Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes. The Teacher Quality amendment would strike the underlying Coverdell K-through-12 tax breaks and authorize $2 billion for the Qualified Teacher in Every Classroom Act. The amendment would direct the $1.2 billion from the Coverdell bill to the teacher quality program, and the other would consist of an authorization for appropriations at a later time. We have had a debate about the Coverdell tax bill over the last few days. One of the things we are asking the Senate to consider is whether we ought to be putting the $1.2 billion equally between the public and private schools, even though 90 percent of the children in this country go to public schools, or whether we can use those resources more effectively. I believe they can be used more effectively. That is what this amendment is about. As an alternative to the Coverdell tax bill, I offer this amendment on behalf of my colleagues to say let us move our Nation forward to insist that we are going to have a well-qualified teacher in every classroom--that the key to enhancing academic achievement and accomplishment is not going to be subject to just any one single or simple solution but certainly among a handful of solutions. I suggest perhaps the most important one is to make sure that a teacher, who is before the 50 million children who are going through K through 12, is going to be well qualified to teach effectively with regard to the academic subject in which the teacher teaches. That is the purpose of this amendment. It is reasonable to ask, where did you come up with these various proposals that you have in this qualified teacher amendment? I refer my colleagues to a very important study from 1996, the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future in Education. The board itself is made up of some of the most distinguished educators and is bipartisan in nature. We have effectively incorporated in our amendment the series of recommendations this panel virtually unanimously recommended including: how to recruit individuals who will be the best for the students in this country; how we will maintain them by the development of mentoring programs; how we will ensure professional development and; how to utilize and expand some of the imaginative and creative efforts to develop teachers, including hometown teachers, which are developed within various constituencies, and expanding Troops to Teachers, which currently has 3,600 teachers nationwide. What did this panel, made up of some of our best educators and most thoughtful teachers in the country, conclude virtually unanimously? This commission starts with three simple premises: First, what teachers know and can do is the most important influence on what students learn; second, recruiting, preparing and retaining good teachers is the central strategy for improving our schools; and, third, school reform cannot succeed unless it focuses on creating the conditions in which teachers can teach--and teach well. Those are the principles. I wonder how anyone in this body could question those rather basic, common sense principles, a well-qualified teacher in every classroom. This study has indicated how that best can be done, and we have followed these various recommendations. First of all, they talk about some problems. They are talking about education generally. Some problems are national in scope and require special attention. Critical areas such as math and science have long had shortages of qualified teachers that were only temporarily solved by Federal recruitment centers during the post-Sputnik years. Currently, more than 40 percent of math teachers and 30 percent of science teachers are not fully qualified. They recognize there has to be a particular focus on math and science teachers, and we incorporate that in our legislation. Secondly, it talks about, how we distributed the funds, basically the same formula that was used by our Republican colleagues when they had a proposal to try to deal with the teacher shortage. That falls short for many different reasons. We had hoped to be able to get into that if we had continued our markup in our Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee yesterday. Nonetheless, what we are basically doing is saying we will have a program in terms of recruitment, we will have a program in terms of mentoring. We find there is a very important and significant contrast with the results of maintaining teachers with a mentoring program; we have 23% of teachers leave within their first three years of teaching, and 30- 50% leave within the first three to five years. Yet 93% of teachers taking part in mentoring programs stayed on the job--far above the rate for new teachers. Let's take what we know works. Let's make sure that when we are going out and recruiting the teachers, they are going to be recruited in the areas of most critical need; that is, in math and science. Let's make sure that when they go into the classroom, they are going to be well prepared in their courses. This amendment will insist that these teachers are going to qualify according to the State requirements in the course they have selected. No other legislation is going to do that. It is going to make sure they have a mentoring program. We will also make sure that there is going to be professional development, that very important third factor this study has pointed out. They mention in this study that most U.S. teachers have no regular time to consult together or learn about new teaching strategies, unlike their peers in many of the European nation countries, which teach at a substantial time plan and at a higher level. What this amendment is about is very simple and fundamental. We are saying it is a wiser use of taxpayer funds to move us to an effective program in terms of ensuring we will have a well-trained teacher in every classroom, rather than having the tax credits, only half of which will even be available to parents whose children will be going to public schools, the other half to the parents of children who will be going to the private schools. Having well-qualified teachers is absolutely essential. Now, we can argue--and we have colleagues on our Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee who say this really isn't a role for the Federal Government. We know we provide only 7 cents out of every dollar that comes from the Federal Government and goes into the local communities. It comes through the States--about 98 cents of the dollars that come through the Federal Government actually go into the classrooms themselves, according to the General Accounting Office. What we are saying is, with a very limited amount of resources, we ought to target areas where there are very important needs and where there is a very sound and compelling case to be made in support of it. Certainly, I think that of all of the areas we are talking about in terms of classrooms today, we are all reminded by recent tragedies about the importance of safety and security in the classroom--we are reminded constantly about that issue. Secondly, we are reminded that there is nothing more important than having well-trained teachers. That is why we think this amendment is so important and so compelling.

Mr. KENNEDY. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself an additional 7 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, let me review specifically exactly how this amendment works. Our amendment provides the States with $1.7 billion by a formula--50 percent poverty, 50 percent population--to improve the teacher quality. States can keep up to 10 percent for State activities, including strategies to raise teacher salaries, reduce the number of teachers placed out of field, and reduce the number of emergency certified teachers. Second, this guarantees that 56 percent of the funds that go to the States--$960 million--is for professional development and mentoring, which provides for 200,000 new teachers a year. We know we need 2 million teachers over the next 10 years, or 200,000 a year. This will provide the mentoring for those 200,000 teachers each year. Funds go by formula to the districts on the basis of 75 percent poverty, 25 percent population. That allocation, in terms of poverty population, is basically noncontroversial. It is basically the formula we have used in the past and is the formula being used even under the current legislation being considered. This guarantees that 30 percent of the funds that would go to the States for competitive local recruitment programs in high-need districts, to recruit and train highly qualified candidates. Next, it guarantees that teachers are trained to address the needs of children with disabilities. None of the other teacher programs or teacher training programs ensures that we are going to have teachers who will be able to teach children with disabilities--it is enormously important. It holds the States accountable for having a qualified teacher in every classroom within 4 years of enactment of the law. It requires that the first $300 million of the State grants go toward professional development, the mentoring and recruitment in the math and science area. There is an incredible need there. Ninety-five percent of urban districts report a critical need for math teachers; 98 percent report the need in science; 97 percent report a need for special education teachers. That is what the current reports are. That is why we have given focus in terms of the recruitment in math and science. It also holds districts accountable for results. They must show progress in: improved student performance; increased participation in sustained professional development and mentoring; reduced beginning teacher attrition rate for the district and; reduced number of teachers who aren't certified or licensed and the number who are out-of-field teachers for the district. Listen to what the Wall Street Journal reported on February 29: Schools turn to temp agencies for substitute teachers. Most school districts begin each day with a nerve-racking hunt for substitutes to fill in for absent teachers. With the tight labor market making the task especially tough, a few are starting to outsource the job. Kelly Services, Inc. unveiled the first nationwide substitute teacher program four months ago and now handles screening and scheduling for 20 schools in 10 States. A school official in Edinburg, Indiana, says the contract the system signed this month with Kelly simply acknowledges ``they're more proficient than we are'' in the temporary help arena. Temp outfits generally charge schools a premium while paying subs at the same rate as before. That is what is happening in the United States of America. That is what is happening. Last year, 50,000 unqualified teachers were hired across the country and are appearing before classrooms of children today--50,000 hired last year appearing before them today. We