Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support this legislation. The crop insurance bill before us today provides $1.5 billion over each of the next 4 years to support the Nation's farmers, and they clearly deserve this assistance. Hard-working farmers across the Nation deserve to live with dignity. Federal assistance is justified to protect them when the harsh weather destroys their crops or volatile markets undervalue their produce. I hope in the coming weeks the Senate will also have an opportunity to address a related urgent need. I am talking about hunger and the inadequacy of the current Food Stamp Program. The problem is that the program's reach in curbing hunger among working families has weakened over time. It is unacceptable for children and working families to go hungry in America today. The latest research is clear, and it calls for our urgent action. The General Accounting Office reports that ``children's participation in the Food Stamp Program has dropped more sharply than the number of children living in poverty, indicating a growing gap between need and assistance.'' Census and state food stamp data show that between 1995 and 1998, while the number of poor people fell by almost 2 million, the number of food stamp beneficiaries fell by over 7 million, leaving millions more poor people without food stamps. The Department of Agriculture reports that 10.5 million U.S. households experienced some degree of food insecurity in 1998, and 1 or more people went hungry in 3.7 million of these households. The Tufts University Center on Hunger and Poverty in Massachusetts reports that a third of children living in immigrant households with food stamp cuts were experiencing moderate to severe hunger. With Project Bread in Massachusetts, the Center on Hunger and Poverty also coauthored an extraordinary study of Child Hunger in Massachusetts about a year ago. It was cosponsored by Ralph Martin, who was a Republican district attorney in Suffolk County, and Congressman Joseph Kennedy. They did extensive studies in Massachusetts in a wide variety of communities--some of our older cities, some of our more prosperous cities with pockets of extraordinary poverty, and then in a number of the rural areas. It is an absolutely superb report. Rather than putting the whole report in the Record, I will raise it throughout the discussions of hunger to come. Dr. Larry Brown directs the Center on Hunger and Poverty, and as I think most of us who have worked on the hunger issue over the years know, he has had an extraordinary career, been an invaluable resource for this Nation in terms of finding hunger and being constructive and positive in helping us deal with that issue in a constructive way. One in five American children is poor in today's America. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that while the total number of children who are poor has declined, the intensity of poverty among those children who are left behind has increased, and one of the reasons poor children are poorer is that their access to food stamps is diminishing. The U.S. Conference of Mayors reports that demand for emergency food assistance increased 18 percent during 1999. This is the largest increase since 1992. Limited resources meant that 21 percent of requests for food were unmet. In addition, 67 percent of the adults requesting emergency food assistance in the Nation's cities were employed. Especially in this time of recent economic prosperity and record budget surpluses, we must do more to protect working families across the Nation who need food. America's farmers have a long and proud tradition of service to the Nation, and their hard work produces an abundance of foodstuffs. Surely we can ensure that this abundance is used in a way that no one in America goes hungry. I know the issue of hunger is of deep concern to the chairman and the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, who oversee the Nation's antihunger efforts. For $500 million a year, we could provide modest hunger relief for low-income families. These additional resources should be allocated to the Food Stamp Program, as bipartisan coalitions in both the House and the Senate have proposed in the Hunger Relief Act that many of us support. Our proposal makes four long overdue improvements in the Food Stamp Program. It authorizes States to use their own TANF rules to determine which vehicles families may own to get to work themselves and safely transport their children to school--enormously important, a very modest recommendation, but very important. Second, for families forced to spend over 50 percent of income on shelter, it increases the present shelter deduction and indexes it to inflation--incredibly important. The cost of housing, particularly in the older communities, has gone right up through the roof and because the shelter deduction is capped, families who must pay high shelter costs are helped less and less by the Food Stamp Program. This is a very modest recommendation to increase the cap and index it to inflation. Third, the bill restores eligibility to vulnerable legal immigrants. We all know the history in terms of the moving of immigrants off the Food Stamp Program as part of welfare reform. I never believed it made a great deal of sense at that time, nor do I think it still makes a great deal of sense. We have been trying to work for restoration of food stamp benefits to legal immigrants since they were imposed. Legal immigrants are going to be American citizens. They are people who have abided by the rules in order to come here. The reason they have immigrated is primarily because they have members of their families who are here. That is the overwhelming reason for it. So they are going to be American citizens. To deprive people, particularly children--although we made limited progress in that in recent years-- who are otherwise going to be American citizens never seemed, to me, to be a wise policy. We seek appropriate restoration in this legislation. It also increases Federal support for emergency food pantries and soup kitchens. I think the excellent research from the Conference of Mayors is a powerful justification for those modest recommendations. The Congressional Budget Office estimates together these steps will cost about $2.5 billion over 5 years, benefiting over a million children and working adults. Nearly 1,200 national, State, and local organizations, representing concerned citizens in all 50 States, have urged Congress to pass the legislation. I hope we can enact this important hunger relief measure this year. Families living in hunger across the country need and deserve our help. I am hopeful that the Budget Committee will create a reserve fund dedicated to hunger relief. Next, I hope that the Agriculture Committee will apply its expertise to the work we have begun and report this legislation. Again, I thank Senator Lugar, who has been a leader in the Agriculture Committee, and has also been a leader on this concern, as well as working with us on this issue historically, and our good friend, Senator Harkin from Iowa. Senator Specter has been a leader, as well. I thank Senator Leahy and Senator Jeffords and Senator Daschle, all who are strong supporters. We have a number of our colleagues who are cosponsors. But all of them have had long careers on the issue of hunger in America. We are grateful for their continued interest and support. