Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I, first of all, acknowledge the strong interest that my friend and colleague from Wyoming has in the whole area of OSHA. He spends a great deal of time on this issue. Although I have areas of difference with him, he is someone who has involved himself in this issue to a very significant extent. We certainly take note of his longstanding and continuing and ongoing interest in trying to make the workplace safer. Having said that, I do hope his position will not be sustained on this particular issue this afternoon. I hope eventually we will have the opportunity to support the Wellstone amendment that, instead of taking the money from inspections for consultation, would just add additional funding for consultations rather than denying the money for inspections. The way that would ordinarily be done is Senator Enzi would have offered his amendment to transfer, and then Senator Wellstone would have come on and offered a second-degree amendment and said: All right, let us have the increased money from forward funding for the $9 million for compliance. We would have gone to the Senate, I think, with the support of the Senator from Wyoming. I think we would have resolved this issue and we would be further down the road in moving ahead on the whole question of the appropriation. But we will go through, I guess, the vote on Coverdell, which is basically a repeat of the Enzi amendment. The Senator is entitled to offer that, to effectively cut off, at least at this time, the Wellstone amendment. Then we will have to come back in on top of that, after the Senate makes a resolution of that particular question. Just to put the facts straight, there are very few of us--I do not know any of us--who do not believe there should be an expansion of both: Consultation, and I think there has to be a very extensive inspection program. They go hand in hand. Why do we say they go hand in hand? We have some very direct and powerful evidence. In 1995 and 1996, when the Congress cut dramatically the funding for inspections, then the number of consultations went down correspondingly, dramatically. The reason for that has been very clear from the record. If there is a reduction in inspections, and there is a sense the companies are not going to be inspected, there is less of an incentive to move ahead with consultations. So these have gone hand in hand. What the Senator from Wyoming wants to do is put a greater emphasis on consultation and reduce the number of inspections. I do not think that is wise, given the fact that we have seen the dramatic increase in the workforce. We have 15 million more people working now than we had 6 years ago, as we saw, as Mr. Ralph Nader, interestingly, reminded us last Labor Day, indicating that and indicting the OSHA department for not having enough inspections in order to provide the kinds of protections for an expanded workforce. Under the amendment of the Senator from Wyoming, he wants to reduce them further. It will be about a 10-percent reduction in the number of inspections. We have about 88,000 or so inspections. This would amount to about a 10-percent reduction in the total number of inspections, which is not insignificant. It is particularly important in the areas of the construction trades, as my friend and colleague has pointed out, the Senator from Minnesota. Even though those in construction are only about 6 percent of the workforce, we find close to 20 percent of all the deaths in the workplace are in construction. This is a dangerous, dangerous industry to work in. We are fortunate in this country to have dramatic escalations of construction projects. We have them in our own city of Boston, and we have them all over this country, dramatic escalation in construction. We find these attendant accidents which happen, and also deaths which occur as well. So if we look at the history, we find very important and powerful evidence. We can represent what we think will happen. We can say what we would like to happen. But the fact is, in this particular situation, we know on the basis of evidence what does happen, and that is, reduction in inspections is reduction in consultations. With all respect to my friend from Wyoming, if we want to see an expansion of the consultations, we ought to increase the number of inspections instead of reducing them. But that is not where we are this afternoon. Finally, the administration and the Congress have seen a significant increase in consultations over the last 4 years, about a 30-percent increase. There has been important work done in the area of consultation. We certainly support--I do--that program and think it is very important. It is interesting that the association which represents those who are involved in consultation is resisting this amendment, and the reason they are resisting this amendment is for the reason I have identified. They understand with the reduction of inspections, there is going to be a reduction in consultations. One would think they would say: Wow, amen, let's get behind them; they are going to put more money into consultations and, therefore, we are going to get more of it. But no, they do not. That ought to say something to us because they understand as well. As I mentioned, I have great respect and affection for my friend and colleague from Wyoming, particularly in this area of OSHA, but in this very important area where we are talking about people's lives, what is the real purpose of this? The real purpose is the protection of workers' lives. We have seen since the time OSHA has gone into effect a dramatic reduction--50-, 60-percent reduction--in the loss of lives on the construction site. OSHA is faced with additional problems of occupational health. It is faced with additional issues with these new toxic substances and a wide range of challenges for the new workplace they are trying to deal with and that also pose a significant and serious threat to workers. What we are basically saying with OSHA is that we in the United States want to make sure we are going to have as safe a workplace as possible for working men and women. We believe with the increased funding provided for OSHA in this appropriations, as compared to the undermining of OSHA, as we saw in the House Appropriations Committee, we will meet that responsibility and OSHA can meet it. Let us not put at risk what is tried and tested policy conclusions: We have strong inspections and strong consultations. That works. That is the position Senator Wellstone and I and others support. I hope as a result of these votes that is where we will come out; that we will come out so there will be a modest increase which the good Senator has mentioned in terms of consultation; that we will come out and add those additional funds for the outyears but not take away from the extremely important inspection. Finally, we can pass various pieces of legislation, but unless we are going to have enforcement, a right without a remedy does not go very far. That is true in just about every area of public policy. We learn that every single day. What we need to have is accountability. We hear a great deal of talk about accountability. This is accountability. The question of inspections is a part of accountability to protect workers. If we cut off and reduce inspections, we are denying the important accountability that is necessary to protect workers in this country, and that is an important and serious mistake. Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Rear Admiral Bob Chamberlin, on his retirement from the United States Navy after 33 years of distinguished and dedicated service to the nation. Rear Admiral Chamberlin is a native of Massachusetts. He graduated from high school in Westwood and went on to earn his bachelor's degree at the University of Wisconsin, where he distinguished himself as a first-tier ROTC graduate. Shortly after receiving his commission in 1966, he was assigned to the U.S.S. Hisseem in Pearl Harbor. From there he went on to serve in Vietnam, gaining the respect of all who shared duty with him and earning numerous decorations and awards, including the Navy Commendation Medal with Combat V, the Vietnamese Medal of Honor First Class, and the Combat Action Ribbon. Following his Vietnam tour, he came home to Massachusetts and earned an MBA degree from Harvard. He went on to serve in a variety of supply and financial management assignments, ashore and afloat. He was soon regarded by his superiors as a tireless and innovative logistician. Ten years after attending the Naval Supply Corps School in Athens, Georgia, he returned to the school as an instructor and course developer. In 1987, after serving as director of stock control at the Aviation Supply Office in Philadelphia and as supply officer on the U.S.S. Nimetz, he was promoted to captain and was assigned to the Naval Supply Systems Command in Washington, D.C., where he served as the project officer on a major supply-system modernization initiative. Later, he was appointed to be the Command's vice commander. In July 1993, he was promoted to rear admiral, and for the past two years, he has served as the principal deputy director of the Defense Logistics Agency--America's combat support agency. His vision and leadership have been vital to the agency's award-winning business- process initiatives to ensure that the nation's armed forces receive the supplies and equipment they need, and in a way that offers the best possible return to the American taxpayer. Admiral Chamberlin has been in the forefront of the ongoing advances in military logistics. His exemplary military career comes to a close this month, but his contributions and achievements will continue to be felt throughout the Navy and the Department of Defense. Bob Chamberlin has served his country with great ability, valor, loyalty, and integrity. On the occasion of his retirement from the United States Navy, I commend him for his outstanding service. He is Massachusetts' finest, and I wish him well in the years ahead.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator has brought up an enormously important point, one that some Members understand, and hopefully the American people understand. To move ahead with that tax cut would mean an effective reduction in support of programs that reach out and benefit children in the public schools. That is part of the money they were going to use to fund that tax break, and, of course, the President vetoed it so we are able to at least effectively hold those programs at their current level. However, the Senator additionally makes the point that we have 447,000 new children going to school this next year, about 300,000 the following year, and 300,000 the next year. Unless we see an important increase, we will not be able to serve all the children in need. I think the Senator from California's program will move us down that road in an important way.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. We had a tax cut for $792 billion over the period of the next 10 years. As the Senator remembers, we had the opportunity to fully fund the IDEA program and only reduce the tax cut by one-fifth. That was real money going toward education for the disabled. That was rejected on party lines. Those who are advocating and supporting the Boxer amendment supported it. It was turned down on the other side. If we were able to have that amount of money that would be used in the tax cut, why not take $200 million of that $792 billion and put it in afterschool programs to service 370,000 children? It makes sense to me.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California. This has been an ongoing and continuous effort on her part, since the beginning of this program 3 years ago when it started out as an extremely modest program. The reason it has grown to where it currently stands at $200 million, is to a great extent, because of Senator Boxer bringing to the attention of both the administration and the Congress, the impact of this program on children, on families, and also in terms of law enforcement. I think many of us were heartened earlier this year when the President asked for $600 million. But I think most of us thought, given the amount of the request for that program, that it far exceeded that by two or three times. As with very strong programs, it will get the kind of focus, attention and priority it deserves. I want to express our appreciation to the Appropriations Committee because they have at least added some resources to that. But, of course, we face a significant decline in terms of the commitment from the House of Representatives. By accepting the Boxer amendment, we will strengthen the commitment that our appropriators have demonstrated in terms of funding this program. As we come into the second day's debate on this appropriations bill, we are seeing the targeting of scarce resources that we have at the national level in areas of proven achievement and accomplishment. Yesterday, under the leadership of Senator Murray in the area of smaller class size--and the record is very complete--with smaller class size and with better trained teachers, the academic achievement and accomplishment for children are enhanced significantly, and the benefits of those experiences stay with those children. Of course, if they are enhanced later on, they even expand. The