Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. You did. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield on that question, so the amendment makes a change to the safeguards and makes this a mandatory requirement on the President to exercise the Supreme National Interest if the stockpile cannot be certified?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this may be one of the most important debates the Senate will have in this recent time. In my view, the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is the single most important step we can take today to reduce the danger of nuclear war. Surely we are in no position to hold a premature vote today or tomorrow on this. After 2 years of irresponsible stonewalling, the Senate has finally begun a serious debate on this treaty. This debate should be the beginning--not the end--of a more extensive and thoughtful discussion of this extremely important issue. The stakes involved in whether to ratify or reject this treaty are clear. Our decision will reverberate throughout the world, and could very well determine the future of international nuclear weapons proliferation for years to come. We have a unique opportunity to help end nuclear testing once and for all. The United States is the world's premiere nuclear power. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty locks us into that position. No other nations have the capability to assure that their nuclear arsenals are safe and reliable without testing. We have that capability now, and the prospects are excellent that we can retain that capability in the future. Over the past 40 years, we have conducted over 1,000 nuclear tests. We currently have extensive data available to us from these tests--data that would provide us with an inherent advantage under the Treaty. As Hans A. Bethe, the Nobel Prize winning physicist and former Director of the Theoretical Division at Los Alamos Laboratory, stated in an October 3 letter to President Clinton, Every thinking person should realize that this treaty is uniquely in favor of the United States. We have a substantial lead in atomic weapons technology over all other countries. We have tested weapons of all sizes and shapes suitable for military purposes. We have no interest in and no need for further development through testing. Other existing nuclear powers would need tests to make up this technological gap. And even more importantly, a test ban would make it essentially impossible for new nuclear powers to emerge. As the foremost nuclear power, other nations look to us for international leadership. We led the negotiations for this treaty. We were the first of the declared nuclear powers to sign the Treaty. Yet, now, because of our inaction and irresponsibility, we have made it necessary for the leaders of three of our closest allies to plead with us not to defeat the Treaty. These three leaders--Prime Minister Chirac of France, Prime Minister Blair of Britain, and Chancellor Schroeder of Germany--wrote in an OpEd article in the New York Times last Friday that, ``Failure to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty will be a failure in our struggle against proliferation. The stabilizing effect of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, extended in 1995, would be undermined. Disarmament negotiations would suffer.'' They also go on to say that, ``Rejection of the treaty in the Senate would remove the pressure from other states still hesitating about whether to ratify it. Rejection would give great encouragement to proliferators. Rejection would also expose a fundamental divergence within NATO.'' Our relationship with our most valuable allies is on the line. It would be the height of irresponsibility for the United States Senate to send the world a message that we don't care if other nations test nuclear weapons, or develop their own nuclear arsenals. Surely, the risks of nuclear proliferation are too great for us to send a message like that. The United States stopped conducting nuclear tests in 1992. Doing all we can to see that other nations follow suit is critical for our national security. Russia and China have both indicated that they are prepared to ratify the Treaty if the U.S. ratifies it. If the Senate fails to ratify it, the likely result is a dangerous new spiral of nuclear testing and nuclear proliferation. Many of my colleagues have spoken about the fact that there is no guarantee about this Treaty. I argue that there is one guarantee--if we fail to ratify the Treaty, the consequences are grave, and could be catastrophic for our country and for all nations. Last week, we held hearings in the Armed Services Committee on the Treaty, and I commend the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member of that Committee for taking the lead on this extremely important issue. We listened to expert witnesses on both sides of the aisle, as they presented testimony on the Treaty and the Stockpile Stewardship Program. General Shelton, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified that it was the unanimous conclusion of all of the Joint Chiefs, that the Treaty is in our national interest. General Shelton said, ``The CTBT will help limit the development of more advanced and destructive weapons and inhibit the ability of more countries to acquire nuclear weapons. In short, the world will be a safer place with the treaty than without it, and it is in our national security interests to ratify the CTBT.'' Some of my colleagues have referred to the Treaty as ``unilateral disarmament.'' This characterization is grossly inaccurate, both in policy and in practice. A key element of our adherence to the Treaty, with the Administration's safeguards, is the Stockpile Stewardship Program. Last Thursday, in the Armed Services Committee, each of the directors of our nuclear labs