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his comments and for his energy in visiting these distribution centers himself. I will put in the Record some of the findings in a number of the distribution places in Massachusetts, with the increasing escalation of families who are receiving the benefits of these foods and increasing numbers of children, and that the total ages have gone down extensively as well. It is a very powerful and moving commentary about what is happening. I agree with the Senator, at a time when we all remind ourselves every day about how strong this economy is and the significant economic progress we have made, all of that is very true, but there are a number of people in our country who are facing significant deprivation in the area of food. We want to see what can be done to try to provide some relief. We will work closely with the committee and with the chairman. I am grateful to him.

Mr. KENNEDY. My good friend from Pennsylvania makes an excellent point about investigating hunger in his state. He has shown impressive leadership throughout our deliberations on hunger during this Congress, and helped hone our proposal to target the most urgent needs. From my many discussions with Senator Specter, I know that he has carefully investigated the hardships faced by his constituents in Pennsylvania. I urge every Senator in this Chamber to follow his example. In Massachusetts: An eleven-year-old child in Brighton reported to investigators last year that ``Sometimes I'm really hungry. Sometimes I have nothing to eat but Cheerios and milk. . . . I wake up and I can't go back to sleep because I have stomach pain. Then I wake up in the morning and I feel sick. I wish that every time we need food, we just had it in the fridge.'' A mother in Springfield worried, ``Should my kids sit in the dark or should they go hungry? One of my kids has multiple handicaps, so I have to pay the utility bills to have heat and light. But, then we have no food.'' A 12-year-old youngster in Dorchester reports, ``When I'm hungry I feel like I'm dying. I eat ice because it fills me up with water. . . . When I don't eat, in school I get sleepy and bored.'' When I looked at studies conducted throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I found that 35 percent of Massachusetts food bank and soup kitchen clients are under 18 years old. Moreover, 63 percent of Massachusetts community food providers have reported an increase in demand for food aid in the last year, with 49 percent of programs noting an increase in demand among families with children. This evidence of ongoing urgent needs is inconsistent with the fact that 118,000 people in Massachusetts left food stamp roles in the three years preceding September 1998 even though during this time the number of people living in poverty increased by 50,000. I think that if any Senator conducts a similar review of the data, unfortunately a similar picture will emerge.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the majority leader. Mr. President, I think Senator Daschle outlined what was a reasonable way of proceeding. I am under the impression that perhaps the majority leader has not had an opportunity to get into the kind of detail the Democratic leader talked about. Although I still need persuasion on the bankruptcy bill, I know what the will of the Senate is on that issue. On the issue of the minimum wage, there wouldn't have been a blue slip on just the increase on the minimum wage. The blue slip was on the approximately $73 billion in tax breaks that were added to the minimum wage. The point our leader was attempting to work out was consistent with what the majority leader has outlined, and that is that at least there would be a way in which the Senate would be able to address the minimum wage. Some colleagues may object to that process, but I would not. As I understood Senator Daschle's proposal and the majority leader, by substituting the Domenici bill for the House bill, there are 3 years. That would go to conference. What he was asking for was not really any unusual procedure, just asking that we follow the Senate rules that would permit a motion to instruct the conferees that, instead of being 3 years, it would be 2 years. Given the fact it has been 6 months since the Senate acted on the minimum wage and given the overwhelming support for 2 years, which was bipartisan in the House, there might be support for that. I believe there would be, if we had that opportunity to do so. I hope the leader will consider what Senator Daschle proposed because it addresses the concerns of the leader and does it in a way in which, at least for those who are the most concerned about the 11 million Americans who have not had a pay increase while we in the Senate have enjoyed a $4,600 pay increase in 1 year, they would have some degree of protection. Others have objected, and I join those and object with the hope that perhaps the leaders can get together and find value in what Senator Daschle offered as being a way to achieve the objectives of the majority leader and the Senate and still protect the interests of the minimum-wage workers in this country.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will take a moment at this time to review where we are on the question of the increase in the minimum wage. We have been trying to get, over the period of the last 2 years, a vote on a 2-year increase in the minimum wage--50 cents this year and 50 cents next year--for the 1 million Americans who are at the lowest level of the economic ladder. These men and women are the ones working as aides for schoolteachers in our schools. They are working in nursing homes taking care of millions of our senior citizens in those conditions. These are the people who clean out the buildings at night so American businesses can continue to function effectively over the course of this extraordinary expansion. But as we see this extraordinary expansion in terms of our American economy, the group that has not benefited is the one at the lowest end of the economic ladder. These are men and women playing by the rules and working hard. They have not been able to see the appropriate kind of increases in the minimum wage. If the minimum