afterschool program is a similar program. If we are able to take both of these programs together--smaller class size and afterschool programs--with the kind of improvement of those afterschool programs, including tutoring, helping children with their homework, and also exposing children in many different instances, as we see in Boston, to a wide variety of other subjects--for example, photography and graphic arts, areas which have awakened enormous interest among children--students may find these are areas where they may concentrate either near school or later as the source of employment. The bottom line is very clear. The results are in. Every dollar we invest in afterschool programs means that a child will have an enhanced academic achievement and accomplishment, period. As this country debates, families say: What can we do about education? This morning many families, as they saw their children going off to school, were saying: I hope my child is going to have a good day in school; that they are going to have good teachers; and that they are going to continue their learning experience. One of the things we know and that has been demonstrated and proven is that afterschool programs work. They have a positive academic impact in terms of children. This ought to be prioritized. That is what this amendment does. I welcome the fact that Senator Gregg withdrew his amendment because I think it is rather cynical to try to place disabled children against afterschool children. Hopefully, we are interested in all children. Disabled children go to afterschool programs. Why try to say to people in local communities: Look, you have to do this, or do that? We ought to do what is necessary in terms of those children who qualify for IDEA, and we ought to do something for the afterschool program. Now we have the opportunity to do something for the afterschool program. I want to state very quickly some of the results of the afterschool program to date. One is in the student achievement. The second is in decreasing juvenile crime. The Senator from California has been able to reflect that in the very strong support from law enforcement officials that she mentioned in the Record. That has been demonstrated. It was demonstrated in Waco, TX, where many of the students participated in what they called the Lighted Schools Program for afterschool programs. They saw an important and significant reduction in juvenile delinquent behavior over the course of the school year. It produces that result, as we saw, as in some of the presentations we made yesterday about giving the students a youthful, productive, and healthy kind of alternative to using their time in a wasteful way after school. It has the result of reducing juvenile crime. Finally, the parents support it. In Georgia, over 70 percent of students, parents, and teachers agree that children are receiving helpful tutoring in The Three O'clock Project, a statewide network of afterschool programs. The parents are the ones who have been the strongest supporters of this program. As we have seen in other programs, there is no requirement and no mandate on this. If the local school and community want to do it, they had better get their applications in because there are going to be scarce resources. We are doing it on the basis of a solid record of achievement, academic improvement, and reduction in crime. They have seen that there have been expanded opportunities for students because of additional learning experiences. This is a win-win-win. I think the Senate of the United States ought to go on record in supporting what the parents want and what has been demonstrated to be effective in enhancing academic achievement in afterschool programs. We are glad for what the appropriators have done. But we are talking about a $1.7 trillion budget. We think $200 million more for the afterschool program, which will bring it up to the $600 million the President had requested, makes a good deal of sense. Again, it is an issue of priority.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is appalling that our Republican friends will use any means necessary to kill the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. We need time to debate this Treaty in a responsible manner, especially since the Foreign Relations Committee has still not held a single hearing devoted solely to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. On September 24, 1996, President Clinton became the first world leader to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. On that day, President Clinton praised the treaty as the ``longest-sought, hardest-- fought prize in the history of arms control.'' Today, we stand on the verge of losing this valuable prize. For almost two years, the Treaty has languished in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--with no action, no debate, and no results. Now, with the September 23 already passed, the United States may well forfeit its voice on the treaty if the Senate does not act quickly, and in a responsible way, to ratify it. We have a unique opportunity in the Senate to help end nuclear testing once and for all. Other nations look to the United States for international leadership. President Clinton has done his part, in signing the Treaty and submitting it to the Senate for ratification, as the Constitution requires. Now the Senate should do its part, and ratify the Treaty. Ratification is the single most important step we can take today to reduce the danger of nuclear war. Withholding action on this treaty is irresponsible and unacceptable. The Treaty is in the best interest of the United States and the global community. Ratification of this agreement will increase the safety and security of people in the United States, and across the world. But, until the Senate ratifies this treaty, it cannot go into force for any nation, anywhere. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is in the interest of the American people and it has widespread public support. Recent bipartisan polls found that over 8 out of 10 Americans support its ratification. These statistics cut across party lines and are consistent in all geographic regions. The Treaty also has the strong support of present and past military leaders, including four former Joint Chiefs of Staff--David Jones, William Crowe, Colin Powell, and John Shalikashvili--and the current JCS, Hugh Shelton. The United States has already stopped testing nuclear weapons. Ensuring that other nations follow suit is critical for our national and international security. Particularly in the wake of recent allegations of Chinese nuclear espionage, it is essential that we act promptly to ratify this agreement. China is a signatory of the Treaty, but like the United States, China has not yet ratified it. Prompt Senate ratification of the Treaty will encourage China to ratify, and discourage China from creating new weapons from stolen nuclear secrets. In 1963, after President Kennedy had negotiated the landmark Limited Test Ban Treaty with the Soviet Union to ban tests in the atmosphere, he spoke of his vision of a broader treaty in his commencement address at American University that year. As he said: The conclusion of such a treaty, so near and yet so far, would check the spiraling arms race in one of its most dangerous areas. It would place the nuclear powers in a position to deal more effectively with one of the greatest hazards which man faces in 1963, the further spread of nuclear arms. It would increase our security--it would decrease the prospects of war. Surely this goal is sufficiently important to require our steady pursuit, yielding neither to the temptation to give up the whole effort nor the temptation to give up our insistence on vital and responsible safeguards. In 1999, those words are truer than ever. I commend President Clinton and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have joined together to speak out on this issue, and I urge the Senate to act responsibly on this very important treaty.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I want to ask the Senator whether she is aware of an editorial in today's St. Louis Post-Dispatch illustrating how important class size is to St. Louis families. This is basically Mid-America talking. I ask unanimous consent the whole editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Therefore, what the Senator is driving at is to really target scarce resources in an area of education, as I understand it, that has demonstrated and proven to be, under every evaluation, effective in enhancing academic achievement; am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. I wonder if the Senator will yield for an additional question. As I understand, in the Senator's presentation, this concept and commitment to the smaller class size is not only based upon her own experience as a teacher and as a school board member but upon very important results of studies and evaluations of what they call the STARS Program in Tennessee. The results of that study indicate the impact on those children was rather dramatic in math and science, in reading, in reduction of disciplinary problems, and also the benefits of that experience actually carried on through the later grades, through the eighth grade, and actually were reflected in the increasing number of students who attended college. The amendment of the Senator is based upon what I imagine is rather intuitive understanding of education, and that is, a teacher understanding the students and knowing their needs in a small class. But also, am I correct, this has been really one of the most important new results of various experiments that have taken place in the several States? Am I correct with that conclusion?

Mr. KENNEDY. Correct me if I am wrong. The Department of Education has estimated that we are going to lose 2 million teachers over the next 10 years, which is 200,000 teachers a year. At the present time, we add 100,000 teachers a year. So we are basically in a 100,000 deficit, as I understand it, at a time when we are seeing the total enrollment for students increase by half a million. Is that the Senator's understanding as well.

Mr. KENNEDY. So we are falling further and further behind at the start of this discussion and putting our children in jeopardy without the amendment of the Senator from Washington. It seems to me, for the excellent reasons she has outlined, in terms of quality of education enhancement for children in grades K through 3, that as a matter of national purpose and national priority, this has a sense of urgency.

Mr. KENNEDY. Is it the understanding of the Senator that the Federal participation is very limited, what we do in terms of our contribution to local school budgets--perhaps 7 cents, perhaps somewhat less than that if we consider actually the food? But it is a very small targeted amount; am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, each year, up to 1 million nurses and other health care workers are accidentally stuck by needles or other sharp instruments contaminated by the blood of the patients they care for. More than 1,000 of these health care workers will contract dangerous and potentially fatal diseases as a result of their injuries. The Reid amendment is very important--it will require hospitals to use safer devices, and it will provide more effective monitoring of needlestick injuries, so that we can take additional steps to deal with this danger. Karen Daley, of Stoughton, MA, is one of those whose lives have been forever changed by disposing of a used needle. Karen is a registered nurse and president of the Massachusetts Nurses Association. In July 1998, as an emergency room nurse at the Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, she reached into the box used to dispose of a needle, and felt a sharp cut. By the end of the year, Karen had been diagnosed with HIV and Hepatitis C. I would like to read from a statement she recently delivered at the Massachusetts State House, where a bill has been recommended by the relevant committees: I have been a practicing nurse for over 25 years. I love clinical nursing and have felt privileged to care directly for thousands of patients over the years. . . . I have developed expertise in my practice over the years that has allowed me to have a significant impact not only on the quality of care my patients receive, but also in the growth and professional development of less experienced colleagues . . . Since January of this year, I have come to terms with the fact that I am infected with not one, but two potentially life-threatening diseases. . . . I have had to have weekly blood tests drawn--over 90 tubes of blood since January. . . . Experience to date is that treating a person infected with both HIV and Hepatitis C is extremely difficult and that each infection makes it more difficult to successfully treat the other. That one moment in time changed many other things. In addition to the emotional turmoil that it has created for myself, my family, my friends, my peers--it has cost me much more than I can ever describe in words. I am no longer a practicing health care provider--I made the decision to not return to my clinical practice setting where I have worked for over 20 years. In the process, I have abruptly been forced to leave many colleagues with whom I've worked for many years and who are as