testified about that program. John Browne, the director of Los Alamos National Laboratory, said, ``Through the Stockpile Stewardship program, we intend to demonstrate a technical excellence in weapons-relevant science and engineering that will project confidence in our nuclear capability. This technical excellence will be evident in our unclassified publications and presentations at scientific conferences. Other countries will see these accomplishments and will understand their connection to the quality of our weapons programs.'' With the Stockpile Stewardship Program, we will still be able to maintain a powerful nuclear deterrent. Critics argue that the Treaty's not 100 percent verifiable. In reality, the Treaty enhances our current ability to monitor nuclear testing worldwide. It establishes an International Monitoring System, which creates a global network of 321 testing monitors. We would get all of the benefits of this larger system and only have to pay 25 percent of its total cost. The Treaty also establishes an on-site inspection system. Perhaps most important, it will hold other nations accountable for their actions, and require them to provide explanations for suspicious conduct. We also have a safety valve in the Treaty--Safeguard F. The Administration didn't send this Treaty to the Senate as a stand-alone document. They sent it here with six Safeguards under which, and only under which, the United States will adhere to the Treaty. As Safeguard F states, adherence to the Treaty is explicitly conditioned on: . . . the understanding that if the President of the United States is informed by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy that a high level of confidence in the safety or reliability of our nuclear weapons can no longer be certified, the President, in consultation with Congress, can withdraw from the Treaty. The importance of this safeguard cannot be overstated. It ensures that we will be able to do what is necessary to maintain our nuclear arsenal. President Kennedy, in his address to American University on June 10, 1963, spoke about the issue of verification while discussing the Limited Test Ban Treaty. He said, No treaty, however much it may be to the advantage of all, however tightly it may be worded, can provide absolute security against the risks of deception and evasion. But it can--if it is sufficiently effective in its enforcement and if it is sufficiently in the interests of its signers--offer far more security and far fewer risks than an unabated, uncontrolled, unpredictable arms race. These words still hold true today. The risks posed by ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty pale in comparison to the risks posed if we reject it. We have the opportunity, with this treaty, to open the door to a world without nuclear testing--a world that will be far safer from the danger of nuclear war. Voting on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is one of the most important decisions that many of us will ever make. This vote holds profound implications not only for our generation, but for all the generations in the future. It makes no sense to risk a premature vote now that could result in rejection of the Treaty. As the poet Robert Frost pointed out, ``Two roads diverged in a wood''--and the one we take may well make all the difference between peace and nuclear war. I reserve the remainder of my time and yield it back to Senator Biden.

Mr. KENNEDY. There were some questions raised in the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. As you know, it is well documented that domestic, school, and community violence survived or witnessed by children and adolescents causes psychological trauma with very real and serious consequences. These consequences can be physical (changes in the brain, delayed development), psychological (anxiety, depression, learning difficulty), or interpersonal (aggressive and violent behavior, affected individuals passing on the problems to their children). Fortunately, there is a growing body of knowledge that attests to the effectiveness of treating this psychological trauma. While the course of treatment may vary depending on the type of trauma, the length of exposure, and the age of the child, it undoubtedly requires staff with the specialized training needed to identify the signs and symptoms of trauma, and to provide the appropriate therapeutic interventions. In the wake of the violent tragedies in schools, community centers, churches, and increasingly in communities and homes across this country, the desperate need to develop this specialized expertise and to make it more widely available could not be clearer.

Mr. KENNEDY. If I could have 2 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank both the Full Committee Chairman and the Sub- Committee Chairman for that clarification, and I hope that as we move forward with this process, should additional funding become available, that it could be targeted to this effort. I thank my colleagues and I yield the floor. gender-based digestive diseases

Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate the remarks from my friend from Alaska and thank him for his interest in children and in child development. I would also like to thank my friend from Pennsylvania, the Chairman of the Labor-HHS-Education Sub-Committee, for his longstanding commitment to children. I understand that bill before us includes $10 million for the creation of national centers of excellence on youth violence. I also understand that a key aspect of these centers is going to be the development of effective treatments for violence related psychological trauma in children, youth, and families, and the provision of training and technical assistance needed to make these best practices more widely available. Is that the Sub-Committee Chairman's understanding.