wage today were to have the same purchasing power it had in 1968, it would be $7.50 an hour. This whole group of Americans have not only not participated in the expansion of the American economy, they have fallen further and further behind. That is why we believe we ought to have an opportunity to address this issue on the floor of the Senate, and do it in a timely way. There are questions about what the Senate is doing and how busy the Senate is. We are prepared to have a very short time limit. Every Member of this body knows what this issue is about. I think every Member of this body has voted effectively on the question of the minimum wage over a period of time. It is a rather simple, basic, and fundamental issue. It is an issue of fairness to millions of Americans. It is an issue involving women because close to 70 percent of all of the minimum-wage workers are women. It is an issue of civil rights because the majority of the workers who get the minimum wage are men and women of color. It is a children's issue because the majority of women who are receiving the minimum wage have children. This has enormous implications in terms of how these children are going to grow up, what kind of home they are going to be in, and how much time their parents are going to have in terms of spending quality time with these children when they are working one or two, and in some instances three different minimum-wage jobs. It is ultimately and finally a fairness issue where the overwhelming majority of Americans believe, and believe very strongly, I think, that men and women who work 40 hours a week for 52 weeks a year ought not live in poverty in the United States of America. That is what this issue is basically all about, and we in the Senate are being denied the opportunity to vote on that issue. That is what is offensive. This body was prepared to vote on a pay increase of $4,600 to be implemented immediately. They were prepared to go ahead on that. They are not prepared to delay that. But when you talk about a $150 increase in the minimum wage, they want to spread it over 3 years. This is an issue of fairness. People ought to have accountability. When Members go to the polls, people in their congressional and senatorial districts ought to know how they stand on this issue of fairness. We are being denied that opportunity by a majority in the Senate. That is wrong. Anyone who believes we are not going to continue after this issue doesn't understand the rules of the Senate. We are going to be voting on a 2-year increase in the minimum wage. We are going to be voting on it soon, and we are going to be voting on it again and again and again. So get used to it because you are going to vote on it. You will be able to go back and say: Oh, yes. I voted one time to increase it for 3 years. Yes; I voted against it 15 times for 2 years. And for all those in small business, I voted for a $73 billion tax break, unpaid for. The House bill was $123 billion. We don't want to hear from that side of the aisle about fiscal responsibility anymore--$73 billion at the drop of a hat and $123 billion over in the House of Representatives and 90 percent of it goes to the top 5 percent of the American taxpayers. Isn't that interesting? We are trying to get a 50-cent increase for the lowest paid Americans--tax break; 90 percent of it goes to the highest paid. We are not going to permit Members of the Senate to vote. We have a majority. We are not going to permit a majority of the Senate to vote on whether we are going to have a very simple concept of 50 cents this year--50 cents. No; we are going to take our $4,600 and put it in our pockets and walk out of here. For every single year of that, an increase in the minimum wage is being delayed. Do you think they are going to forget that? The other side thinks it is going to go away. It isn't going to go away. No matter how many times these little proposals are going to come up in terms of consent agreements, no matter how many times you are going to try to close out opportunities to bring this up, no matter how many times you go through the parliamentary gymnastics on this kind of issue, it is coming back again and again and again. So get used to it because you are going to get it. You are going to vote on it. Americans are going to know who is going to stand for fairness and decency and who is opposed to it and blocked it. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join my colleagues Senators Grassley, Jeffords, and Harkin in introducing the Family Opportunity Act of 2000. Our goal is to help children with disabilities by removing the health care barriers that so often prevent families from staying together and staying employed. Despite the extraordinary growth and prosperity the country is enjoying today, families of disabled children and special needs children continue to struggle to keep their families together, live independently and become fully contributing members of their communities. More than 8% of children in this country have significant disabilities. Yet many of them do not have access to the health services they need to maintain and prevent deterioration of their health. Too often, to obtain needed health services for their children under Medicaid, families are forced to become poor, stay poor, put their children in institutions, or give up custody of their children entirely. No parent should be faced with that unacceptable choice. In a recent survey of 20 states, 64% families of special needs children report they are turning down jobs, turning down raises, turning down overtime, and are unable to save money for the future of their children and family--so that their children can stay eligible for Medicaid through SSI, the Social Security Income Program. Today we are introducing legislation to close the health care gap for vulnerable families, and enable them to obtain the health care their disabled children deserve. The Family Opportunity Act of 2000 will remove the unfair barriers that deny needed health care to so many disabled children and special needs children. It will make health insurance coverage more widely available for children with significant current disabilities, by enabling parents to buy-in to Medicaid at an affordable rate. It will enable states to develop a demonstration program to provide a Medicaid buy-in for children with potentially significant disabilities--those who will become severely disabled if they do not receive health services. It will establish Family to Family Information Centers in each state to help families with special needs children. The passage of the Work Incentives Improvement Act last year demonstrated the nation's commitment to help adults with disabilities obtain the health services they need, in order to lead independent and productive lives. The legislation we are