninety-nine percent of Title I funds go to local school districts. In addition, Title I and other federal programs are much more targeted to high-poverty districts than state and local funds. 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 other 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. As I mentioned, in the higher education, we are talking about the GEAR UP program, which reaches out to low- and middle-income high school students to help them so they can continue on to higher education. The amendment increases funding for GEAR UP by $125 million to $325 million, to put more low-income middle and high school students on the path to college. This increase will support at least one state or local partnership in every eligible state. It will also leverage the resources of more than 2,400 community organizations and businesses as partners, and provide services to 1.4 million low-income students. Our amendment would also increase funding for TRIO by $80 million to $725 million, to expand and improve postsecondary outreach and student support programs for 760,000 minority and disadvantaged students. Our amendment increases the maximum Pell Grant by a total of $400-- from the current maximum of $3,300 to $3,700. Pell Grants are the most effective way to make college a reality for the nation's neediest students. Yet, today, the maximum grant is worth only 86% of its 1980 value in constant dollars. Clearly, we have fallen behind. We are failing to maintain our commitment to make college accessible to the neediest students. I am pleased that the Committee accepted the Feingold-Smith amendment to increase the maximum Pell grant by $200 to $3,500. But it's not enough. The average family income of Pell recipients is $14,500. In 1997-98, approximately 87% of all Pell Grant recipients had incomes less than or equal to $30,000. These students come from working families who sacrifice to make sure that their children can go to college. These parents understand the importance of education, and they want to make sure that their children have every advantage. Opening the doors of college to more students should be a high priority for Congress. Nearly 4 million students received Pell Grants in 1999. Our $400 increase translates into 96,000 new Pell grant recipients. In Massachusetts, 4,000 additional students would receive Pell Grants. Our amendment also increases funding for College Work-Study by $77 million to $1 billion, which will give 1 million students the opportunities to work their way through college. Now, Mr. President, finally, I want to mention an extraordinary factor in higher education. Mr. President, we know that 89% of children who come from families with incomes over $74,000 attend college, but only 40% of children from families with incomes below $25,000 attend college and only 1 in 4 attend a 4-year college. May I have 5 more minutes on the resolution?

Mr. KENNEDY. We believe we ought to accept the Bingaman amendment if we believe education is the first priority. This is supported by every single parent group. It is supported by all of the student associations across the country, the NEA, the AFT, the national school boards, the Council of Great City Schools, and the American Council on Education that represents all of the various universities in this country. This makes sense. Which is important for the American people? Putting education ahead of tax breaks. That is what the Bingaman amendment does. We need that in order to meet our responsibility to the children in this country. I hope the Senate will accept the amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I say to my friend and colleague, who is chairman of the Budget Committee, money may not be the answer to all of the problems. Just throwing money at a particular problem isn't going to be all of the answer. But we do know that in the budget, this allocation is a clear indication of what a nation's priorities are going to be. That is the decision we are making. We say we ought to give a higher priority in the area of education than we should in tax cuts. That is what the Bingaman amendment is doing, and that is why I believe we should support it.

