Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, I do not object to doing half an hour. I am instructed by the leadership on our side that they not start a vote until 4:15. But I can wind up if you want to start on a second.

Mr. KENNEDY. Fine.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and I understand, therefore, that not withstanding other previous agreements in regard to first-degree amendments, this would qualify as a first- degree amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. Simply stated, this amendment says: In order to improve the quality of education, funds available for education * * * And then it says, such as: Title I, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] and Pell Grants shall be excluded from any across-the- board reduction. Just a few minutes ago, we were having a debate on the floor of the Senate on the questions about overall general reductions in the budget which would have affected these education programs. We had a brief debate on alternative ways in order to try to deal with some of the budgetary considerations and constraints. During that discussion and debate, I asked whether we had actually even given consideration to trying to find additional kinds of funding by closing some of the tax expenditures which are generally understood as tax loopholes. We did not receive any assurances on that. Really, as a result of that debate, as we are moving on through this whole appropriation bill, and in anticipation there may be another opportunity or another occasion where Senators will come forward and ask for a reduction in the funding levels across the board, this amendment just excludes the education programs. We can ask why we ought to exclude education programs. Why not other programs? We could have some debate and discussion on that issue. But the principal reason for excluding these programs is because over the period of recent years, we have seen a series of reductions in education programs as a result of House and Senate Appropriations Committee action. Going back to 1995, we had a House bill--this is just after the Republicans had gained control of the House and Senate--that actually requested rescission of $1.7 billion. Then the House bill in 1996 was $3.9 billion below 1995; in 1997, $3.1 billion below the President's request; in 1998, $200 million below the President's request; in 1999, $2 billion below the President's request. We know this appropriation bill that has been reported out by the Appropriations Committee is in excess in total numbers of what the President requested. We also know it is on its way to the House of Representatives for negotiation. The purpose of this amendment is, no matter what we are going to do in terms of other kinds of activities to reduce funding of various provisions of the legislation, we are not going to reduce funding in the area of education. That is basically the reason for this amendment. We know that the title I program works; the Pell program works; IDEA works; the other education programs work. We have had good debates on those measures over the past months. It is very important that we understand that. We are now experiencing a significant increase in the total number of students who are going to be involved in K through 12 education. We will see 500,000 students this coming year attending our schools, an all-time high. We know we will need 2.2 million teachers over the next 10 years, and we are getting further behind, hiring only about 100,000 teachers a year. Even with the current efforts we have made in recruitment we are still falling further and further behind. We are also finding that more young families and needy families are able to get their children through college. One of the most interesting developments that has taken place in this last year is, we have the best repayment of student loans in over 10 years. This means that young people who are going to post-secondary education are taking advantage of the federal loan programs, and are repaying those loans. This is a very important and significant indication that there is a great need for these federal loans, and that young people across this country are demonstrating a responsible attitude by repaying those loans on time. I had raised the question earlier of whether we should not fully fund these important education programs, and other health care measures, child care measures and the community service block grant--I yield myself 3 more minutes. I have asked if we couldn't find some reductions in terms of tax expenditures to find that funding. Only a few months ago, under the Republican tax bill, they effectively found $5.5 billion over 10 years in their legislation. All we are saying is, if you can find $5.5 billion over 10 years, you can certainly find enough now to protect the programs dealing with education, dealing with health care, dealing with the LIHEAP program and some of these other nutrition programs. These are programs which are a lifeline to the neediest people in our society. That is what we are resisting. We are resisting this wholesale way of trying to diminish the continued commitment and responsibility we have to the neediest children and to the neediest workers and the neediest parents in our society. That is what brings us to the floor of the Senate today. I see my friend and colleague from Iowa. How much time do I have, Mr. President?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 4 minutes 30 seconds to the Senator from Iowa and the other 4 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I wonder if we could have the attention of the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I was inquiring if the Senator would yield just for a question.