introducing today makes a similar commitment to children with disabilities and their families. I look forward to working with all members of Congress to enact this legislation. Disabled children and their families across the country deserve this help in achieving their dreams and participating fully in the social and economic mainstream of our nation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join my colleagues Senators Grassley, Jeffords, and Harkin in introducing the Family Opportunity Act of 2000. Our goal is to help children with disabilities by removing the health care barriers that so often prevent families from staying together and staying employed. Despite the extraordinary growth and prosperity the country is enjoying today, families of disabled children and special needs children continue to struggle to keep their families together, live independently and become fully contributing members of their communities. More than 8% of children in this country have significant disabilities. Yet many of them do not have access to the health services they need to maintain and prevent deterioration of their health. Too often, to obtain needed health services for their children under Medicaid, families are forced to become poor, stay poor, put their children in institutions, or give up custody of their children entirely. No parent should be faced with that unacceptable choice. In a recent survey of 20 states, 64% families of special needs children report they are turning down jobs, turning down raises, turning down overtime, and are unable to save money for the future of their children and family--so that their children can stay eligible for Medicaid through SSI, the Social Security Income Program. Today we are introducing legislation to close the health care gap for vulnerable families, and enable them to obtain the health care their disabled children deserve. The Family Opportunity Act of 2000 will remove the unfair barriers that deny needed health care to so many disabled children and special needs children. It will make health insurance coverage more widely available for children with significant current disabilities, by enabling parents to buy-in to Medicaid at an affordable rate. It will enable states to develop a demonstration program to provide a Medicaid buy-in for children with potentially significant disabilities--those who will become severely disabled if they do not receive health services. It will establish Family to Family Information Centers in each state to help families with special needs children. The passage of the Work Incentives Improvement Act last year demonstrated the nation's commitment to help adults with disabilities obtain the health services they need, in order to lead independent and productive lives. The legislation we are introducing today makes a similar commitment to children with disabilities and their families. I look forward to working with all members of Congress to enact this legislation. Disabled children and their families across the country deserve this help in achieving their dreams and participating fully in the social and economic mainstream of our nation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on Saturday, March 11, an editorial in the New York Times emphasized the significant concerns about the Republican education block grant proposal which was recently approved by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. As this editorial points out, education block grants to states would not be the most effective use of public tax dollars. Block grants do nothing to ensure change and reform through proven effective methods such as a: well-qualified teacher in every classroom; reduced class sizes to give children the individual attention they need and allow teachers to maintain order and discipline; helping all children to meet high standards; and holding schools accountable for improving student achievement and giving the neediest children the extra help they need. Education is a high priority for states, communities, teachers, parents, and students throughout the country, and it is important that we listen to them as we consider the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the full Senate in the weeks ahead. I believe that the editorial will be of interest to all of us concerned about this issue, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, the Senate is making an important reform in Social Security which will benefit hundreds of thousands of senior citizens each year. Because of the action we are taking today, those between the ages of 65 and 69 who continue to work will no longer have a portion of their Social Security benefits withheld. The ``earnings test'' in current law reduces the Social Security benefits of those in the 65 to 69 age group by $1 for every $3 they earn annually over $17,000. It affects nearly eight hundred thousand men and women each year. It unfairly denies them a portion of the Social Security benefits which they have earned by a lifetime of hard work. Once this bill is signed into law, these seniors will receive the full benefits to which they are entitled whether or not they choose to remain in the workforce after age 65. President Clinton has urged Congress to repeal the earnings limit, and he will sign the bill as soon as it reaches his desk. Repeal of the earnings limit is the right thing for us to do, and now is the time for us to do it. The concept of an earnings limit goes back to the Depression era when Social Security was first enacted. At that time, unemployment was high and it was hoped that the creation of Social Security would encourage older workers to retire and create openings for younger men and women who desperately needed jobs. The employment picture today is dramatically different. We face a shortage of skilled workers and our economy can benefit from the continued participation of older workers in the workforce. Their experience and sound judgment is a national resource. Men and women in their late sixties are healthier than in generations past and the majority of jobs no longer involve physical exertion. Those who choose to work beyond age 65 should not have financial barriers erected in their paths. The earnings limit in current law is such a barrier and it should be removed without further delay. The most important aspect of repealing the earnings limit is that it will increase the freedom of senior citizens to work or retire as they choose. When to retire is an intensely personal decision--influenced by the individual's health, the financial needs of their family, their career interests, and the nature of the work that is available to them. The rules of Social Security should not restrict a senior's range of choice. Those who decide to continue working after age 65 and those who decide to retire should be treated