ought to be able to say, OK, we only have a limited amount of resources; how are we going to be able to expend those resources effectively? I believe the case has been made about having a well-qualified teacher in every classroom, having smaller class sizes, having afterschool programs that do so much in terms of helping and assisting children in doing homework and keeping the children out of trouble--a program, I might point out, that still has a broad opportunity to reach hundreds of thousands more children. It is important to make sure we have the new technology, so children are able to learn with new computers. Various studies show that it takes time for teachers to get up to speed--not just in using the computers, but in training the teachers to use computers in ways that are going to be consistent with the curriculum they are trained to teach. We are not doing that. And then we know there is obviously the pathway in continuing in higher education. These are the components and the elements that are being offered out here. The bottom line on the issue of accountability has been to make sure the scarce resources that we have are actually going to be utilized in an effective way with effective results. I recognize that starting in 1965 when we started the ESEA program, we expended a good deal of resources and we didn't have the kind of accountability we should have had. But what we have seen is that over the period, particularly since the last reauthorization, where we are beginning to make some progress--measurable progress--we will hear speeches that, oh, no, we are not making progress, we are falling further behind. Certainly, there are some schools where progress still hasn't been made. But if you are looking across the board, we are making measurable progress. I think we should find out what is happening, and what is best to continue that measured progress. When we look over the range of different activities that are out there today, how can we measure the activities? One of the important ways we measure it is by the various programs such as Project STAR in the State of Tennessee, where students in smaller class sizes performed better than student in large classes in each grade from kindergarten throughout third grade. The second one, which I think should be self-evident and obvious, is having teachers in front of classes who are qualified to teach in the subject matter. The third is the afterschool programs that assist children with their homework, and offer availability and accessibility of computers to make sure they are going to keep up to speed with technology. When we have limited resources and have an opportunity to focus some of these scarce resources on a needed national problem, we ought to be willing to consider what the overwhelming majority of thoughtful educators, Presidents, practitioners, and individuals who have studied education over the course of a lifetime have virtually unanimously recommended: Increasing teachers' knowledge of academic content and effective teaching skills through sustained, intensive professional development; mentoring programs to keep new teachers in the job; and recruitment programs to draw talented individuals into the teaching profession. That is really what our proposal does. I see my colleague and friend, the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman. I have stated many times, with the progress made in the various programs, that Senator Bingaman has been the leader in the Senate in making sure that whatever resources are going to be accounted for, are accounted for effectively in every one of these educational programs. He has done that in other programs as well but particularly in the education. We have incorporated his recommendations into this legislation. We know that at the end of the day we are going to have improved school performance, we are going to have teachers who are going to be able to teach and pass the State exams, and we know we are going to hold the States and local communities accountable. I see him now. I would be glad to yield. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield whatever time the Senator wishes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his statement. He has, as I mentioned, enormously contributed in terms of these accountability provisions. Professional development, mentoring, and the recruitment have been found to be important and significant in communities across the country. Let me mention some of the examples. Since the late 1980s, New York City's District 2 has invested in sustained, intensive, professional development and made it the central component for improving schools. The district believes student learning will increase as the knowledge of educators grows--and it is working. The investment has contributed to steady increases in student achievement and in 1996, student math scores were second in the city. According to a recent study, the longer California math teachers engaged in ongoing, curriculum-centered and professional development, that supported a reform-oriented teaching practice, the better their students did on the State math assessments. This demonstrates what is happening out there. It is happening in too few districts. Let's make sure we are going to do it in other places across the country. In the area of mentoring and recruitment, in Illinois, the Golden Apple Scholars Program recruits promising young men and women for teaching professions by selecting them during their junior year in high school, then mentoring them through the rest of high school, college, and 5 years of actual teaching. Sixty of the Golden Apple scholars enter the teaching field each year; 90 percent of them are staying in the classroom compared to 50 percent of others dropping out within their first five years. These are young people, recruited locally, involved through high school, attending various kinds of meetings and conferences on education, furthering their efforts through college, coming back to their communities. I have visited programs similar to this in Dade County, FL. They have had extraordinary success locally. That is what we are talking about. Project Promise at Colorado State University recruits prospective teachers from fields such as law, geology, chemistry, stock trading, and medicine. Current teachers mentor these new recruits in the first 2 years of teaching. More than 90 percent of the recruits enter the field and 80 percent stay in the teaching for at least 5 years. There are some very creative ways of recruiting. A North Carolina Teaching Fellows Program recruits talented high school students in the teaching profession with a minimum 1,100 SAT score, higher that 3.6 GPA, and in the top 10 percent of the class. The program provides $5,000 per year for 4 years to 400 outstanding North Carolina high school seniors who agree to teach for 4 years, following graduation in one of the North Carolina public schools or U.S. Government schools. They find they are retaining some 90 percent of these teachers. There is a similar program called Teach Boston, a collaborative effort between Boston Public Schools, Boston Private Industry Council, and Boston Teachers Union. They created model future teacher academies in two Boston high schools. There are different ways of doing this. We give local communities the flexibility in the development of the programs. We say to those who want to do this kind of a program in their local community that there will be some resources that will be available to them. The Hometown Program provides $25 million to support the efforts of high-poverty school districts to recruit teachers as early as the high school to meet long-term teacher shortages. Currently, 20 districts-- including Wichita, Milwaukee, Wayne County, North Carolina, and States, including South Carolina, Ohio, and Washington--have pipeline systems for long-term programs for teacher recruitment. In South Carolina, between 35 and 40 percent of students who complete the State Teacher Cadet Corps either become or plan to become teachers. Currently, there are approximately 5,000 graduates of the Teacher Cadet Corps serving as teachers in South Carolina. Independent evaluators of the South Carolina program have found one former cadet entered college with a jump-start on the teacher education program, and two reported a higher rating than other teachers. They have raised standards for classmates in college. In Wichita, KS, 70 participate in the Grow Your Own Teacher projects and completed their college education; 58 are currently employed as teachers in the Wichita public schools. These programs are around the country but in too few places. We are saying we will provide some $25 million to support those programs that have worked. Finally, the success of the Troops to Teachers. They have hired over 3,600 teachers nationwide. These teachers are likely to be in math and science, and more likely to be minorities than the general recruitment of high school teachers. There are more than 85 percent male, compared to 25 percent nationally--from the Troops to Teachers program. They are teaching in over 900 rural counties, 25 percent; 40 percent are in suburban areas; 40 percent in urban. They have an 82-percent retention rate, returning each year to teaching. We have a significant expansion of that program. The opportunities are out there. California has hired nearly 300 teachers from the Troops to Teachers, including a former Navy pilot who used to hunt submarines and now faces two dozen kindergarten students. He says it does not pay as much but the job satisfaction is incredible. Florida hired 200 Troops to Teachers, including a former Navy instructor who now teachers honors algebra to high school students. The students say he gets excited and he definitely knows what he is talking about. The teacher took a pay cut but he enjoys the kids and enjoys the school. Today, we are talking about Kelly Girls--or Kelly Men--as substitute teachers advertised in the Wall Street Journal this week. We are talking about limited resources. We have recommended smaller class sizes, which are key and have demonstrated effectiveness; well-trained teachers, with the support of mentoring; professional development; afterschool programs; computer programs so children will not be left out or left behind; and strong accountability measures. We believe these are the ways we can make important difference in terms of enhancing the academic opportunities for children in this country. My friend and colleague from the State of Washington has been our leader in moving this Nation toward smaller class sizes. Having visited a number of the schools in my own State of Massachusetts, it is making a major difference. We want to make sure that effort is going to be continued. I yield such time as the Senator desires.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Minnesota. How much time do we have?

