Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, it basically says to not just the Nation, but to the students that education really isn't so important. If a student goes into a crowded classroom, uses old books, or goes into a classroom that is leaking, or where there are no recreational programs; if a student goes into these kinds of settings where no music or art is available, we are sending a very powerful message to those children. We are saying your education doesn't really count; it doesn't really matter because it doesn't matter to us to try and provide you with the kind of classroom, the kind of teachers, the kind of athletic facilities, and other after-school programs that you deserve. We say our children are the future, which they are. Children understand, children are perceptive, and they know when they are getting a second- rate deal. That is what they would be getting if the Republican education funding proposal were to pass. Let me finally, in answering this question, mention for the Record what the President actually said yesterday. I will put the full statement in the Record. He said: If the Republicans send me a bill that doesn't live up to our national commitment to education, I won't hesitate to veto it. If it undermines our efforts to hire quality teachers, to reduce class size, or to increase accountability in our public schools, I will veto it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the President's radio address in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to take a moment of the Senate's time to say why I believe this amendment, this Sense of the Senate, is so important at this time. You can ask: Why are we taking time in the Senate on a Friday afternoon to put the Senate on record in urging my colleagues, in the remaining days, to provide the resources that will be necessary to fully fund the President's requests on education and to not see these dramatic cuts which have been indicated with the 17-percent reduction in the allocation of funds for the appropriations for education? Families across this country ought to be concerned. We are hopeful that we are giving that signal to the American families. What we are going to do in the next 4 weeks is going to be of the greatest importance and significance in terms of whether we are going to be enhancing or diminishing the quality of education for children in this country. I would like to see education be the No. 1 appropriations . I wish we had a binding resolution that said: Before we deal with any other appropriations, we are going to deal with the education appropriations. That ought to be the No. 1 appropriations. I daresay, if you ask the American people, sure, they may say national security and defense, that may be in there; but they are going to say national security and defense, and they are going to say education. But what has been the record? Here is the record. In 1994, under the Republican leadership, the day they captured the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States, they didn't even wait until the appropriations legislation came up. They put a rescission program request into the Congress that effectively said money that had been appropriated, signed by the President, would be rescinded. They asked for a rescission of $1.7 billion below enacted in 1995. That was one of the first actions taken by the Republican leadership. In 1996, the House appropriations bill had a $3.9 billion request for education below what was actually agreed to in 1995; in 1997, $3.1 billion below the President's request. It was in 1995 that the Republican Party introduced a resolution to abolish the Department of Education--abolish the Department of Education. That gives us some idea about what their views are in terms of any kind of partnership between the Federal Government and the States and local communities. They wanted to abolish it. I think most parents in this country want to have someone at that Cabinet table every time the Cabinet meets who is going to say: Mr. President, what about education? That is what the Secretary of Education is supposed to do. That is why he is there. Every time there is a debate on national domestic issues, any time there is a debate on priorities, that Secretary of Education is there saying: What are we doing about educating and enhancing the education of our children? Republicans wanted to forbid that Secretary to come into the room. They wanted to deny him access to the President of the United States. What possible sense does that make? We ask why the Daschle amendment is being brought up now. So we can garner the support of the American people and say we are not going to get rolled on this issue, not without a fight. This President isn't going to get rolled on it. All we have to do is look at where the priorities have been on the education issue. We want the funding for education as the first appropriations. We challenge the Republican leadership in the next Congress to bring it out as No. 1, not as the last one. And the last one, here in 1998, is only $200 million below the President's request; 1999, $2 billion--the House bill. The House bill, according to Mr. Obey, is $2.8 billion below the President's. We have to ask ourselves, what is happening across the country on education? I will tell my colleagues what is happening. We have 400,000 new students--400,000 new students who are going to classrooms in America now. We have 200,000 teachers who taught last year who have given up and retired from teaching, and only 100,000 have been replaced. One would think the effort contained in the President's program of trying to find qualified individuals to teach ought to be something that is pretty important, wouldn't they? Sure, they would. Not the Republican appropriators, not the Republicans. They cut that almost in half. We have to ask ourselves, what are they possibly thinking about? Sure, these are numbers, but they are a pretty good indicator. What we are saying is--talking about numbers--that just because of $1 billion or $2 billion, it is not going to necessarily solve all the education problems we have in our country, but it is a pretty clear indication about what a nation's priorities are. That is what the appropriations process is about--what are our Nation's priorities. What are parents going to say and what should they say, when every single time they see those reductions? Now we are seeing it again with these actions that have been taken in the House of Representatives. We are going to resist those. We are saying it not only because we see what is happening with the growth of the various numbers of students and the decline of the numbers of teachers, but we know a whole host of other things. Most Americans understand we want our children to have the kind of skills that are going to be necessary for them to play a role in getting a decent job and providing for their families for the next century. I will not take the time today, but maybe later I will have the time to discuss the various studies which show that only 20 percent of the graduates now entering the job market have the kind of skills that 60 percent of those students are going to need, not 5 years from now, but 1 year from now--a year from now. That is what is happening out in the job market. That is what is happening in this new economy. President Clinton understands that. He has funding in this so we can have continuing, ongoing training and skills for the young people of this country, so they will be able to be part of the economy. This Republican Appropriations Committee guts that particular provision and effectively wipes it out. I will mention one final item. We heard from our good leader about the importance of reading. There isn't a teacher across this country who doesn't know the significance and the importance of reading. Yet we find here in the United States that we are still challenged in terms of having our children reach acceptable levels that are going to be necessary for the improvement of their education and their academic achievement. I am not taking the time to go through the various assessments and the progress that has been made, although progress has been made. It has been small, perceptible, but we are on the road to enhancing the number of children who are going to be able to read satisfactorily to be able to grow in terms of their own future education. What has happened to the reading programs--the reading programs that depend upon volunteers, that depend upon local contributions, that depend upon people within the community to be a part of these programs where we get such a bang for the buck in terms of the scarce resources we put in on the reading for excellence programs that are taking place and are oversubscribed in States around the country--they are effectively slashed with this budget.