equitably. Both groups should be eligible to receive the full Social Security benefits they have earned. In 1996, I was pleased to join with my Senate colleagues in voting to raise the earnings limit gradually over the succeeding five years. Because of that amendment, the financial burden on thousands of senior citizens has already been reduced. With enactment of this legislation, which I wholeheartedly support, the burden of the earnings limit will be completely eliminated, so that all seniors receive full Social Security benefits, whether or not they remain in the workforce after age 65. They have earned it. Several of my colleagues have used this legislation as an opportunity to voice their perspective on the future of Social Security, and they have painted a bleak picture. I strongly disagree with their characterizations. Social Security is fundamentally sound. It has sufficient resources to fully fund current benefits for 35 years. Due to the gradual aging of the American population, Social Security will begin to experience a revenue shortfall after 2035. However, if we plan for the future by addressing this problem in the near term, that revenue shortfall can be eliminated with relatively minor adjustments to the system. The benefit expectations of future recipients can be preserved, and the solvency of Social Security insured for future generations. We need to preserve the program as an inflation adjusted guaranteed benefit for those who depend on it to pay for the basic necessities of life. For two-thirds of America's senior citizens, Social Security retirement benefits provide more than half their annual income. For 42 percent of them, it constitutes more than three-quarters of their income. Social Security enables millions of elderly to spend their retirement years in security and dignity. Without Social Security, half the nation's elderly would be living in poverty. Converting a portion of Social Security into private investment accounts, as some have suggested, would be much too risky for elderly men and women who have no other source of financial security. The major proposals which would direct a portion of each worker's payroll taxes into private accounts would all reduce the level of guaranteed Social Security benefits substantially. Whether or not a retiree made up those lost dollars would depend on factors largely beyond his or her control. Workers who reach retirement age during an economic downturn cannot simply delay their retirement indefinitely until the market goes up. Private accounts, subject to the ups and downs of the stock market, are fine as a supplement to Social Security. But, they are no substitute for Social Security. President Clinton's budget proposal would use the debt service savings which will result from paying down the national debt over the next fifteen years to extend the life of the Social Security Trust Fund. Since the current Social Security surplus is being used to pay down the debt, it is appropriate for the Social Security Trust Fund to receive the resulting savings. More than half of the projected shortfall in the Trust Fund over the next 75 years could be eliminated by adopting this policy. If we dedicated all of the savings in debt service costs to the Social Security Trust Fund, the solvency of the system would be extended to beyond 2050, fully providing for the retirement of the baby boom generation. We need to address the long term financial problems of Social Security in a way which keeps faith with the historic mission of the program--to provide senior citizens with a guaranteed, inflation adjusted benefit which will enable them to live in security and dignity. I urge all my colleagues to support the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act. Repeal of the earnings limit will enable those who remain in the workforce beyond age 65 to receive the full Social Security benefits they have earned. It will greatly help these working seniors and it will strengthen our overall economy. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last week, the Friends of Ireland in Congress released its annual St. Patrick's Day Statement. The Friends of Ireland is a bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives opposed to violence and terrorism in Northern Ireland and dedicated to a United States policy that promotes a just, lasting and peaceful settlement of the conflict, which has taken more than 3,100 lives over the past 30 years. I believe this year's Friends of Ireland Statement will be of interest to all of our colleagues who are concerned about this issue, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend my colleague, Senator Boxer, for bringing this important treaty before the Senate. I am proud to be a sponsor of Senate Resolution 237, which expresses the sense of the Senate that hearings should be held by the Foreign Relations Committee on the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The treaty establishes international standards and definitions to protect women against discrimination. The treaty also calls for action in the areas of education, health care, and domestic relations, and creates a process to monitor the status of women and their progress toward equity. The standards are fully consistent with existing U.S. protections against discrimination. In countries that do not have such protections, this treaty is an effective tool to combat violence against women, reform unfair inheritance and property rights, and strengthen women's access to fair employment and economic opportunity. 165 countries have not ratified the treaty. As the country that consistently leads the way in the battle for human rights and human dignity, and that took an active role in drafting the treaty, it is past time for the United States to ratify it as well. U.S. support for women's equality at home and abroad requires that we promptly consider and ratify this treaty. I urge the Senate to pass this resolution and to do all we can to expedite the ratification of this important treaty. To move our country in that direction, the Foreign Relations Committee should hold a hearing.