Mr. KENNEDY. I have 5 minutes remaining.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it has been almost a year since the tragic shooting at Columbine High School. In literally dozens of cases since then, youths have brought guns to schools, and there have been at least four school shootings since Columbine. Yet in spit of wake-up call after wake-up call after wake-up call, Congress has failed to act. 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 the senseless shocking first grade shooting that occurred two days ago in an elementary school in Michigan. The Senate passed such legislation with overwhelming support last year. The House of Representatives also passed its own version of this legislation. 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. Every day we delay, this critical problem of gun violence affecting schools and children continues to fester. This is not a new problem, but as this week's events have shown, it is an increasingly serious problem, and Congress cannot look the other way and continue to ignore it. The public overwhelmingly supports more effective steps to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and juveniles. We cannot accept ``NO'' for an answer from the National Rifle Association. It is long past time for Congress to face up to this challenge. The continuing school shootings are an urgent call to action to every Member of Congress. Will we finally do what it takes to keep children safe? Or will we continue to sleepwalk through this worsening crisis of gun violence in our schools and our society? 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 common sense 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. This month the citizens of this country deserve better than what this do-nothing Congress has given them so far.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, are there 2 minutes to a side or 1 minute to a side?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as we all know, there are scarce education resources. The Federal Government only provides 7 cents out of every dollar. The question is: How are we going to use those scarce resources? This amendment is basic and fundamental. It says we need a well- trained, qualified teacher in front of every classroom in America. That is what this amendment provides. We know we need 2 million teachers over the next 10 years. We are training 200,000. This last year, we employed 50,000 unqualified teachers. The situation has become so desperate that the Wall Street Journal now shows the ad of Kelly Services which unveiled for the first time nationwide substitute teachers. This amendment is simple. It provides assistance to local communities to recruit qualified teachers, provides current teachers with professional development, and it provides 200,000 new teachers a year with trained mentors. My amendment also holds States and schools accountable for the results. This seems to be a wiser way to expend scarce resources than the underlying bill, and I hope it will be accepted.

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to support of Senator Robb's amendment to provide funding for rebuilding and modernizing the nation's schools. The Coverdell bill does nothing for crumbling schools. Schools, communities, and governments at every level have to do more to improve student achievement. Schools need smaller classes, particularly in the early grades. They need stronger parent involvement. They need well-trained teachers in the classroom who keep up with current developments in their field and the best teaching practices. They need after-school instruction for students who need extra help, and after-school programs to engage students in constructive activities. They need safe, modern facilities with up-to- date technology. But, all of these reforms will be undermined if facilities are inadequate. Sending children to dilapidated, overcrowded facilities sends a message to these children. It tells them they don't matter. No CEO would tolerate a leaky ceiling in the board room, and no teacher should have to tolerate it in the classroom. We need to do all we can to ensure that children are learning in safe, modern buildings. 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 aren't 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, large numbers of communities across the country need to build new schools, in order to keep pace with rising enrollments and to reduce class sizes. Elementary and secondary school enrollments have reached an all-time high again this year of 53.2 million students, and will continue to rise over the next ten years. The number will increase by 324,000 in 2000, by another 282,000 in 2001, by still another 250,000 in 2002, and continue on an upward trend in the following years. Last year, the Senate heard testimony from a student in Clifton, Virginia whose high school is so overcrowded that fights often break out in the overflowing halls. The problem is called ``Hall Rage,'' and it's analogous to ``Road Rage'' on crowded highways. The violence in the hallways is bad enough. But it's even worse, because it's difficult for teachers to teach when students are distracted by the chaos in the hallways and outside the classrooms. The Department of Education estimates that 2,400 new public schools will be needed by 2003 to accommodate rising enrollments. The General Accounting Office estimates that it will cost communities $112 billion to repair and modernize the nation's schools. Congress should lend a helping hand and do all we can to help schools and communities across the country meet this challenge. 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 lest one unsatisfactory environmental factor. 48 percent have inadequate heating, ventilation, or air conditioning. And 36 percent report inadequate plumbing systems. In Detroit, over half--150 of the 263--school buildings were built before 1930. Their average age is 61 years old, and some date to the 1800's. Detroit estimates that the city has $5 billion in unmet repair and new construction needs. Detroit voters recently approved a $1.5 billion, 15-year school construction program, but it's not enough. In an elementary school in Montgomery, Alabama, a ceiling which had been damaged by leaking water collapsed only 40 minutes after the children had left for the day. At Cresthaven Elementary School in Silver Spring, Maryland, a second- grade reading class has to squeeze through a narrow corridor with a sink on one side into a space about 14 ft. wide by 15 ft. long. The area used to be a janitor's office, and the teacher has no place to sit. Schools across the country are struggling to meet needs such as these, but they can't do it alone. The federal government should join with state and local governments and community organizations to guarantee that all children have the opportunity for a good education in safe and up-to-date school buildings. The Robb amendment is an excellent start on this high priorities, and I urge the Senate to approve it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support Senator Bingaman's amendment to ensure greater accountability by Title I schools that are low- performing. The Coverdell bill does nothing to help improve public schools that need assistance. Instead it diverts scarce resources to wealthy families in private schools, when 90 percent of the nation's students attend public schools. Stronger accountability in the nation's education system is essential. Effective accountability measures--what business leaders call quality control--can make sure that investments in schools are used wisely and produce better results for children. Accountability is especially important in schools with high concentrations of disadvantaged students, so that all students will have the opportunity to meet high standards of achievement. Despite concerted efforts by states, school districts, and schools, accountability provisions in title I have not been adequately implemented due to insufficient resources. In 1998, only 8 states reported that school support teams have been able to serve the majority of schools that need improvement. Less than half of the schools identified as in need of improvement in 1997-98 reported that they received additional professional development assistance or technical assistance. We cannot afford to let low-performing public schools slip through the cracks. Schools and school districts need additional support and resources to remedy weaknesses as soon as they are identified. We should act now to make our schools more accountable for the benefit of the nation's disadvantaged students. These students have already spent too much time in low-performing schools, and they deserve better, much better. The time is now to take action to fix these schools. The nation's children deserve no less. I urge the Senate to support the Bingaman amendment. Amendment No. 2863