much family as peers to me. The harder decision for me has been the decision I've made not to return to clinical nursing. This injury didn't occur because I wasn't observing universal precautions that are designed to reduce health care workers' exposure to blood-borne pathogens. This injury didn't occur because I was careless or distracted or not paying attention to what I was doing. This injury and the life-altering consequences I am now suffering should not have happened . . . and would not have happened if a safer needlebox system had been in place in my work setting. Karen Daley is now battling against two devastating diseases. And it didn't have to happen. Unfortunately, this scene is repeated more than 1,000 times a year--in communities across the country. Lynda Arnold, a 30-year-old registered nurse and mother of two adopted children, is now HIV-positive as a result of a needlestick injury she received in an intensive care unit in Lancaster, PA, in 1992. She has started the Campaign for Health Care Worker Safety. Lynda writes, I no longer work in a hospital. I no longer involve myself in direct patient care. I do not dream of growing old with my 30-year-old husband or dancing with my son at his wedding. These cases are tragedies, and there are many more. At least 20 different bloodborne pathogens can be transmitted by needlestick injuries, including HIV, Hepatitis B, and Hepatitis C. The average cost of followup for a high-risk exposure is almost $3,000 per incident--even when no infection occurs. The American Hospital Association estimates that a case can eventually cost more than $1 million for testing, medical care, lost time, and disability payments. Up to 80 percent of needlestick injuries could be prevented with the use of safer needle devices currently available. However, fewer than 15 percent of American hospitals use these products. The primary reason for not adopting steps to create a safer workplace is the cost. But the consequences are severe. Safer needle devices do cost approximately 25 cents more than a conventional syringe. But the net savings from avoiding the excessive costs associated with workplace injuries are also significant. Hospitals and health care facilities in California are expected to achieve annual net savings of more than $100 million after implementing a proposal similar to the one now under consideration. This is not a partisan issue. The companion bill in the House has almost 140 cosponsors--including more than 20 Republicans from across the political spectrum. Similar bills have recently passed in California, Texas, Tennessee, and Maryland, and have been introduced in more than 20 other States. These protections have the strong support of the American Nurses Association, Kaiser Permanente, the American Public Health Association, the Consumer Federation of America, and many, many other groups that represent nurses, doctors, and other health care workers. In addition, the Massachusetts Hospital Association and other State level associations have supported these bills at the State level. There is no excuse for inaction. Time is of the essence. Every day 3,000 more accidental needlesticks occur. We need to act as soon as possible. We owe prompt action and greater protection to those who devote their careers to caring for others.

Mr. KENNEDY. Finally, because there are other Senators who wish to speak, we will lose some 575 teachers in my State of Massachusetts. I have heard from the parents. I have heard from the school boards. I have heard from those communities that say this is certainly one of the highest priorities they have for this Congress. I thank the Senator from Washington for bringing this matter back to the attention of the Senate.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with all respect to the Senator from the State of Washington, Mr. Gorton, under his particular provisions it would put $1.2 billion in a title VI block grant program that allows 15 percent to be used for administration, reducing the funds to schools. How hollow it is for those on the other side to talk about how we are not getting the bang for the buck when virtually 100 percent of this goes to the local school boards for them to make the judgment in hiring those teachers. Our Republican friends, under title VI, spend 15 percent in administration of it. Let's get real about this. Please, let's get real on it. Let's debate it on the merits. I would be tempted, if the Senator from Washington, Mr. Gorton, wants to put this as an add-on, to perhaps support it. But that is not what we have here. It is a substitute saying that their program is better than this particular program that has been tried, tested, accepted, and working, and improving the quality of education for children and, importantly, there is a desire for it to be continued. We have heard again from our good friend from New Hampshire about how this is basically robbing the funding for IDEA, the disability program in education. We should not hear that anymore from that side of the aisle, and I am going to tell you why. When we had the major tax proposal under the Republicans, we had an amendment on the floor of the Senate that the Senator from Washington supported and which I supported, the Senator from Minnesota supported, and others supported, that said: Let's take the full funding of IDEA for 10 years and carve that out of the tax bill; let's carve it out and fully fund it for 10 years. It would have amounted to a one-fifth reduction in taxes. That was the key vote in terms of IDEA. That was the key vote in terms of priorities for disabilities. Every single Member of the other side of the aisle voted against it--every single one of them. Let's not come to this Chamber in the afternoon and say: Look what is happening with the Murray amendment; they are trying to take the money from scarce resources. We had the opportunity to do that, and they said no. That was a serious debate at that particular time. Perhaps maybe even the President's position on the tax bill might have altered or changed-- might have, maybe not--if we were going to have full funding of IDEA. But absolutely not and not a single one supported that particular proposal. I do not often differ with the chairman of our Appropriations Committee, but he suggests we reserve $1.2 billion subject to authorization, and if the authorizers choose to authorize class size, fine, and if not, it can be a block grant for the States to choose. That is the whole problem. We have not been given the opportunity to authorize that. We have been denied, on each and every opportunity, as the Senator from Washington has pointed out, doing that. The fact is, last year on the