Mr. KENNEDY. No. I don't need the 2 minutes. I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. KENNEDY. All I want to do, indirectly on the bill, is just to announce that the House of Representatives passed the Patients' Bill of Rights 275-149. This is a hard-won victory for millions of patients and families throughout America, and a well-deserved defeat for HMOs and the Republican extremists in the House who put managed care profits ahead of patients' health. The Senate flunked this test in July, but the House has given us a new chance to do the right thing. The House-Senate conference should adopt the Norwood-Dingell provisions, without the costly and ineffective tax breaks added by House Republicans.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, prevailing wage means just that. That is in a given area. The fact is that the average, as I mentioned, construction worker who will be affected by this earns $28,000 a year. That is what it comes down to. I refer to that University of Utah study which showed that injuries went up and the cost of the buildings went up because there was a deterioration in productivity and the skills that were necessary for completion. It doesn't make any sense to bring this up as an amendment on this particular bill. Let's bring it back to committee. If the Senator has an argument to make, let's follow the regular legislative process. Let us table this amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. How much time do we have, Mr. President?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as we get started with this debate on the question of Davis-Bacon, it is kind of interesting. Over the course of recent days, we see a series of actions that have been directed at working families. The problem that most working families in our Nation face is that they have not participated in the great economic surge we have seen over recent times. Nonetheless, there is a continued effort to undermine their wages. Let's start with the continuing denial by the majority to permit us a vote on the minimum wage. Then everyone in the country saw the actions of the Republican leadership recently, diverting the earned-income tax credit in order to be used for balancing the budget. We have had recent debates on the floor of the Senate about undermining the National Labor Relations Board, which tries to work out legitimate disputes on the basis of laws that have been in effect for years. There was also action taken on the floor of the Senate which cut back on the total number of OSHA inspections to protect workers in their workplaces in this country. Beyond that, there have been the efforts to pass what is called comp time, which would have eliminated the 40-hour workweek and abolished overtime. All of that has been happening over the last 2 years. I don't know why the other side has it in for, in this instance, construction workers. But the attacks seem to be fairly uniform, if we look over the facts of the record in terms of working families. That is true with regard to pensions as well. We will have another time to debate and discuss this. But those are the facts. Rather than speculate on what is in an editorial or what is in a particular report, the best way to look at this is, first, the average wage of a construction worker in this country is $28,000 a year. Maybe that is too much for some Members of this body, but that is the average in terms of a construction worker. Yet the Senator from New Hampshire, in this amendment, says, in some parts of this country that isn't necessary for a worker to be able to bring up a family. It seems to me that $28,000, which is the average construction wage, is not an excessive wage in this country. Secondly, if you read the Davis-Bacon Act you will see that the President already has discretion to suspend the Davis-Bacon Act if he believes there is a national emergency and its in the national interest. Presidents have in fact exercised this authority: President Bush waived the Davis-Bacon Act in 1992 after Hurricanes Andrew and Iniki. So the President has some flexibility if there are particular emergencies, but that is effectively being denied with the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire. Thirdly, if you look at various studies on Davis Bacon, including one by the University of Utah looking at 9 States that have repealed State Davis-Bacon laws, you see two very important facts: No. 1, there is a dramatic reduction in terms of training programs for construction workers; and, No. 2, the quality of the work by construction workers deteriorates, so the cost of doing business, rather than going down, actually goes up. Isn't that interesting? Now, with the amendment, we are trying to effectively undermine the wages construction workers would receive in these circumstances. And what do we find in the States that have actually repealed State Davis-Bacon? They may get a little bump in the first few months in terms of some bidding, but what happens is, with the dramatic reduction in training programs and dramatic reduction in skill, the costs of various contracts go up. We will have a chance to go through that. That is the issue: Whether at this time we are going to say men and women who are earning $28,000 a year are to see their wages cut. Many of them lost their homes, too; many of the workers who would be affected by this amendment live in areas where there has been devastation; many of these people have been wiped out completely and now, not only are they trying to get back on their feet, but as a result of this amendment, they will be denied at least the reasonable compensation which they had received at other times. Of course, this has implications in terms of the payment of taxes. This has important implications in terms of health care costs because in most of these contracts where you have Davis-Bacon, they have health care insurance. You are going to find additional kinds of burdens on local communities. This hasn't been talked about. Workers will see insufficient payments into their pension funds, which is going to mean that retirement programs for these various workers are going to be compromised, all under the guise that somehow we are helping the areas where many of our fellow citizens have suffered and suffered extensively as a result of these extraordinary acts of nature. I am all set to support whatever is necessary to help those families in any of these areas--and no one can watch what has happened to people in North Carolina and along those flood zones and not be moved--but let us do it right. Let us do it correctly, and let us not take it out on construction workers who, in many instances, have been devastated. Let us make sure they are going to get a reasonable day's pay for a reasonable day's work. If I may have 30 more seconds, I want to include in the Record that after Hurricane Andrew, in 1992, the GAO tried to assess the savings from suspending Davis-Bacon, but the GAO report was unable to conclude there were any savings. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. I will take 6 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, unless such is clear, I object.