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support Senator Murray's amendment to provide $1.2 billion dollars to help reduce class size in the early grades by hiring 100,000 new teachers. The Coverdell bill does nothing to help improve public schools that need assistance. Instead it diverts scare resources to wealthy families in private schools, when 90% of the nation's students attend public schools. Research has documented what parents and teachers have always known intuitively--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. Research also shows that 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. In Wisconsin, the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education program is helping to reduce class size in grades K-3 in low-income communities. A study found that students in the smaller classes had significantly greater improvements in reading, math, and language tests than students in bigger classes. The largest achievement gains were among African-American boys. In Flint, Michigan, efforts over the last three years to reduce class size in grades K-3 have produced a 44% increase in reading scores and an 18% increase in math scores. Because of the Class Size Reduction Act, 1.7 million children are benefitting from smaller classes this year. 29,000 were hired with fiscal year 1999 funds. 1,247 are teaching in the first grade, reducing class sizes from 23 to 17. 6,670 are teaching in the second grade, reducing class size from 23 to 18. 6,960 are teaching in the third grade, reducing class size from 24 to 18. 2,900 are in grades 4-12. 290 special education teachers have been hired. And, on average, 7% of the funds are being used for professional development for these new teachers. The Boston School District received $3.5 million this year to reduce class size. As a result, Boston was able to hire 40 new teachers, reducing class size from 28 students to 25 in the first and second grades. In Mississippi, Jackson Public Schools used its $1.3 million federal grant to hire 20 new teachers to reduce class size in 1st grade classrooms from 21 to 15, and in 2nd and 3rd grade classrooms from 21 to 18. In New Hampshire, the Manchester School District received $634,000 and was able to hire 19 new teachers in grades 1-3, particularly in its English as a Second Language and special education programs, reducing the average class size from 28 students to 18. In Ohio, the Columbus Public School District has hired 58 fully certified teachers with funds from the class size reduction program, and placed these teachers in 14 high-poverty, low-performing schools, reducing class size in grades 1 to 3 from 25 to 15. Along with proven- effective reading programs such as Success for All, class size reduction is a central part of efforts by the City of Columbus to improve low-performing schools. Senator Murray's amendment is an important amendment which deserves the Senate's consideration, and I urge the Senate to approve it. The nation's children and the nation's future deserve no less. Amendment No. 2865

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for yielding. I, like others, have differences with the Senator, but I admire his persistence in this idea and his strong commitment to this proposal. Many of us welcome the opportunity to debate issues on education policy at this point in the session. We have been in session for a number of weeks, and we have dealt with the issues of the Marianas, bankruptcy, and one or two judges. As we come into the first of March, we are very slow and reluctant in addressing concerns of families. This is one of the issues of education. There always seems to be some interruption. All of us are looking forward to visiting with our Governors. I am looking forward to visiting with mine. Nonetheless, sometime we ought to be about the Nation's business, and the Nation's business is the whole role of how the Federal, State, and local governments are going to provide assistance to make sure we have the best educational system. We have a responsibility in the area of health care to ensure a full Patients' Bill of Rights so families know the information they get from the doctor is the doctor's recommendation and not an insurance agent's recommendation who is more interested in the bottom line. We have a responsibility to debate and act on the question of prescription drugs. There is not a group of seniors in my State of Massachusetts who do not place prescription drugs as their foremost concern, and it is a legitimate concern. We ought to be about the business of addressing those issues. These are some things on the minds of people. We have started this debate on education policy, and we will be following up tomorrow in our Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The American people ought to understand that we provide very little out of the Federal budget to education. As my friend and colleague from Nevada has pointed out, it is about 2 percent. Most American families say: Out of $1.7 trillion, we ought to be providing more than 2 percent. Most would want us to do it, most believe we should do it, but we have not done it. It has been resisted. I imagine we will see further resistance in the Senate debate, finding there are other priorities. As we know, 7 to 7.5 cents of every Federal dollar goes to the local communities. We are talking about scarce resources. We have to understand we either appropriate the money or we provide tax breaks or tax incentives. It all basically comes from the budget. What we are talking about today is $1.2 billion over the next 5 years and how it will be used. The Dodd amendment says there are public policy issues related to education that have a higher priority. He will insist the Senate vote to decide whether we are going to provide the $1.2 billion to assist local communities to offset the additional costs that are necessary for needy children, or whether the $1.2 billion will go to 7 percent of families with children in private schools. Half the money in the Coverdell proposal, which is represented by one of these little figures on this chart, will go to benefit one of these figures and the other half will go to benefit those who go to private schools. That is not something we have admitted or stated. That is even according to Mr. Coverdell, as he said on February 23: The division of the money is 50-50. At the start of this debate, we have to ask: Where do we want the limited resources to go? Do we want to strengthen the public school systems, or do we want to divert scarce resources to the private schools? Private schools play an enormously important role in our society, but we are talking about scarce resources. What does the Dodd amendment do? It says if we have $1.2 billion, we ought to use that $1.2 billion to help all the families in communities across the country who are burdened, in one sense, but also given an opportunity in another sense, to provide some decent education for children who have special needs. That opportunity developed in the 1970s as a result of Supreme Court cases decisions that said the guarantee by the States of educating their children also applies to special-needs children. Our friend, Governor Weicker of the State of Connecticut, introduced legislation to help offset those additional needs for those schools. Over time, we have been trying to increase funding for special-needs children. I take my hat off to our good friend from the State of New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, who insists we put this as the first priority for all Government funding. Many of us believe we should increase funding for special-needs children. Senator Dodd's amendment, which is so compelling, says: Look, if we have $1.2 billion, let's take that $1.2 billion and help all the communities across the country that are providing assistance to special-needs children. That is more important than taking half of that money and giving it to the private school students. I think a pretty good case can be made for that. Senator Dodd has offered an amendment in the past to do exactly that. On April 23, 1998, he offered that amendment, and it failed by a narrow margin. He was able to marshal almost half of the Senate. We are very hopeful the Dodd amendment will be successful today. I offered a similar amendment in March of 1999 at the time the Senate was considering the $792 billion tax break bill. The tax break bill-- remember that? We listened to many of our colleagues talking about the importance of having special education and funding special education. I offered an amendment that said: All right, let's adopt what would have been part of the tax break bill to fund special education needs for the next 10 years. Do you know what that would have meant in terms of a reduction in the tax break bill? It would have reduced the total tax break for fortunate individuals and corporations by only a fifth. Four-fifths would have still gone through the Senate. That was a pretty good opportunity to say: If we are really serious about trying to do something for special-needs children, let's go ahead and take the opportunity with real money--not authorizations, not on appropriations that may be rejected or vetoed because they have other kinds of proposals; no gimmicks--let's do something that is actually going to go to the President of the United States, something that is going to go on through and at least be considered. Not a single vote-- not one vote, not five votes, not four votes, not three votes, not two votes--not a single one came from that side of the aisle. You can imagine why many of us, when we hear these statements on the other side about the importance of special education and special needs, why we take that with a good deal of doubt. The fact of the matter is, many of these proposals that we will have an opportunity to debate later on have some important impact on special education. In smaller classes, teachers can help identify those children with some special needs and can be separated out to be given the extra help and assistance they need, instead of the children being thrown into the situation where it makes it much more complicated and expensive. Early involvement, through the expansion of the Head Start Program, most importantly, can get some help and assistance to those students; and, secondly, save a good deal of resources in funding. We do not believe you ought to place one group of children against another, but some do. Those of us who have been in support of the President's program, Vice President Gore's excellent program, with an emphasis on early intervention, do not believe in pitting one child against another. We will have the opportunity to follow Senator Dodd's leadership and say: Let's just take this funding--half of the money goes to about 10 percent of the children, and half of it goes to 90 percent of the children--let's say: We find