appropriations bill, they in effect authorized it and Republicans supported it. All we are asking is to extend it, like we did last year. I mentioned earlier, and it continues to echo in my ears, what the Republicans said about this very program. It is a shame this issue has somehow developed into a partisan issue because last year, with the Murray amendment, it was widely embraced by the Republicans. Listen to what Congressman Goodling, the chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, declared about this program, the Murray amendment: . . . a real victory for the Republican Congress . . . That is fine with us. As long as we can get the substance, as long as we get teachers, if Congressman Goodling wants to declare that, fine. . . .but more importantly-- Thank you-- it is a huge win for local educators and parents who are fed up with Washington mandates, red tape, and regulation. We agree with the President's desire to help classroom teachers, but our proposal does not create big, new federal education programs. Mr. Armey: We were very pleased to receive the President's request for more teachers, especially since he offered to provide a way to pay for them. And when the President's people were willing to work with us so we could let the state and local communities use this money-- That was always the intent, and not only the intent, but specifically the language of the Murray amendment. He continues: . . . make these decisions, manage the money, spend the money on teachers where they saw the need, whether it be for special education or for regular teaching, with freedom of choice and management and control at the local level, we thought this was good for America and good for schoolchildren. We were excited to move forward on that.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for 2 more minutes. Senator Gorton said this about the class size: On education, there's been a genuine meeting of the minds involving the President and the Democrats and Republicans here in Congress. . . . It will go directly through to each of the 14,000 school districts. . .and each of those school districts will make its own determination as to what kind of new teachers that district needs most, which kind should be hired. We never were arguing over the amount of money that ought to go into education. And so this is a case in which both sides genuinely can claim a triumph. What in the world has happened in the last 10 months to those Republican leaders who were enthusiastic about this program 10 months ago and now discard it? What is it? We have not heard it in the Senate; we have not heard it from one single speaker. We hear generalities; we have rhetoric, but there has not been a specific reason for opposition. In conclusion, the results of that investment show the children are benefiting from the Murray amendment every single day they are in those smaller class sizes. I hope this body will accept the Murray amendment and do something that is important for local schoolchildren all across this Nation. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I commend our friend and colleague from California, Senator Boxer, for advancing this very important amendment. It is obviously an improvement over what the House of Representatives did, and it is an improvement over the Senate bill. The Senate bill falls short in some important areas in which I believe we should address if we are going to advance academic achievement and accomplishment. We attempted, under the outstanding leadership of Senator Murray, to help communities reduce class size and now with Senator Boxer's amendment, we want to help communities expand afterschool programs. Tomorrow, there will be an effort by Senator Harkin and Senator Robb to address school modernization and construction, and to help more communities improve the quality of teachers entering the classroom. I commend Senator Boxer for her leadership of the issue of after- school programs. The 21st Century Community Learning Center program has been vastly popular. Over 2,000 communities applied, but there was only enough funding to grant 184 awards. We all have our own experiences with afterschool programs. We have an excellent program in the city of Boston under the leadership of Mayor Menino. It is not only an afterschool program, it is also a tutorial program for children. Most of the afterschool programs have tutors working with children to help them do their homework in the afternoon, so that in the evening time, the children can spend quality time with their parents. That has been enormously important. Secondly, there have been other programs initiated outside the direct academic programs involved in school such as photography programs and graphic art programs where members of the business community work with children to enhance their interests in a variety of subject matters they might not be exposed to and provide training in specific skills. What every educator involved in afterschool programs will tell you is, with an effective afterschool program, we find a substantial improvement in the academic achievement and accomplishment of these students. In Georgia, over 70 percent of students, parents, and teachers agree that children receive helpful tutoring through what they call the 3 o'clock Project, a statewide network of afterschool programs. Over 60 percent of the students, parents, and teachers agree that children completed more of their homework and homework was better prepared because of their participation in the program, and academic achievement and accomplishments have been enhanced. What we have seen over the course of the day under Senator Murray and now under Senator Boxer are amendments to support proven effective programs, programs which have demonstrated that they improve academic achievement and accomplishment. We simply want to target resources to these successful programs. In Manchester, NH, at the Beach Street School, the afterschool program improved reading and math scores of the students. In reading, the percentage of students scoring at or above the basic level increased from 4 percent in 1994 to one-third, 33 percent, in 1997. In math, the percentage of students scoring at the basic level increased from 29 percent to 60 percent. In addition, students participating in the afterschool program avoid retention in grade or being placed in special education. There will be those who will say: That is interesting, but they made that decision at the local level to do that. The federal government didn't decide that. If communities want to take advantage of this program, they can apply and compete for funding. No one is forcing any particular community to take