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. It was a reference to an objective evaluation. In that evaluation, the reviewers came to the same conclusion that the Bar Association arrived at, which was that the cause of justice in the Ninth Circuit would be well served and the people highly served with his confirmation. I join with my friend and colleague from California, as well as others, in urging the favorable consideration of Marsha Berzon and Richard Paez for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. They are exceptional nominees who have waited far too long for action. The delay in reviewing the nominations is a case study in the failure of the Senate to deal effectively with judicial nominations. That failure has left the courts with 29 judicial emergencies, and is the result of the Senate's adbication of its constitutional responsibility to act on judicial nominees. Marsha Berzon, as the Senator has pointed out, is an outstanding attorney. She is a graduate of Harvard/Radcliffe College and the University of California Law School. She clerked for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court--rare commendations for a young lawyer. Nationally known as an appellate litigator in a highly regarded San Francisco law firm, she has written more than 100 briefs and petitions. She received strong recommendations from a bipartisan list of supporters, from major law enforcement organizations, and from those who have opposed her in court. As our chairman, Senator Hatch, commented last June, Marsha Berzon ``is one of the best lawyers I've ever seen.'' It reflects poorly on the Senate that such a gifted lawyer was denied a vote on the Senate for so long. The Senate's shabby and insulting treatment of Richard Paez is worse. He has almost two decades of judicial experience and received the highest rating from the American Bar Association. He was first nominated more than 4 years ago to serve in the Ninth Circuit. Judge Paez graduated from Brigham Young University and Boalt Hall Law School. Early in his career, he represented low-income clients. He later served in the Los Angeles Municipal Court, and the Los Angeles Superior Court, the California Court of Appeals, and 5 years ago he was nominated and appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Clearly, Judge Paez has the experience and the ability to serve with great distinction on the Ninth Circuit. He has the support of former California state judge and Republican Congressman Jim Rogan, as well as the Sheriff, the District Attorney, and the Police Officers Association of Los Angeles. We rarely have two nominees who are as well qualified with the breadth of support these nominees have. We are fortunate to have these two nominees who are willing to serve in the judiciary. What they have been put through in terms of the failure of this body to act, I think, is indeed unfortunate. Now we do have that opportunity. I join with all of my colleagues to urge the approval of both of these nominees. Since his nomination in January 1996, 4 years ago, Judge Paez has been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee twice. Surely he deserves an affirmative vote by the full Senate. It is time for the Senate to stop abusing its power. Over 200 years ago, the Framers of the Constitution created a system of checks and balances to ensure that excessive power is not concentrated in any branch of government. The President was given the authority to nominate federal judges with the advise and consent the Senate. The clear intent was for the Senate to work with the President, not against him, in this process. In recent years, however, by refusing to take timely action on so many of the President's nominees, the Senate has abdicated its responsibility. Both of these nominees are uniquely well qualified. Both have demonstrated outstanding qualities and abilities to serve in the courts of this country and serve the cause of justice in this nation. I hope both of them will be speedily approved by the Senate. At long last the Senate is considering the nominations of Marsha Berzon and Richard Paez for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. They are both exceptional nominees who have waited far too long for action by the Senate. Indeed, the delay in reviewing these nominations is a case study in the failure of the Senate to deal effectively with judicial nominations. That failure has left the courts with 29 judicial emergencies, and is the result of the Senate's abdication of its constitutional responsibility to act on judicial nominees. Marsha Berzon is an outstanding attorney with an impressive record. She is a graduate of Harvard/Radcliffe College and the Boalt Hall Law School at the University of California, Berkeley. She clerked for both the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court. She is currently a nationally known appellate litigator with a highly regarded San Francisco law firm. She has written more than 100 briefs and petitions in the Supreme Court, and has argued four cases there. She has received strong recommendations from a bipartisan list of supporters, from major law enforcement organizations, and from those who have opposed her in court. She has argued in many U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals, U.S. District Courts, and at all levels of the California state court system. She has represented numerous private clients, as well as the governments of the States of California and Hawaii, and the City of Oakland, California. Senator Hatch commented last June that Marsha Berzon, ``is one of the best lawyers I've ever seen.'' She was first nominated by President Clinton on January 27, 1998--over two years ago--and it reflects poorly on the Senate that such a gifted lawyer was denied a vote by the full Senate for so long. The Senate's shabby and insulting treatment of Judge Richard Paez is even worse. He has almost two decades of judicial experience. He received the highest rating from the American Bar Association, and was first nominated more than four years ago--more than four years ago--to serve on the Ninth Circuit. Judge Paez is a graduate of Brigham Young University and Boalt Hall Law School. Early in his career, he represented low income clients. He later served on the Los Angeles Municipal Court, the Los Angeles Superior Court, and the California Court of Appeals. Five years ago, Judge Paez was appointed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Clearly, Judge Paez has the experience and the ability to serve with great distinction on the Ninth Circuit. He has the support of former California state judge and Republican Congressman Jim Rogan, as well as the Sheriff, the District Attorney, and the Police Chiefs' Association of Los Angeles County. Since 1991, Judge Paez has been appointed twice by the chief justice of the California Supreme Court to serve as a member of the California Judicial Council, the policy-making body for the California judiciary. Last month, the Los Angeles Daily Journal reviewed a variety of Judge Paez's rulings, and selected seven cases that would most effectively test his ability to serve on the Ninth Circuit. The Journal then asked fifteen experts, including a fair balance of conservative and liberal law professors and attorneys--to evaluate Judge Paez's legal rulings. As the Journal concluded, The portrait that emerged is of a thoughtful, unbiased and even-tempered judge, propelled into the political spotlight, only to be trapped in a seemingly never-ending and bitterly