that this is sufficiently important that we are going to provide the funds for all of the special needs. I do not want to take much time of the Senate, but I do want to review a little bit about education policy in recent times because I believe this is a matter of enormous importance and consequence. We ought to understand whether this is just a policy difference between us or whether this is something that is much more basic and fundamental. I have here statistics going back for the last 6 years under Republican leadership, showing where the Republican leadership has been on the issue of cuts in education funding. In the 1995 House rescissions bill, we have $1.7 billion enacted. It had been appropriated, and the President signed it. The new leadership said: We are going to go right back there under rescissions and take $1.7 billion. That was done just after the election. In 1996, House Appropriations cut $3.9 billion below the previous year. In 1997, it was $3.1 billion below the President; in 1998, it was $200 million below the President; in 1999, $2 billion below the President; for the fiscal year 2000 House bill, $2.8 billion below the President. You cannot say: Well, you can do anything with figures around here. That is a pretty consistent record of where the Republican leadership has been over the last 6 or 7 years on the priorities of education. Those of us who believe in investing in children, who believe we need a partnership at the Federal, State, and local level, are not saying that money, in and of itself, is going to provide all the answers. But what we are saying is: Investing in resources is a pretty clear indication of a nation's priorities and a pretty clear indication of what is believed to be important. Where you had 3 or 4 years ago the cutting of billions and billions of dollars, and abolishing the Department of Education, now we come out with $1.2 billion--some $300 million a year--as their first priority in the areas of education. I have some difficulty in believing that is really what the American people want. I think the American people want us to say: Let's get the best ideas among Democrats and Republicans to get the best trained teachers and put them in every classroom in America. And let's find out how to make sure that teacher is going to stay there. Let's find out how we are going to be able to cut back on the size of larger schools so we can get students into smaller classes, which has been demonstrated to show a higher degree of academic performance. Let's talk about afterschool programs and how they are being tied to performance in universities and how they are being tied to the private sector, where there are job opportunities with help and assistance from tutorials. Let's talk about programs such as the one I saw just yesterday in my home city of Boston. Intel, one of the great American companies, is doing workshops to try to provide help and assistance to inner-city kids. They are going to open up programs around the country. Let's talk about what they are doing. If those programs are so good, we ought to be able to replicate them. Let's talk about how we are going to provide greater opportunities for kids to continue on into higher education. It seems to me the American people want this debate and want it out here on the floor of the Senate. But, oh, no, we have this particular proposal. That is why I think it is so important that we have the opportunity to vote on the Dodd proposal. What we are basically saying is: All right, $1.2 billion; let's put this in the areas of special needs. Let's go ahead and help them. That is an important area. Let's go on and provide that kind of help and assistance. Senator Dodd knows so well, as others, that before we had the IDEA, we had about 5.5 million children locked in closets who never went to school. Now we find that children who are going to complete high school, 57 percent of the disabled youth are competitively employed within 5 years after leaving high school, compared to an employment rate of 25 percent for disabled adults who have never benefited from IDEA. When we invest in these children, we get results. The Dodd amendment is what is going to get results for some of the neediest causes for families in this country. In my own State of Massachusetts, there are small towns where families have these kinds of challenges with regard to a particular individual. The schools have to provide those services. It provides a very significant increased burden on the taxes of those local communities. Let's say, look, wherever they are, if they are in Georgia, if they are in Illinois, if they are in Massachusetts, they are going to get some help and assistance from this particular program. There is a priority. That has a higher priority than just providing this kind of money that is going to be scattered the way it has been indicated. That is the essence. I see the good Senator from Connecticut, our leader on this fight time and again. We commend him for staking out, in the first real order of business, the first real order of debate, the importance and significance of this amendment and helping to provide for families who have special needs children. I yield to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. In my earlier address, I was using figures provided by the committee. I will refer to them and include them now, the Affordable Education Act of 1999. I look over at the estimated budget effects of the Affordable Education Act of 1999, as approved by the Senate Committee on Finance, May 19, 1999. I read it out to the year 2004, and it is $1.156 billion. That is what we are basically talking about in terms of the IRAs. As I indicated earlier, you have some extenders with regard to graduate education which are in the President's program and undergraduate. If you want to add all of those programs in to get up closer to your $4 billion figure, that is fine. My point is, you have your $1.5 billion which comes to $225 million for the IRA, which comes to what I have talked about as $7 per family. I do think there is a better way of using the $1.5 billion than providing that kind of benefit to families that, according to the Joint Tax Committee, is $7 a family. The other provisions about which I should have been more precise are included in the broad scope mentioned by Senator Roth, which basically are a continuation of what they call tax extenders about which there is really no debate. This debate, primarily on Coverdell, has been about the creation of $1.2 billion, $230 million a year, effectively, for families, which would amount to $7 per family, whether we think that is the best way in terms of education policy. That is what I was getting at. The pages are not numbered, but I will be glad to share those with my colleague.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just to respond to my good friend from New Hampshire, when we came back to the whole question of special education, I listened carefully to his remarks. And his remarks have a certain hollow echo, as well. I remember when the Republicans offered their $780 billion tax break a year ago. I offered an amendment that would have funded every special education program for 10 years. It would have reduced the $780 Republican tax reduction by a fifth. Every Member of the body on the other side of the aisle voted against it. So with all due respect, that proposal made a good deal of sense. Every Member on the Democratic side of the aisle said: It is more important to fund the special education needs of every special education program across this country, over the next 10 years, than to have a tax break. Every Republican voted against that. So with all due respect, we ought to at least begin to remember our history on this particular provision. I listened to my friend from Delaware talk about the two different provisions. He talked about the educational IRAs, which my remarks were directed at, and then he talked about the section 127 provisions which provide the education assistance for undergraduate and graduate studies, and also about the prepaid tuition plans. Those are in the administration's budget. I see both my friend from Georgia as well as Senator Wellstone waiting to speak. But if there had been more time, I was going to review what has been done with regard to President Clinton and this Congress over the last 7 years in terms of offering educational opportunities. There has not been an administration in the last 30 years that has done a better job in terms of opening up and being responsive to the needs of students. It is a very proud record. So those particular provisions of what they call the extenders of various tax provisions are going to be worthwhile to work out in a bipartisan way. Certainly there will be credit for all those who are going to be involved in it later on. But the principal proposal which has been advanced, the education IRAs, which was discussed earlier as a vehicle for strengthening and improving public education, it does seem to me that the American people want a debate and discussion, in a comprehensive way, about how we are going to strengthen public education, and what the Federal Government is going to do, and what the States are going to do, and what the local communities are going to do. Whatever we do in the Congress, I think there are certain priorities which the public has. They want to know how we are going to ensure that there will be a well-trained teacher in every classroom? They want smaller class sizes, particularly in the earlier grades. They want to make sure we have afterschool programs. They want to make sure we are going to have mentors and supporters for those teachers, particularly those who serve in underserved areas. They want to make sure we have the technology, and the curriculum with that technology, and well- trained teachers to use that technology. They want us to be sensitive