part in this program. No one is demanding that every school district in America accept it. But what we are saying is that there will be additional resources for communities across this country to invest in after-school programs that are improving students' academic achievement and accomplishment. Afterschool programs also help reduce juvenile crime, juvenile violence, and gang activity, generally preventing adverse behavior of students. What we see in this chart is that juveniles are most likely to commit violent crimes after school. As this chart shows, which is a Department of Justice chart, the time after school, between 2 p.m. and 8 p.m., is when youth are most likely to commit or be victims of juvenile crime. If you talk to our Police Commissioner Evans in Massachusetts, he will tell you one of the best ways of dealing with violent juveniles and with the gang problems we have in my city of Boston is effective afterschool programs. We know anywhere between 6 and 9 million children are at home unsupervised every single day, every afternoon between the ages of 9 and 15. We are trying to offer children opportunities for gainful activities to, one, enhance their academic achievement and accomplishment; and, two, reduce the pressures that so many young people are under that lead to bad and negative behavior. This amendment, again, is talking about an additional $200 million in a total budget of $1.700 trillion--$1.700 trillion, and we are talking about adding just $200 million. A nation's budget is a reflection of its priorities, and we believe that in after-school programs should get high priority. Finally, we must do far better than the House bill in after-school programs, where they came in $300 million below the President's request, and in many other education priorities that the House drastically cut. We want to raise the funding levels of the Senate bill so that Members going to conference will be able to report out a strong after school program. I thank the Senator from California, again, for making such a compelling case for increased investments in afterschool programs. She has been involved in this issue for years, and she is our real leader in the Senate on this question. It is a pleasure to be a cosponsor of the amendment. I thank her for her courtesy in permitting me to speak at this time. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Am I correct also, last year when Congress went on record committing itself to at least the first year of the hiring of additional teachers, it really was not a partisan issue? At that time, as I understand it--I am wondering whether the Senator remembers it-- the chairman of the House Education Committee said, essentially, on the proposal of the Senator from Washington: This is a real victory for the Republican Congress, but more importantly a huge win for local educators, parents who are fed up with Washington mandates, redtape, and regulation. We agree with the President's desire to help classroom teachers, but our proposal does not create a big new Federal education program. This was said last year by the chairman of the House Education Committee, and similar words were used by House Majority Leader Dick Armey of the Republicans. Is the Senator aware that this concept was warmly embraced by Speaker Gingrich, Majority Leader Dick Armey, and Congressman Goodling in the final hours of the last Congress?

Mr. KENNEDY. We had some tragic experience in schools this last year, and all of us are trying to find ways of avoiding those circumstances. No one pretends the answers are going to be easy and are going to be solved virtually overnight. But is it the Senator's sense that by having the smaller class sizes that we not only are dealing with academic achievement, but we are also dealing with some disciplinary problems, and also since we are talking about K-3, we are also talking about the opportunities for teachers to interact with students and perhaps identify some of the younger children who may be faced with some tensions or some developmental difficulties early in the cycle and perhaps have some opportunities to address those particular children's needs? Does the Senator also think this smaller class size can have some impact in terms of discipline and also in terms of the climate and atmosphere which exists in schools in this country?

Mr. KENNEDY. I have one final question, if the Senator will yield for a question.

Mr. KENNEDY. I would like to just ask the Senator to respond to this part of the editorial that says: Remember class size reduction? Last year there was a bipartisan commitment to spend $1.2 billion to hire 100,000 new teachers over a seven-year period, reducing average class size to 18 in grades 1 through 3. St. Louis city and county stood to gain 600 of those teachers. The current spending bills being considered in both houses this week effectively kill the program. * * * * * The rap on public schools is, in most cases, a valid one: If your child is either ahead of or behind his peers, he's going to be lost in the shuffle of 25 to 30 children. * * * * * It's hard to think of anything more obvious or more fundamental than the need for smaller classes in the early years. It's even more difficult to think of anything more unconscionable than bailing out of a long-range commitment one step into it. Members of Congress, keep your promise. Give our children schools where teachers can teach and all students can learn. Does the Senator find this kind of expression that comes from Middle America, the heartland of the Nation, is really expressed in other parts of the country, western parts of the Nation, the great State of Washington which she represents, as well as in the other parts of the country?