polarized nomination process. . . . Of the 15 legal experts who examined Paez's rulings for the Daily Journal, 13 praised them, using descriptions such as ``clear, concise and straightforward,'' ``clearly written and carefully reasoned,'' and ``scholarly and thorough.'' Even the ruling subjected to the greatest scrutiny was complimented by other prominent legal experts. In its evaluation of Judge Paez, The Almanac of the Federal Judiciary notes that attorneys have praised him highly in the following terms. They say he is one of the smartest judges on the bench; he rates a 12 or 13 on a scale of one to 10; he is highly competent; he's very professional; and he's always fair. Despite what some contend, he is not anti-business, he is not anti-religion. He is a well-respected and right-minded judge. Since his nomination in January 1996--over four years ago--Judge Paez has been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee twice. Surely, he deserves an affirmative vote by the full Senate. It is time for the Senate to stop abusing its power over nominations. Over 200 years ago, the Framers of the Constitution created a system of checks and balances to ensure that excessive power was not concentrated in any branch of government. The President was given the authority to nominate federal judges with the advice and consent of the Senate. The clear intent was for the Senate to work with the President--not against him--in this process. In recent years, however, by refusing to take timely action on so many of the President's nominees, the Senate has abdicated its responsibility. By doing so, the Senate has seriously undermined the judicial branch of our government. This kind of partisan stonewalling is irresponsible and unacceptable. It's hurting the courts, and it's hurting the country. Chief Justice William Rehnquist felt so strongly about the long delays in acting on nominees that he sharply criticized the Senate in his 1997 Year-End Report, Judicial vacancies can contribute to a backlog of cases, undue delays in civil cases, and stopgap measures to shift judicial personnel where they are most needed. Vacancies cannot remain at such high levels indefinitely without eroding the quality of justice that traditionally has been associated with the federal judiciary . . . Whatever the size of the federal judiciary, the president should nominate candidates with reasonable promptness, and the Senate should act within a reasonable time to confirm or reject them . . . The Senate is, of course, very much a part of the appointment process for any Article III judge. One nominated by the President is not ``appointed'' until confirmed by the Senate. The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for inquiry it should vote him up or vote him down. Little has changed since Chief Justice Rehnquist made that statement in 1997. For decades, the average time from nomination to a final vote on a judicial nominee was 91 days. But in 1998, the delay more than doubled--to 232 days. Of the 65 judges confirmed in 1998, only 12 were confirmed in 91 days or fewer. The trend continued in 1999. As of February 24, 2000, the average time between nomination and confirmation in the current Congress is 152 days. In addition, it is women and minorities who have suffered the most during the impasse over judicial nominations. According to one study, it took an average of 60 days longer for non-whites than whites and 65 days longer for women than men to be considered by the Senate in the last Congress. Minorities have failed to win confirmation at a 35% higher rate than white candidates. In 1999, six out of the ten nominees who waited the longest were women and minorities. While the Senate plays political games with the judiciary, the backlog of cases continues to pile up in the courts and undermines our judicial system. There are currently 76 vacant federal judgeships. Several more are likely to become vacant in the coming months, as more and more judges retire from the federal bench. Of the current vacancies, 29 have been classified as ``judicial emergencies'' by the Judicial Conference of the United States. That means that they have been vacant for 18 months or longer. Thirty- four nominees are currently waiting for Senate action. Three nominees are pending on the Senate floor, 3 are waiting for a vote in Committee, and all the others are waiting for a Judiciary Committee hearing. Only four judges have been confirmed by the Senate so far this year. The effect of Senate inaction is clear. At the circuit court level in Texas, the court's workload has increased 65% over the past nine years, with no increase in judges and three vacancies. In California in 1997, 600 hearings had to be canceled because of the large number of vacancies. This slowdown in judicial confirmations is jeopardizing the integrity and viability of our judicial system. The Senate has a constitutional duty to work with the President to confirm judicial nominees--particularly at a time when Congress is shifting more responsibility to the courts. Members should not use the excuse of an election year to stall this process. In 1988 the Democratic-controlled Congress confirmed 42 judicial nominees, and in 1992, they confirmed 66. Opponents of Berzon and Paez argue that the high reversal rates of the 9th Circuit by the Supreme Court are proof that the Ninth Circuit is too liberal. This argument is false and a poor excuse for Republican stonewalling. In fact, from 1998 to 1999, five circuits had reversal rates higher than or equal to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit reversal rate was lower than the combined reversal rate of the state appellate courts. And from 1996 to 1997--the year that critics point to--the Ninth Circuit had lower reversal rates than the Second, Fifth, Seventh, D.C., and Federal Circuits. As Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit, Procter Hug, Jr., has written, . . . the reversal rate has little to do with the effectiveness of any circuit court of appeals. For example, the 13, 14, or 20 cases reversed in a term were out of 4,500 cases decided on the merits in the Ninth Circuit. The reversal rate in any circuit should also have little to do with the nomination or confirmation of judges to fill vacancies on a court. The Senate has a constitutional obligation to fill the existing judicial vacancies. After such long delays, a vote in favor of Marsha Berzon and Richard Paez would be a significant step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to support both of these highly qualified nominees.