to the digital divide so we do not use technology to open up a whole new spread between the haves and have- nots. They want to make sure there is parental involvement. They want to make sure there is access to continuing education through college and that there is continuing training programs which will be necessary for the new jobs of the new century. I believe they want us to give emphasis and focus in terms of early education, including the expansion of the Head Start Program for children up to 3 years of age, on which this administration has placed emphasis, along with a number of Senators, in a bipartisan way, including Senators Stevens and Dodd. They want us, at the end of the day when we pass the legislation, to be able to answer the question: What did this legislation mean in terms of my son or my daughter? Whether it is a question of security in the classroom or whether it is access to guns getting into the classrooms. They want to have a comprehensive way of being able to say, look, there is some legislation. It isn't going to answer all of the problems. It isn't going to do everything, but at least it is something. We stand in support of those individuals who want to use scarce resources at the national level to pump into this priority. Those are the people we want to see successful and we want to support. That is very reasonable. With a budget of some $40 billion and a $225 million program dealing with what will mean $7 per family to go to school, the idea that we are doing anything meaningful for families in this country who are interested and concerned about educating their kids is a disservice to the American people and a disservice to this process. That is why I have risen. I see my colleague and friend from Georgia and Senator Wellstone. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is now Wednesday, the 23rd of February. It is just about a week after the President of the United States sent his budget to the Congress where he outlined his request of the Congress for a very extensive education priority--more than $4.5 billion measured just in financial terms over the previous years-- specifying in great detail, the priorities he placed in strengthening our education system. I think any American who listened to the President's State of the Union Address would have to conclude that the President spoke for all Americans when he said the primary priority for all Americans was in the area of education and also that we ought to try to find partnerships where the Federal Government can work with the States and local communities in order to strengthen our K through 12 education system. Both the President and all of us in this Congress understand that we have some very important pieces of legislation before the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. We will reauthorize the ESEA, a composite of different pieces of legislation, that is primarily targeted in terms of the most disadvantaged children and children in greatest need. I, as ranking minority member of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, want to take this time now to commend our chairman, Senator Jeffords, for the time he has taken to try to examine and bring that legislation as a priority item to the floor of the Senate so we can take action. Even though we are in the Senate for a relatively short period of time, we are going to have the opportunity to debate that legislation, which primarily is $8 billion, which is focused on the neediest schools and poorest children. There are other funds in terms of school construction. There are other funds in terms of math and science programs. There are additional funds in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That has really been the vehicle on which I think most of us thought we would begin the debate in this Congress on the issue of central importance to the American people--on education. I can say, as someone who has served on the education committee now for 38 years, that we have had a remarkable sense of bipartisanship in working through education. It has only been in the last 10 years we have even voted in the committee. We had votes on the floor of the Senate. But by and large, under the leadership of Bob Stafford, a Republican from the State of Vermont, under the leadership of Claiborne Pell, a Democrat from Rhode Island, and even back to the period of Lister Hill in the early 1960s when many of these pieces of legislation were initially passed, we didn't really have a great deal of partisanship. It was understood that education was something on which we freed ourselves from involving partisan disputes. It has only been in the most recent times we have had that. That doesn't mean a good debate and discussion on education policy is not helpful in terms of trying to find out the most sensible and responsible ways we would proceed. But it does come as some surprise to the members of our committee, quite frankly, that we have had some 20 days of hearings and we are in the process of attempting to mark up this major piece of legislation and bring it to the floor so we can have a full debate and discussion on the measure. Just to put this tax legislation in some perspective, the President's budget in terms of education will be about $40 billion this year, $4.5 billion over last year. The measure which is being offered on the floor of the Senate as the principal Republican measure comes to approximately $225 million per year--$1.2 billion over 5 years. Not that you can't do a good deal with $1.2 billion over 5 years, but when we are talking about the magnitude of our involvement in terms of what the parents of this country have said they want to have happen in their local schools and local communities across this country, I am somewhat amazed. I am amazed that the Republican leadership would recommend--as they did and as is their power to do--that we are now considering this legislation of $1.2 billion over 5 years, $225 million a year, that will provide an average benefit of $7 per family, according to the Joint Tax Committee, which is neither Republican nor Democrat. We are now 4 weeks into the session, I can't believe we have any more important priority for the Senate than the issue of education. We should be debating real solutions to real problems, such as overcrowded classrooms, crumbling facilities and unsafe school buildings, and the lack of qualified teachers in classrooms, accountability for results, and adequate after-school opportunities. We certainly have been waiting to debate the issue of health care. I look forward to our meetings as a member of the conference committee on the Patients' Bill of Rights for next week. But that was long past in the Senate last year. We were just about getting to it. We still have not been willing to address a minimum wage increase for the hardest working members. We always hear from the Republican leadership that we haven't the time to debate a 50-cent-per-hour increase for minimum wage this year and 50 cents next year. We haven't the time to debate that, although we are committed this afternoon to no votes. We are not able to debate an increase in the minimum wage for the 12 million Americans--mostly women benefit, mostly children benefit, mostly men and women whose skin is not white benefit. We don't have time to debate that. No. We haven't the time in the Senate to do it the fourth week into the session. No. We are going to debate this issue which is valid at $225 million--which we ought to be about debating as well. I want to review this very quickly. As I say, if we ask parents back home what they are most concerned about, what comes out on every single review about things that the parents are most concerned about, it is discipline and safety in the schools. It is no surprise that under the most recent studies in 1999, the top concerns of parents are safety and discipline in the schools--safety and discipline in the schools. With the relatively small amount of resources we provide to local communities, 7 or 8 cents out of every dollar, what can we do in the Senate to help local communities have greater safety and discipline in the schools? That is what parents are concerned about. That is what we want to debate. It is on that which we want to call the roll. But no, we will debate whether there will be tax provisions that benefit some, to the tune of $225 million, an average of $7 per family. It is a shame to mention the polls because it is self-evident what parents want is a well-trained teacher in every classroom for their children. We don't need a poll for that. They want teachers who know how to teach, who know the importance of support, and teacher mentors who help in the classrooms. They want smaller class sizes. That is the way to deal with discipline. That is the way for academic achievement and accomplishment. We can debate what the records are with the STAR programs in Tennessee and other States that show significant academic achievement. Why are we not supporting those? Why do we not take programs that benefit children and replicate them? No, no, we have to debate this other piece of legislation, the $1.2 billion over 5 years. We cannot debate class size, we cannot debate improving the quality of education, we cannot debate afterschool programs, we cannot debate modernizing schools, we cannot debate how to assist special needs children. No, we cannot do that. What do the various important bipartisan studies show? On the priorities for parents, No. 7 is creating educational savings accounts to help parents pay for educational expenses for children. That is what we are debating. No. 6, modernizing and rebuilding schools and wiring all classrooms for computers and Internet. That is a priority--the digital divide. Make sure every public school will be included on the Internet; make sure all the curriculum will be adequate in order to be able to teach these