Mr. KENNEDY. I saw the Senator from Iowa indicating that we might have a lull. I see the Senator from Texas on her feet. There was a desire by the committee to move forward on this bill and I would be glad to move on to one of the other amendments with a short time agreement as well. I see the Senator from Texas. We will be glad to cooperate.

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, I would not object with an amendment with a short-time agreement. There was some talk that there may be an offering of another type of amendment--one that might require a longer time agreement.

Mr. KENNEDY. One additional minute.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome the opportunity to have the attention of the Senate on a measure which I think has compelling support of families across this country. I know we have a 45-minute time limitation. So we have 22\1/2\ minutes on our side. I yield myself 5 minutes at the present time.

Mr. KENNEDY. I call up amendment No. 1819.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. President, if this amendment is accepted, it will provide some $300 million nationwide to improve the quality of teaching in the public schools of America. If we have had some important testimony over these past several years, it has been along these lines. Let's get along with having smaller class sizes in the various early years. Senator Murray, from the State of Washington, has made that case very clear. And the STAR report, that has focused in on the work of Tennessee, has also demonstrated that in a very compelling way. The second area is afterschool programs. Our good friends, Senator Boxer from California, Senator Dodd, and others, have spoken about the importance of afterschool programs for children in reducing violence and enhancing academic achievement and offering opportunities for business communities to work with children in these afterschool programs to offer career improvements. There have been important needs which have been demonstrated for building additional kinds of facilities and improving the facilities that exist. The General Accounting Office says that is in excess of over $100 billion. That amendment will follow on tomorrow. It is very important to make sure when every child goes to class in a public school system that the school is going to be in the kind of condition to which all of us want our children to go. If we do not do that, we send a very poor message to children. We say, effectively, it does not matter what that classroom looks like or what that classroom is really all about. That sends a powerful message to a child that perhaps education is not so important. But when you consider that, and consider also the steps that have been taken in terms of improving technology in the classroom, improving the work that is being done in the areas of literacy, there is one important, outstanding additional issue which demands and cries out for attention in the Senate; and it is this: The American families want to have a well-qualified teacher in every classroom in America, period. I think if you ask parents all across this country, at the end of the afternoon, where the greatest priority is--if you said, look, if we could have a well-qualified teacher in your child's classroom, I bet every family in America would put that just about at the top of their various lists. Over the last 3 years, our Committee on Education has had extensive hearings on this issue. We made some recommendations in the last Congress on this issue. It had very strong bipartisan support on the issue of quality teaching. The approach that was taken in that legislation says: All right. We want to provide teacher enrichment for individuals who are already teachers. We had ideas about mentoring with older teachers and working with professional teachers, but what we have not addressed in an adequate way is how we are going to recruit the kinds of teachers who would be the best teachers for our children and how we are going to train them in the most effective ways so they will be the very best. This amendment, if it is accepted, amounts to $300 million. We have some $77 million in there now. The President had asked for $115 million to do it. But certainly the applications for this kind of training has far exceeded even the amounts we are talking about today. This offers an opportunity to say to the young people of this country, and to those kinds of local partnerships--the effective State programs, the universities across this country in the States--that we are going to help and assist you in, as a top priority, recruiting the best teachers for the students in this country. Finally, we have pointed out, in the education debate over the period of the past days, the need for new teachers. Some 2 million teachers over the next 10 years--200,000 a year--is what we need. We are only getting 100,000 at the present time. The Senate has rejected the excellent proposal of the Senator from Washington to increase the number of teachers in the early grades. I yield myself 3 more minutes. In fact, with the rejection of the Murray amendment, we are going to find in excess of 30,000 well-qualified, well-trained teachers who are working in grades K through 3 actually getting pink slips. It makes no sense at all. It makes no sense at all. So it does seem to me that in an overall budget of $1.7 trillion--do we understand? $1.7 trillion--we ought to be able to have $300 million in the tried and tested way of recruiting