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I always enjoy having the opportunity to discuss education policies with my friend from New Hampshire. As usual, he has been very eloquent in terms of the positions which he has advanced. I would like to bring a few points to the attention of the membership, though, on items he has raised to try to clarify some of these issues and questions. One was the issue of flexibility, whether there is sufficient kinds of flexibility at the local level to permit the education of the children in various communities across the country. I have Speaker Hastert's statement he put out at the time the President signed the Ed-Flex legislation. At that time, the Speaker said: ``Ed-Flex''--which passed the House and Senate-- ``ensures our schools have the flexibility they need to make good on the promise to help each child reach their full potential.'' The release goes on and indicates he believes now there is the kind of flexibility the Senator from New Hampshire talks about being extremely important. It seems the Speaker, at least, and many others, believed, with the passage of that act, the local communities had the flexibility they needed. I think that was certainly the purpose of the legislation. I am glad the Speaker certainly has supported the President's concept in having that kind of flexibility. Secondly, there was some talk about the funding of the IDEA. I want to recall for the Members that we did have an opportunity earlier this year to have full funding of IDEA for the next 10 years. The Senator from New Hampshire has mentioned the importance of us in Congress to meet the responsibilities to those children who are participating in that program. The fact is, earlier this year, on March 25, 1999, I offered an amendment that would provide full funding for IDEA over the next 10 years, and also the funding for the class size reduction initiative-- that we would provide full funding for those two items. It would have taken one-fifth of the tax cut. With one-fifth of the tax cut, we could have funded all of the IDEA programs for a period of 10 years. That was a party-line vote, including the vote of the Senator from New Hampshire who voted against it. That is real money. That isn't speeches on the floor of the Senate. That is real money. We would have welcomed the opportunity to have worked with him and others in this body to take some of that money, the $780 billion that was going to be used for tax cuts, and use the money that would be necessary for the funding of the IDEA, but that was voted out. We are not giving up on that. So for those who share my belief--I know our colleague, Senator Harkin, is a great leader on that issue; and it has broad, bipartisan support in terms of fashioning that legislation. We will continue to fight for increased funding for the IDEA. It certainly is preferred to fund that than have the kind of tax breaks that have been suggested in the Republican proposal. But on that date, it was the sense of the Republican leadership and the Republican Party that the tax breaks were more important than funding the IDEA. That, I believe, was wrong. Finally, I say, I hope in our discussion and debate on education that we can understand a very basic and fundamental concept; and that is, we should not be pitting children against each other. We want to have better teachers. We want smaller classes. We want improved reading skills. We want after-school programs. We want safe buildings. We want those conditions for children who are in the IDEA programs, and we want those conditions for children in the Title I programs, and we want those conditions for children in the high-achievement programs. Let us not begin to pit one group of children against another. That is why we support the kind of coordinated program, in terms of both program and resources, so all children can move along together to take advantage of the real opportunities that are out there. That is what basically underlines the reason for Senator Daschle's Sense-of-the- Senate Resolution. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have several concerns about provisions in the pending bill, especially the failure to provide any housing vouchers and the termination of the community builders program. We are all aware of the critical need for housing vouchers for low income families. Our nation is experiencing tremendous economic growth and expansion, with record low unemployment. Yet it is clear that for many families the cost of housing is still out of control. In Boston, housing affordability is a problem for many families, and it is becoming a problem for businesses as well in their efforts to attract and retain employees. The Clinton Administration has requested 100,000 new housing vouchers in this bill. Such vouchers will not solve the housing crisis, but for the families helped, this will go a long way toward stabilizing their families and helping them to lift themselves out of poverty to economic self-sufficiency. Yet this bill provides not one new voucher. We are all aware of the budget constraints under which we are operating. Yet it is unacceptable not to find any resources to address this unmet need. Another issue that deserves higher priority is the Community Builders program, which is an important element in making HUD a better, more effective, more customer-responsive agency. The Community Builders program has helped improve the way HUD works and interacts with its customers and clients, the American people. These Community Builders are people with impressive experience in the housing and community development world. Their expertise helps HUD to meet the needs of communities throughout our nation. Now, however, after these Community Builders have been hired, and in many instances, relocated in order to serve the communities in which they are most needed, the pending bill proposes to eliminate funding for the program. This step would be a serious waste of the investment that has been made in hiring these qualified and talented men and women who are willing to share their expertise to improve the way HUD serves the American people. I urge my colleagues to address both of these issues as the conference committee works to reconcile the House and Senate bills. At a time when Secretary Cuomo has taken such significant steps to improve the management of the agency, we should not undermine programs which are meeting important needs and improving the way HUD serves the American people.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. If I could have the attention of the two leaders, if it is the desire of Senator Lott to have Senator Gregg speak briefly so the two leaders can talk, I will be glad to withhold then, with the understanding I might be recognized afterwards to speak for maybe 15 minutes, if that is the way the leaders want to go. We can do it whichever way. If it is the desire of the leaders to get together to work out procedure, I will be glad to withhold questions. The Senator from New Hampshire could speak, if it is for 10 or 15 minutes, and then I will be glad to follow, if that is helpful. Or we could continue the way we are. Whichever way.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am always delighted to accede to my friend, Senator Mikulski. I probably have 15 minutes. But if you thought hers was just a matter of a few minutes, I will ask consent when I conclude she be recognized to do that. Would that be satisfactory?

Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to yield to the leader.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thought that was what the leader wanted. That will be fine and acceptable to me.

Mr. KENNEDY. Could I have 15 minutes?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. The point is, if the royalty money is not available to the States, does the Senator understand that money is going to have to be made up in some other way and otherwise we are going to have cutbacks in education in the States?

Mr. KENNEDY. That is my understanding.

Mr. KENNEDY. Does the Senator understand the choice to be on the issue of education? If we accept the amendment of the Senator from Texas, we are going to have, as a corresponding result, important reductions in support of public education in a number of States; is that the Senator's understanding?

Mr. KENNEDY. Does the Senator think we are going to make it up at the Federal level in terms of appropriations? Has there been any suggestion?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. It is important the Membership have a full understanding of the impact of the Hutchison amendment on education.

Mr. KENNEDY. I was interested in the Senator's viewpoint. At the very time we are meeting here, this very time this afternoon, the House appropriators are marking up the education bill. They have just cut $60 million out of the reading programs, the Reading Excellence Act, which would affect 330,000 children. This is what we are talking about. Does the Senator agree with me that we have a limited role in public education? We provide 7 cents out of every dollar in education, but we provide it in targeted areas to try to begin to make some difference in local communities and in States so these efforts can be carried on and expanded if they are worthwhile. We have the Reading Excellence Act, which is just beginning to take hold, just beginning to make a difference. Mr. President, $60 million is a big hunk of change, and that is what this amounts to in total revenues--$66 million. I just want to inquire of the Senator so the membership understands. When we refuse to defeat the Hutchison amendment, we are going to be disadvantaging States in the public education system.

Mr. KENNEDY. I was just asking the Senator how these States are going to make up for it. Can the Senator help us?