children; and to make sure the teachers know how to use that technology. No. 5, establish national academic standards and tests for students. More and more of the States are doing so. Almost all of the States have done it in certain classes, even this year. No. 4, reduce class size to 18 students in grades 1 through 3. No. 3, increasing the salaries of teachers. Are we debating that this afternoon? No, we are talking about the IRAs for parents that will be valued at $7 per family. We are not allowed to have any of these amendments or vote on them this afternoon. No. 2, train teachers in technologies, computers, and Internet. No. 1, establish national certification standards for teachers, meaning we will have good teachers in every classroom. That is what American parents want. That is what the Democratic Party wants. That is what we ought to be debating on the floor of the Senate this afternoon. It is on that which we ought to call the roll. But no, no, we are working on priority No. 7, to create educational savings accounts to help parents cover those expenses for the children. I think this is a great tragedy this afternoon. If we accept the Coverdell bill this afternoon, I will not vote for it. I believe if we are going to have the $1.2 billion, it can be better spent getting more qualified teachers, smaller class sizes, afterschool programs, computers, special needs children. If we pass the $1.2 billion program, it will not mean a single better trained teacher in any classroom in this country. None. It will not mean a single smaller class. It will not be an afterschool program. It will not provide help and assistance to special education needs children. It does not help any of the older schools that are crumbling. It does not provide a new computer in a classroom. It does not make a school safer. It does not stop overcrowding. It does not move children out of some of the trailers and into the classroom. It does not respond to what the General Accounting Office pointed out is the $112 billion needed to make the basic schools livable in our society. We do not add a nickel to any of those priorities. It does very little in terms of providing help and assistance to the children in the public schools. What are the various groups saying? Not that we ought to be dictated to by the various groups; we do not find real support from the primary groups interested in working with the Congress. We can find some support if this were to be used in terms of higher education, as an add on, but we do not find support from teachers; we do not find support in terms of the Chief State Schools Officers, or the Council of the Great Schools; we do not find support in terms of any of the special education programs; we do not find support with the parents; we do not find support with the school boards; we do not find support with a number of groups--I have a list of over 75. My regret is that we are being denied the opportunity to get into the more substantive matters that are of central importance to parents whose children are going to the public schools. We ought to have a good, sound debate about what we are going to do to have better trained teachers. With scarce resources, who wants to put funding into teachers, including the recruitment of teachers, the training of teachers, the holding of teachers, teacher mentoring and support for upgrading the skill of teachers--the whole range of different suggestions that have been made primarily by those who are in the teaching profession? We ought to be listening to those who entered the profession. We ought to be debating those issues. Smaller class size, we had good debate on that. We had some division within the body on that--the first time the Murray amendment was actually accepted. Republicans were falling over themselves trying to accept credit for it, and then fought it the next year. I do not know where they will be this year. But it makes a good deal of sense, and the more evidence we get the more that is demonstrated. We need to do more to help schools and communities develop constructive afterschool activities to keep students off the streets, away from drugs, and out of trouble. These programs have been endorsed from an education point of view and a law enforcement point of view. Funding has been significantly increased in the President's proposal. That is a legitimate proposal and we ought to debate whether we want scarce resources focused that way. What are we going to do to make sure the neediest children in our country, those who come from the poorest areas of our country, have access to computers? That is a matter of national technology. Are we going to take new technology, and at the end of 10 years, those who went to schools that had the best in technology and teachers are going to be light-years ahead of another group of students, whose skin is probably not white, who are from underserved areas? We ought to be debating that. Is that before us on the floor of the Senate? There are Republicans and Democrats who have good views on this. We ought to be working together to find out the solutions to these problems. But, oh, no, we are just going to be debating this afternoon. We are just going to be debating what is No. 7 in all of the polls, creating educational accounts, something that is valued at $225 million. I know probably our colleagues say: That may not be a lot to you, Senator. We don't want to bother with that answer. We know we are spending $40 billion this year in a Federal budget and now we are engaged in our first education debate, which is how we are going to spend $225 million of it. Does that say something about what the leadership wants for debate and discussion on issues of education? I think it does. We are prepared to meet with the chairman of our committee and follow the committee process and come to the floor of the Senate with responsible recommendations and to debate those until we are able to have a resolution of those. But that process has been short-circuited, evidently, by the leadership of the Republican Party. They are basically saying no to its chairman, the chairman of the education committee--no, we are not going to do it that way; we are going to do it some other way. We are going to have to deal with what we are faced with, and I think there are many more important educational proposals we ought to be debating. We ought to be debating them this afternoon. We ought to be taking rollcalls on these issues. They are of central concern. Then we ought to move on to many of these other issues that have been effectively side-tracked. We cannot get a bankruptcy conference appointed because I have every intention to try to instruct the Members, when they go to the conference on bankruptcy, they are to change the provisions that have been included in the bankruptcy bill to make sure the neediest American workers are going to get a fair increase in the minimum wage. The majority leader will not call that up. We cannot deal with that. We are putting off the Patients' Bill of Rights. We cannot begin the debate and discussions on the prescription drug bill. We have been watching these debates that have been taking place, Democrats and Republicans. Many even in this Chamber have been in States where seniors have been gathering together, talking about the importance of a prescription drug benefit. We are not even able to get a good debate and discussion on these measures in the Senate. Four weeks into the session and this is our record so far: we have the Marianas immigration bill which was passed overwhelmingly; we have a nuclear waste bill, which is legislation that is going to be vetoed; and we have a conference report on bankruptcy. We have had 11 votes, including 3 nominations. It is already the end of February. You cannot get away from where responsibility lies to address America's agenda. On this side of the aisle we want to address the issues of education. We want to address the issues of health care. We want to address the issues of prescription drugs for our senior citizens. We want to address the issues that are of central concern to working families. We are being denied that opportunity now, and we are going to continue to point out as we go through this legislative process each and every time that we are being denied. We are going to work feverishly to try to do the Nation's business and not be denied bringing these matters up on the floor of the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. May I answer the Senator?