Mr. KENNEDY. Is it the intention to withdraw the amendment if it is not tabled?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, is it the intention to withdraw the amendment, then, if it is not tabled?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a minimum wage amendment be in order and that we have 1 hour of debate on that.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Bingaman, Senator Reed, and Senator Wellstone for this particular proposal. Effectively, what they are saying is we want to improve low-performing schools and we want to do it now--not wait until next year. It is reasonable to ask whether this kind of effort can be productive and whether it can be useful. I want to raise my voice and say: Absolutely. I had the opportunity to visit the Harriet Tubman Elementary School in New York City, one of the lowest-performing schools in the city, where 99 percent of the children come from low-income families. After being assigned to the Chancellor's District--a special school district created for the lowest-performing schools--school leaders, parents, and teachers devised a plan for comprehensive change. The school adopted a comprehensive reform program including an intensive reading program. By 1997-98, it had been removed from the state's list of low- performing schools and reading scores had improved; the percentage of students performing at or above grade level on the citywide assessment had risen from 30 percent in 1996, to 46 percent. We have instance after instance where that has happened. At Hawthorne Elementary school in Texas, 96 percent of the students qualify for free lunch and 28 percent of the students have limited English language skills. In 1992-93, Hawthorne implemented a rigorous curriculum to challenge students in the early grades. In 1994 only 24 percent of students in the school passed all portions of the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills. In 1998, almost 63 percent of students passed this test, with the largest gains over the period being made by African American students. The States themselves have been reluctant to use scarce resources when we have not had adequate funding for the Title I program. The Bingaman amendment sets aside a specific amount of resources that will be out there and available to help those particular schools. This makes a great deal of sense. I hope our colleagues will support the Bingaman-Reed-Wellstone amendment. These students have spent enough time in low-performing schools, and deserve much better. The time is now to take action to fix these schools. The nation's children deserve no less.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I think the Senator from Rhode Island wishes to speak, if we can make it 45 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KENNEDY. In listening to the Senator's explanation of his understanding of what the underlying issue was, and also the Lautenberg proposal, did the 1 percent underlying proposal consider tax expenditures? We have about $4 trillion in tax expenditures. The 1 percent, as I understand it, doesn't take into consideration a review of tax expenditures, where we might be able to find places where we could tighten the belt on some of these tax expenditures, and we would not need these kinds of offsets in the areas of education or health. I wonder whether the Senator's understanding of the 1-percent cut would include a review of tax expenditures. We have seen some important cutbacks in terms of freezes in various expenditure programs, and we have seen some cutbacks in various programs in the period of the last few years in some important areas of education and health, but we haven't had a real review of these tax expenditures. I wonder whether the Senator--as we come down to this period of time--thinks that issue might be at least something we ought to consider or debate.

Mr. KENNEDY. Finally, does the Senator not agree with me that we have seen a comprehensive review of these various programs, as we should, to find out how effective the programs are? These programs that we authorize and appropriate money for have been watched carefully in the past several years. But I don't know of a single hearing that has been held in the Senate of the United States to have a similar kind of review of tax expenditures, to find out whether there are inefficiencies and waste, or whether they are accomplishing what the public purpose and goal was when they were devised. There very well may be an opportunity to squeeze some resources out of tax expenditures so we don't have to cut education and health and home heating oil. Does the Senator think that ought to be part of this debate and discussion as we talk about the questions of funding these critical programs?