teachers, additional teachers, who we know we are in short supply of; well-trained teachers, who we know we are in short supply of; and make them available to an expanding, growing population in our K through 12th grade system. We are increasing the number of students by 477,000 this year. So we are falling further and further behind. This is a very simple, straightforward amendment. It is saying that of all of the priorities--and there are many--education is certainly among the very highest; and of all the priorities in the areas of education, getting good teachers, recruiting young and old people alike who will be good teachers, giving them the inspirational kind of training so they can go into the classroom, use the latest in technologies, adapt that to the kind of curricula to benefit the children of this country, should receive these additional funds. Mr. President, I know there are others who want to speak on this issue. How much time remains on our side?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed. I think all of us understand that he has made the issue of quality and highly trained teachers his issue in this body, as well his interest in providing pediatric specialists for all children. These are among the many other areas of public policy in which he has been actively engaged both on the Education Committee in the House of Representatives and here in the Senate. I certainly think all of us on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in the Senate are very fortunate to have his insights about the importance of this amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Massachusetts.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think I have 3 and a half minutes left. I yield myself 3 minutes. On this chart behind me, we see that communities need more well- qualified teachers. Out of 366 total applications--and this is 1999-- only 77 applications were funded. With this particular amendment accepted, we would still be below half of what was actually in the pipeline for this last year, let alone what would be in there for next year. There is enormous need. Finally, I will quote from the chairman of our Education Committee, Senator Jeffords, who, in his representation to the Senate on the education bill, had this to say about this particular provision that is in the law--not about this amendment but about this provision: At its foundation, Title II embraces the notion that investing in the preparation of our Nation's teachers is a good one. Well-prepared teachers play a key role in making it possible for our students to achieve the standards required to assure both their own well-being and the ability of our country to compete internationally. . . .Title II demands excellence from our teacher preparation programs; encourages coordination; focuses on the need for academic content, knowledge, and strong teaching skills. . . .These efforts recognize the fundamental connection that exists among States, institutions of higher education, and efforts to improve education for our Nation's elementary and secondary school teachers. This provision had the strongest bipartisan support in that education bill. We know what the need is. We know this is a very modest amendment. We know what a difference it will make in terms of the high school students of this country. I hope this amendment will be accepted. Mr. President, I understand I have a minute left.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield that time to the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, with whom I have enjoyed working, along with my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not, is it appropriate to ask for the yeas and nays until the time has been yielded? I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays on the previous amendment as well.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. If it is agreeable to go ahead, we will be set to go. I am willing to work out a time agreement. As far as I am concerned, the Senator from Texas may want to go right ahead. I can follow her right away.

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we all want to express our appreciation to our leader, Senator Daschle, for the development of this proposal. As he has pointed out, we have worked closely with Senator Moynihan and the members the Finance Committee. We hope this will be the basis of the coming together here in the Senate. This should not be a partisan issue. The kinds of problems Senator Daschle pointed out are problems not only in urban areas but in rural communities, too. The program he has advocated touches the health care needs of people all over this country. This particular issue cries for a response and action from this Congress in these final few days. I join with him and others who say we should not leave, we cannot leave, we will not leave this session without addressing these problems. We have the time now to work this process through. I think the way this has been fashioned has demonstrated a sensitivity to the range of different emergencies that are out there across the landscape affecting real people. So I join others on our side in commending him for the leadership he has provided on this issue as in so many other areas. Hopefully, he will be successful in reaching across the aisle so that we can all work on this issue together. Mr. President, no senior citizen should be forced to enter a hospital or a nursing home because Medicare can't afford to pay for services to keep her in her