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. Family income should not determine whether a child goes to college--their academic achievement should be the only factor to consider. Let's promise kids a level playing field for college. Let's make sure that if a student is qualified to attend college, the money will be there so that they have the credentials that they need to more fully participate in our economy than their parents were able to participate. That is a family value, Mr. President. We hear many around here talk about family values. Minimum wage is a family value--about respect for work and people having an opportunity to live with dignity. A family value is the quality to be able to succeed and continue their education at a time when it is essential if they are going to have any economic opportunities. Every year, we cut back on that opportunity and reduce and fly-specking this particular budget, and we diminish this country and the promise it has for the children of this Nation. That is what this amendment is about. The Democrats believe we ought to invest in the young people of this country. We believe that is a higher priority than tax breaks for the wealthy individuals. We will have an opportunity to call the roll on that. We hope we are not going to be denied that chance by our good Republican friends. Let's have a vote on this particular measure. I stand with those who say if you deny us an opportunity with a second-degree amendment, we are coming back again and again on this budget resolution until we get a vote. What are they going to be frightened of in terms of this particular amendment? We are either going to stand for working families, the children of working families, and for talented young people to be able to have their dream and be part of the American dream, or we want to nickel and dime them in order to have a tax break for wealthy individuals in this society. You couldn't have a clearer opportunity on the issue of priorities: Who is going to stand with the young people in this country today, and who is going to stand for a tax cut? I hope when the time comes, this body will support the Bingaman amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I express appreciation to Senator Robb for his leadership in bringing the Senate to where we are this morning with an opportunity to vote at 11 o'clock on whether we will put the seniors in this country ahead of an unwise tax cut at this time. A budget is about national priorities. This amendment says to the American people that prescription drug coverage under Medicare is as high a priority for the Senate as it is for the American people. This amendment says health care for the elderly is more important than tax cuts for the wealthy. Without this amendment, this Republican budget resolution has its priorities backwards. It says the first priority is tax cuts. Yesterday, my friend and colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, and I engaged in a discussion of this point. I asked the chairman if there was any guarantee in the budget instructions that we will have prescription drugs on the floor by September 31, which is effectively the last week of Congress. This is what my honorable friend said: No, there is no guarantee. He went on to say that under the resolution a prescription drug bill could be brought to the floor without a budget point of order being lodged against it after September 1. That is an empty promise. Such a bill would still be subject to a filibuster. It would still require 60 votes to even get to the floor if any Senator objected to its consideration. It would still have to be called up by the majority leader or offered as an amendment if there was a suitable vehicle. If by some miracle it did get to the floor, an unlimited number of amendments could be offered, and it would still be subject to a number of restrictions that I will discuss in a moment. Compare that to the tax bill. It is required to be reported by the Senate Finance Committee no later than September 22--not permitted, required. It cannot be filibustered under Senate rules. Debate is limited, in terms of the total hours, to 50 hours. It requires only 50 votes to pass. Of course, we know the majority party is absolutely committed to pass a tax bill, but this budget resolution makes it abundantly clear there is no similar commitment to Medicare drug coverage. It is that plain and simple. There are two different standards, make no mistake about it--one standard for the tax, and an entirely different one for prescription drugs. I daresay the one on the prescription drugs is illustrated by the language of the resolution itself. It says that, in the Senate, the budgetary limits may be adjusted and allocated and may be revised by legislation reported by the Committee on Finance to provide a prescription drug benefit. ``May be'' is optional. That is different from where it says the Senate Finance Committee shall report to the Senate on the tax bill. So we have not only the requirements that it ``may be'' rather than ``shall'' with regard to prescription drugs, but we have the whole procedure in the Senate that will permit filibusters in bringing it up, in debating it on the floor of the Senate. It will require 60 votes to be able to get to a final resolution as compared to 50 votes for the tax bill. That is dramatically different. What we are saying with the Robb amendment is let us pass the prescription drug bill first and then consider the tax cut afterwards. In the remaining time, I want to mention one additional item. This particular prescription drug proposal, as I mentioned, is a 3-year proposal, even if they are able to jump through the hoops that I have mentioned. Let's say we are able to consider the bill; let's say we are able to get the majority leader to call it up. It is very difficult to get any measure that we can amend, as we have seen over the course of this time, but let's say we get the majority leader to call it up. And let's say we have the 60 votes to get cloture. It is only for 3 years. Beyond that, you only get a continuation of that program if we find the solvency of the Medicare fund, and there is going to be a complete revamping of the Medicare program without using any general funds in order to stabilize the Medicare system. Here we find, again, the conditions that have to be realized before we are able to extend it. The tax cut is permanent. Do we understand? The tax cut is permanent. It is virtually automatic. Once this bill passes, there will be a requirement that the tax bill be on the floor of the Senate in September. But this prescription drug proposal has to jump through all the hoops for the first 3 years, and even if we jump through the hoops for the first 3 years, we have to go back through the hoops over the remaining 2 years. It is not permanent as is the tax bill. Finally, I want to once again review about whom we are talking and what the costs are in terms of the prescription drugs. Yesterday I tried to point out, as has been mentioned here, a third of American seniors do not have any coverage and another third are losing it dramatically. In the last 3 years, we have seen a 25-percent drop in coverage. If you take the drops in 1998 and 1999, it shows it is going right on down, and the costs of Medigap are going through the ceiling. The HMOs are setting limits that make it difficult if not virtually impossible for senior citizens to get the protections they earned. Who are these senior citizens? Look at this chart here and we see what the income is for senior citizens, the retirees, the men and women who fought in the World Wars, brought this country out of the Depression, and have made it the great Nation it is. Mr. President, 57 percent of them have incomes below $15,000; 21 percent below $25,000. That is almost 80 percent of our senior citizens, those with incomes below $25,000. Then it continues on with only 7 percent at $50,000 or over. Many would say that is just middle income. Certainly, if you have some children at school, $50,000 is considered to be middle income. We are talking about individuals who are hard pressed. These are men and women who made the country and now are dependent upon these prescription drugs in order to be able to survive. Finally, we see in this chart what it is costing these elderly citizens. For so many of the moderate-income beneficiaries, typical drug costs versus their income--when you look at about 150 percent of poverty, that is almost the median income for senior citizens in this country. Look at this chart of what it costs for these routine illnesses and sicknesses of our elderly people. Every elderly person either is in danger of, or fears, or has osteoporosis and heart trouble, high blood pressure, irregular heartbeat----

Mr. KENNEDY. High blood pressure, heart disease. This is the typical cost in 1 year. This is the percent of their income they are paying: 20 percent, 26 percent, 31 percent, 40 percent, 240 percent of their income. This is just for prescription drugs. This is not for any other medical expenses. That is more than they are spending, in many instances, for their rent, their food, their clothing, and their other necessities. As we see this issue, there is nothing more important--preserving our Social Security and preserving Medicare--than prescription drug protection for senior citizens. I believe we ought to be able to shape a program that will be universal, that will have the catastrophic as well as the basic, and that will be affordable for individuals as well as the Federal Government. What we are saying is let's debate that issue. Let's have an opportunity for the Senate to take action on that issue prior to the time we go to these massive tax breaks. That is what this Robb amendment is all about, putting our seniors first. I hope our colleagues will join in supporting it.