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 6 minutes. I ask my friend and colleague from California, there was reference made on the Senate floor a few moments ago about a Los Angeles Daily Journal article that reviewed a variety of Judge Paez's rulings, which I think is fair to point out. I wonder whether the Senator could confirm that in that Daily Journal review, seven cases were selected by the Los Angeles Daily Journal that would most effectively test the ability of Judge Paez to serve on the Ninth Circuit. The Journal asked 15 experts, including a fair balance of liberal and conservative law professors and attorneys, to evaluate Judge Paez's legal rulings. The Journal concluded: The portrait that emerged is of a thoughtful, unbiased, even-tempered judge, propelled into the political spotlight, only to be trapped into a seemingly never-ending and bitterly polarized nomination process. . . . Of the 15 legal experts who examined Paez's ruling for the Daily Journal, 13 praised them, using descriptions such as ``clear, concise, and straightforward,'' ``clearly written and carefully reasoned,'' and ``scholarly and thorough.'' This is the import of the Los Angeles Daily Journal, as I understand. One could draw, perhaps, a different conclusion from the earlier references. Would the Senator agree my characterization was a more accurate characterization than referenced earlier?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Senate action on Timothy Dyk's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is long overdue. He has waited almost two years for this vote. Yet he is a nationally known and exceptionally well-regarded attorney who received a ``Qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association and was well received by the Senate Judiciary Committee. He deserves a favorable vote by the Senate here today. Mr. Dyk is an honors graduate of both Harvard College and Harvard Law School. After graduation he served as a law clerk for Chief Justice Earl Warren, and for Justices Stanley Reed and Harold Burton. He served in the Justice Department for a year in the early 1960's and has spent the last 37 years as a distinguished and highly respected attorney in private practice in Washington, DC. He has argued cases before the Supreme Court and in numerous Federal courts of appeals, including five cases before the Federal Circuit. He clearly has the qualifications and ability to serve on the Federal Circuit with great distinction. Mr. Dyk's nomination is supported by a variety of corporations and organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Association of Broadcasters, the Labor Policy Association, the American Trucking Association, Kodak, and IBM. Timothy Dyk is highly qualified to serve on the Federal Circuit. He should have been confirmed long ago, and I urge my colleagues to approve his nomination today.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to waive the relevant section of the Budget Act and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I desire to speak for 1 minute on the Bingaman-Kennedy amendment. This amendment Senator Bingaman and I offer is a very simple amendment. It basically takes the amount that is being appropriated, identified here under the Coverdell amendment, and rather than using it in creating the Coverdell approach on the education, it uses it to help and assist the Pell grants. It effectively increases the Pell grant by some $250. The Pell grants, then, would be available to those who are eligible under the Pell Grant Program. It seems to me that program is targeted toward well-qualified, needy students attempting to continue their education. I think that is a preferable way of allocating the resources that are included in the Coverdell amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is especially appropriate that the Senate is debating education reform today, because today is Read Across America Day. The National Education Association deserves great credit for bringing together the nation's leading education, literacy, and community organizations to help children in communities across the Nation experience the joy of reading. Reading is the foundation of learning and the golden door to opportunity. But too many children fail to read at an acceptable level. For students who don't learn to read well in the early years of elementary school, it is virtually impossible to keep up in the later years. That's why literacy programs are so important. They give young children practical opportunities to learn to read and practice reading. We also need to do all we can to encourage children and parents to read together. That's why Read Across America Day is so important. I am also proud of other programs that take place throughout the year to encourage reading. In October 1998, Congress passed the Reading Excellence Act to provide competitive reading and literacy grants to states. The purpose of the program is to help high-need schools teach children to read in their early childhood years. In addition to classroom instruction, the program helps teachers to improve their teaching. It also expands the number of high-quality family literacy programs, works with local and national organizations to ensure that children have access to books, and provides early literacy assistance for children with reading difficulties. Last August, Massachusetts was one of only 17 states to receive funds under this competitive grant. The Massachusetts Department of Education distributed these funds to local school districts throughout the State. The program builds on the America Reads initiative. In 1996, President Clinton and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton designed a new effort to call national attention to child literacy by proposing the ``America Reads Challenge,'' which encourages colleges and universities to earmark a portion of their Work-Study funds for college students willing to serve as literacy tutors. Institutions of higher education across Massachusetts are already creating strong ties with surrounding communities, and participation in the initiative enhances those relationships. Today, over 1,000 colleges and universities across the country are committed to the President's ``America Reads Work Study Program,'' and 73 of these institutions are in Massachusetts. I'm proud of the strong national commitment that we are making to help every child read well. By working together, we can make a significant difference for children across the country. Last year I celebrated ``Read Across America Day'' with students from Squantum Elementary School in Massachusetts. The students and teachers have an excellent slogan--``Drop Everything and Read.'' For at least 15 minutes a day, the school does just that. But if we truly want to help all children learn to read early and well, every day should be Read Across America Day.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. Has the pending amendment been temporarily set aside?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand we have a time limitation on this of 45 minutes a side.