own home and in her own community. No person with a disability should be told that occupational therapy services are no longer available because legislation to balance the budget reduced the rehabilitation services they need. No community should be told that their number one employer and provider of health care will be closing its doors or engaging in massive layoffs because Medicare can no longer pay its fair share of health costs. No freestanding children's hospital should wonder whether it can continue to train providers to care for children because it receives no federal support for its teaching activities. Yet these scenes and many others are playing out in towns and cities across the country today, in large part due to the unexpectedly deep Medicare cuts in the Balanced Budget Act passed two years ago. The 1997 Act was the final part of a process undertaken since 1993 to balance the federal budget and lay the groundwork for the current economic boom and the large budget surpluses we anticipate in the years ahead. However, our ability to balance the budget was primarily attributable to deep savings achieved by cuts in Medicare--by slowing the rate of growth in provider payments and other policy reforms. These cuts were expected to total $116 billion over five years, and nearly $400 billion over ten years. Clearly, as experience now shows, these cuts are too deep for the Medicare program to sustain. In fact, these cuts were more than double the amount ever enacted in any previous legislation. The Congressional Budget Office has now increased the estimate of the savings to total $200 billion over five years and more than $600 billion over ten years--far greater than Congress intended. Not surprisingly, we are now hearing from large numbers of the nation's safety net providers--especially teaching hospitals, community hospitals, and community health centers. We are hearing from those who care for the elderly and disabled when they leave the hospital--nursing homes, home health agencies and rehabilitation specialists. We are hearing from virtually every group that cares for the 40 million senior citizens and disabled citizens on Medicare. They are saying--with great alarm and anxiety--that Congress went too far. The Medicare Beneficiary Access to Quality Health Care Act that we are introducing today will alleviate much of this damage. It will provide $20 billion over the next ten years to reduce the pain created by the harshest cuts in the Balanced Budget Act. It will ensure that the nation's health care system is able to care responsibly for today's senior citizens, and is adequately prepared to take care of those who will be retiring in the future. The current Balanced Budget Act is unfairly imposing a $1.7 billion cut over the next five years for Massachusetts hospitals alone. Our community hospitals are reeling. Many of our teaching hospitals have laid off staff, and are unable to continue to participate in Medicare HMO contracts. Some say that these cuts are needed to make Medicare more efficient. But Massachusetts teaching hospitals are already efficient. In the past six years, one out of five of our teaching hospitals and one out of four hospital beds have been closed. We cannot afford to compromise on patient care, doctor training, and the state- of-the-art medical research conducted at the nation's top hospitals. In addition, children's hospitals deserve help as well. They currently receive almost no federal support for their important teaching and training activities. They train a majority of the nation's pediatricians and pediatric specialists. Yet current rules keep them from receiving the level of federal support available to other teaching hospitals. While this particular legislation does not address this problem, Senator Bob Kerrey and I have proposed a separate bill with strong bipartisan support to correct this injustice and give children's hospitals the funding they deserve to train the pediatricians needed to care for the nation's children in the years ahead. The home-bound elderly--our most vulnerable senior citizens--are also suffering. In Massachusetts alone, home health agencies are losing $160 million annually, and 20 agencies have closed their doors since the Balanced Budget Act went into effect. The ones that remain are seeing fewer patients, and seeing their current patients less often. Massachusetts nursing homes are predicting losses of $500 million over the next five years. Eleven facilities have declared bankruptcy this year, and more are expected to follow. With the impending retirement of the baby boom generation, the last thing we should do now is jeopardize the viability and commitment of the essential institutions that care for Medicare beneficiaries. Yet that is now happening in cities and towns across the nation. In the vast majority of cases, the providers who care for Medicare patients are the same ones who care for working families and everyone else in their community. When hospitals who serve Medicare beneficiaries are threatened, health care for the entire community is threatened. Nearly one million elderly and disabled Massachusetts residents rely on Medicare for their health care. This legislation is a sensible, affordable step to ensure that our health care system will continue to be there for them when they need it. It deserves prompt consideration and passage. I commend Senator Daschle for his leadership on this vital issue, and I urge the Senate to approve this important measure.