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as we pointed out earlier, this legislation is a voluntary program. Each local education agency that desires to receive the funds shall include the application. So it is completely voluntary. I know it has been repeated time and time again that the Federal Government is imposing this on the local school districts. But it is the local school district who has to make the judgment, who has to fill out the application. All the money goes to the local school district. Under the Gorton amendment, 15 percent goes to the bureaucracy. So let's be accurate in our description of this proposal. Then let's also be accurate that this concept was basically endorsed by all the Republican leadership in the last Congress. Congressman Goodling, Congressman Dick Armey, and Senator Gorton claimed credit for this proposal. We understand that. They claimed credit for the Murray amendment when it was accepted in the last Congress. Just a final point I want to make. I think it is fair to say: One, if they want to do all the things the Senator from Maine has pointed out and you want an additional block grant, I agree with the Senator from Minnesota, if they want to get additional funds, I will vote for it. If the State of Maine wants to do it, that is all well and good. We are talking about limited resources targeted on national needs. The question is whether this program works. The Senator from Washington has said time and time again that it does. And with all the responses on the other side, no one has questioned the various reports that demonstrate that children have made progress--no one, none; silence. You can give all the cliches about one size fits all and all the rest, but just respond to the various STAR report conclusions, such as: 7,000 students in 80 Tennessee schools. Students in small classes performed better than students in large classes in each grade from kindergarten through third grade. Talk to Maria Caruso, an elementary school teacher in Lawrenceburg Elementary School in Lawrenceburg, TN, who talks about what a difference it makes in all the years that she has been teaching, having the smaller class size, what a difference it has made in the quality of the education for the children in the Lawrenceburg Elementary School. Or talk to Jacqueline van Wulven a veteran teacher from the Cole Elementary School in Nashville, TN, who said: These students come into third grade far more advanced academically than any other third grade class I have taught. There were very few behavior problems with a small class. The students worked well together, and I was able to provide many different learning experiences because I did not have to spend so much time disciplining the class. Sandy Heinrich from Granbery Elementary School in Davidson County, TN: ``I have been a teacher for 29 years and have never had an experience like I have had with the smaller class size.'' These are the teachers. Respond to these teachers. All we are saying is, if the local community wants to try and replicate what has been tried and tested and demonstrated to produce enhanced academic achievement and accomplishment, that is the Murray amendment. They are already doing it in communities across the country, based upon last year's commitment. All we are saying is, let's continue it. Two million teachers will be needed over the next 10 years. We are getting 100,000 teachers a year normally. We need to recruit an additional 100,000, to handle rising enrollments. The Republicans say, no, no, to the additional teachers. With their proposal, they will eliminate close to 30,000 school teachers across this country. Does that make any sense at all? It does not. In Wisconsin, the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education program is helping to reduce class size in grades K to 3 in low-income. A study found that the students in smaller classes had significantly greater improvements in reading and math and language than students in bigger classes. In Flint, MI, efforts over the last three years to reduce class size in K-3 have produced a 44 percent increase in reading scores, an 18 percent increase in math scores. This issue is not about power. It is about partnership, partnership between the local communities, the States, and the Federal Government. We should insist on the Murray amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. I will use 10 minutes, Mr. President. What we have heard from the other side in this debate today is a technique which is sometimes used in this body. But the people who are watching this debate ought to understand it. Those listening to it ought to understand it. It is a familiar technique; that is, not to describe what the amendment is and then to differ with it. That is what we have seen. With all respect to the Senator who recently spoke about all the time that is necessary in order to make the application--here it is: One page, to make an application. One page for the local school community to make the application. Let's come back a step and understand the Federal role in education and what this program is basically all about. There is not anyone who is serious about education policy who believes with the 6 or 7 cents out of every Federal dollar that the Federal Government is going to control local decisions on education, not a serious educator. There may be Senators who would like to misrepresent what they understand would be the results of any particular amendment, but that does not stand. I think it is basically intuitive to understand when we are only providing the 6 or 7 cents out of every dollar, basically it is a modest opportunity for local communities to take advantage of these programs. Second, so we have made a commitment to what? Smaller class size, which is the debate now, ensuring we are going to have a quality teacher in every classroom, that we are going to take advantage, later on in these debates, of afterschool programs which have proven effective and which people desire. We are going to have an opportunity to address those issues. But it is all within that 7 cents. To listen to our friends on the other side, you would think this is being jammed down the throats of the various school districts. What is in this amendment of the Senator from Washington? It is $1.4 billion to provide for the hiring of various teachers. I have listened to the other side, the Senator from New Hampshire and other Senators, talking about how this is going to threaten local education, how the heavy hand of the Federal Government is going to come down and dictate to every local school community. This is what it says. Section 304: Each local education agency that desires to receive the funds under this section shall include in the application required. . . . If they so desire to participate--completely voluntary. Do we understand that on the other side? This is voluntary. This says, if your parents, your local teachers, the local school boards, want to participate under this, if there is enough resources and the Murray amendment is accepted, then they can voluntarily participate. Do we understand that on the other side? Voluntary. Then the question is, all of this Federal bureaucracy, here it is-- one page. I wish those who comment on the Murray amendment would at least extend the courtesy to the Senator from Washington to actually understand, to read the amendment and understand what it does. Here it is. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record, the one-page application for local communities to apply for these teachers.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield me 5 minutes?