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, we begin a new effort to keep our promise of good health care for the nation's military retirees. We have an obligation to provide comprehensive health benefits to the men and women who put their lives on the line for our country. This bill is a solid start. The Military Health Care Improvement Act of 2000 will make a significant difference in the lives of our military retirees. Too often, today, those who have served our country with honor are left struggling to obtain and pay for health care in their retirement. That's not right. The Act will extend existing medical demonstration programs to military retirees who are over the age of 65. It will also extend the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program Demonstration for Medicare- eligible beneficiaries, and it will enable the Secretary of Defense to expand the number of TRICARE Senior Prime sites. The expansion of the National Mail Order Pharmacy Program will bring welcome relief to eligible beneficiaries, and the Pharmacy Pilot Program will reduce pharmacy enrollment fees and implement monthly or quarterly deductible payments. I hope that in addition, we will be able to expand this provision to include retail pharmacies as well. The provisions for active duty family members are also an important aspect of this bill. Expanding the availability of TRICARE Prime Remote to military families will eliminate their co-payments and make the program more accessible and affordable to many more. Improvement of the health care services provided through TRICARE will help address the concerns of many retirees regarding access, availability and scheduling of appointments, claims filing, processing and payment, and national enrollment. This bill is an important first step toward achieving the goal we share, and I look forward to working closely with my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee and in the Senate to enact it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, recently, Tufts University's Center on Hunger and Poverty released a far-reaching report, ``Paradox of Our Times: Hunger in a Strong Economy.'' The report emphasizes that numerous studies on hunger in America have concluded that low-income working families do not have access to adequate food, despite the nation's economic prosperity. The report's conclusion is supported by research from the General Accounting Office, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, numerous state agencies, academic researchers, and policy analysts, including the Urban Institute and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The Tufts study will be of interest to all of us in Congress who care about this issue, and I ask that the attached Parts I and II of the report be printed in the Record. The material follows: [From the Center on Hunger and Poverty, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts] Paradox of Our Times: Hunger in a Strong Economy (By Sandra H. Venner, Ashley F. Sullivan, and Dorie Seavey) ``It was, the best of times, it was the worst of times . . .'' Charles Dickens. I. Introduction America today is haunted by the paradox of hunger and food insecurity amidst unprecedented prosperity. Despite a record economic expansion that is now in its ninth year, accompanied by an historic mix of low inflation and low unemployment, millions of American households are struggling to find sufficient resources to feed their family members. Signs of our economy's unparalleled prosperity are everywhere: the national unemployment rate, currently at 4.1 percent, is the lowest in thirty years; after-tax average income is expected to be 20% higher in 1999 than in 1977 after adjusting for inflation; the stock market toys repeatedly with new highs; consumer spending is at an all- time high; the federal budget surplus is positive for the first time since the sixties; and even the poverty rate has edged downward with fewer children living in poverty today than at any time since 1980.\1\ Among the industrialized economies of the world, the United States has emerged from a period of heavy corporate restructuring and deregulation, and stands vibrant and flexible, leading the world in technological innovation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Footnotes at end of article. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- According to our national leaders, significant social goals have also been accomplished during this period. Over the last half decade, a profound transformation of our social welfare system has occurred as key elements of the New Deal framework have been replaced by time-limited public assistance and an arrangement in which states have great flexibility over the design and implementation of their welfare programs. Congressional intent to reduce the number of poor families receiving government benefits has been achieved in a remarkably short period of time. The percentages of Americans currently on welfare (2.7%) or receiving food stamps (6.6%) are at historic lows: for welfare cash assistance, the participation rate is the lowest in more than three decades while the food stamp participation rate is the lowest since 1978 (``Green Book'', 1998). The hallmark of these economic and policy accomplishments, however, is paradox. Beneath the surface of almost unparalleled economic vitality and the touted ``success'' of the 1996 welfare reform law lie deep contradictions and mismatches in the nation's social and economic fabric. The most troubling aspect of our times is that the country's economic prosperity has not been broadly or deeply shared. And perhaps the most glaring manifestation of this fact is the level of food insecurity and hunger in our society. Hunger persists in every region of the country and in every state--in urban, rural, and suburban areas, in households with children, among the elderly and other adults who live on their own, among minority and immigrant communities. Indeed, in some pockets of our society, food insecurity and hunger are at levels that pose significant public health problems, seriously compromising individual and family health and well-being while generating a myriad of societal costs. This report constitutes a new and somewhat disturbing look into America in 2000. Focusing on families with children, it has three main purposes. The first is to present the most current evidence on the problem of food insecurity and hunger in America, synthesizing information from three key sources: national studies, state and local studies, and finally, reports concerning the use of the non-governmental emergency food system. The second purpose is to identify the key forces driving food insecurity and hunger within what is the now the longest economic expansion since the Vietnam War. In particular, we examine two sets of factors: problematic aspects of the two major programs designed to assist poor families--Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and the Food Stamp Program--and at a more systemic level, economic forces that are creating growth but also are increasing inequality, insecurity, and wage stagnation at the lower end of the labor market. The final purpose of this report is to provide a framework for a comprehensive approach to the problem of hunger and food insecurity in America. A three-pronged approach is suggested: (1) attending to the immediate need to improve access to the Food Stamp Program for people who do not have secure and safe sources of sufficient food, (2) recasting the Food Stamp Program to orient it more to the needs of low-income working families, and (3) addressing the deepest roots of hunger in America through a fundamentally new paradigm for domestic social policy that responds to-- rather than lags behind--the country's new social and economic realities. Among the key components of such a framework must be a revamped social insurance system (including improved unemployment insurance and portable benefits), more comprehensive income support programs that help families supplement their earnings and stabilize their economic circumstances, and opportunities for individuals and families to build their assets and economic security over the various stages of life. II. Hunger and Food Security in the United States: What Does the Evidence Tell Us? Information about the extent and severity of hunger and food insecurity \2\ in the U.S. comes from several sources. To provide information about circumstances at the national level, in 1995 the U.S. government began to annually collect data on the prevalence of food insecurity and hunger among households. State and local studies of household food security, typically conducted by non-governmental organizations, also contribute important information. Finally, evidence of food insecurity comes from studies that document changes in emergency food demand in various parts of the country. These varied sources of information capture different aspects of food insecurity and hunger in America today, and taken together constitute a composite of the problem. National Data on Food Insecurity and Hunger Prior to the mid-1990s, estimates of the number of households or individuals who were hungry or at risk of hunger relied upon extrapolations of the poverty rate. With the development and implementation of the USDA Food Security Measure,\3\ the ability to consistently and reliably measure the prevalence of hunger improved dramatically. The U.S. government now collects information on the food security of households in all states, and reports on an annual basis the food security status of population groups over time. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has released four years of household food security data, which together cover the period from 1995 to 1998.\4\ The most recent data released (1998 figures) show that an estimated 10.5 million households experienced some degree of food insecurity, or 10.2% of all households in the United States. Of the more than 30 million people who lived in these households, nearly 40% (or 12.4 million) were children. Over 9 million households (3.6%) experienced hunger, the most severe state of food insecurity (USDA, 1999). In 1998, households with children--the focus of this report--experienced food insecurity at more than double the rate for households without children (15.2% versus 7.2%). Households with the youngest children (under six) experienced an even higher level of food insecurity (16.3%). Of the different types of households with children, those headed by single females showed the highest food insecurity and hunger levels, with nearly one in three reporting food insecurity and one in ten experiencing hunger (USDA, 1999). Food insecurity prevalence for households with children under 18 remained virtually unchanged across the four-year period ending in 1998 at about 15% (see table below), although the data indicate a small decline in the prevalence of hunger. Given the unprecedented strength of economic indicators during this period, a decline in the national food insecurity prevalence could reasonably have been expected. Instead, the data indicate that food insecurity remains a serious, persistent problem in the U.S. with a significant proportion of families and individuals struggling to meet their basic food needs.