Mr. KENNEDY. I again want to ask the Senator: As I understand it, for example, the total share of the royalty funds that goes to the State of California, 100 percent, goes to public education of children in California. Does the Senator understand in Colorado it is some 60 percent, 100 percent in Louisiana? Those would be funds, if this amendment were carried, that would be directly denied to the public school system in those States and would have to be made up, or otherwise there would be cuts in those particular States. Does the Senator understand the relationship between what we are talking about here and the issue on education? It is very significant. Maybe $60 million does not make a lot of difference to some Senators. But it could make a lot of difference if we were talking about the Reading Excellence Act which has just been cut over in House Appropriations. It makes a difference to 330,000 children--whether they are going to learn how to read. We have those examples across the board: Colorado, 60 percent; North Dakota, 57 percent. Has there been any discussion on the floor of the Senate by those Senators on how they are going to make up the money? It seems to me we ought to have at least that kind of information. If you are going to cut out that funding for public education in the schools-- and that is what this amendment does--we ought to understand where the other money is going to come from because you are taking it right out of public school education. I do not know what the Senator's conclusions are, but when we realize we are dealing with the appropriations bill that is the last bill on the agenda, it maybe doesn't have a very high priority. Maybe that is one of the reason it has not been talked about very much by the Republicans, those on the other side. But this is money that comes right out of public education. It comes right out of support for public education in a number of these States.

Mr. KENNEDY. I would like to be heard on this.

Mr. KENNEDY. I want to just raise this issue since, by and large, the majority of the States use the resources that come from this royalty for education. If the amendment of the Senator is carried, then they are going to be denied funding in a number of these States, some 24 different States. I think it is important to recognize--

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will be kind enough to yield for a question. Mr. President, as I understand, half of the royalty is returned to the States. Is the Senator familiar with the fact that the amounts that are actually returned to the States go directly for the cause of education, the education funds of these States?

Mr. KENNEDY. That is absolutely correct. If the Hutchison amendment is accepted here, these will be the results. Effectively, we are going to be seeing an important source of funding for public education, for the schools in these several States, being denied. Does the Senator agree with me that most of the responsibilities we have are on priorities, on making choices?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment offered by Senator Smith of New Hampshire. I am a strong supporter of AmeriCorps and the positive changes that Corps members have made and continues to make in communities across this country AmeriCorps members are doing an outstanding job helping children in schools. Over two and one half million children have been taught, tutored or mentored in the nation's schools, and half a million children have been served in after-school programs through AmeriCorps. AmeriCorps members give a year of their life to tackle critical problems like literacy, crime and poverty. After their year of service, AmeriCorps members receive education awards to help finance college or pay back students loans. AmeriCorps enables its volunteers to improve their communities while improving themselves. In Massachusetts, the Service Alliance distributes $13 million in grants a year to more than 200 service and volunteer programs across the state. More than 180,000 citizens have contributed 3.5 million hours of service--mentoring young people, helping the homeless, and cleaning up neighborhoods. Through programs like City Year, Habitat for Humanity and Boys and Girls Clubs, volunteers have a wide choice in activities and are bringing their talent and enthusiasm to communities across the state. I urge the Senate to reject this amendment and maintain strong bipartisan support for these important programs. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support the Department of Defense authorization conference report for fiscal year 2000, and I congratulate our new chairman, Senator John Warner, on completing this first conference report as chairman. While I am disappointed that some provisions in the Senate version of the bill were dropped, on the whole it is an excellent piece of legislation and I am pleased to support it. My most important concern is over the changes made in Title 32, which establishes the National Nuclear Security Administration and reorganizes the Department of Energy's nuclear laboratories. When we first considered this issue on the intelligence authorization bill in July, the Senate passed the Kyl amendment, which reorganized these nuclear labs by a vote of 96-1. Unfortunately, during conference deliberations, these provisions were substantially rewritten. Secretary Richrdson has expressed his strong objections to these provisions, and states that they will make it more difficult for the Secretary of energy to oversee the labs. I hope that the Armed Services Committee will work with Secretary Richardson to address his concerns in the fiscal year 2001 Defense authorization bill. America has faced many global challenges this year that have re- emphasized the need for our Nation to maintain a well-trained and well- equipped military. This year's crisis in Kosovo was particularly challenging and required the Nation's Armed Forces to perform a wide variety of duties, including peacekeeping and humanitarian activities, in addition to sustained combat operations. Our service men and women performed superbly in all that was asked of them, and I commend them on their dedication, professionalism, and unwavering devotion to duty. Without their skill, we would not be as close to peace in the Balkans as we are today. It is the duty of Congress to ensure that we provide our military with what is needs to meet the international challenges common in the post-cold-war era. America must be ready, when necessary, to protect its vital interests and encourage global stability. The fiscal year 2000 Defense conference report is a positive step toward ensuring that the Nation's military is prepared to meet the challenges of the years ahead. The cornerstone of the military's preeminence rests on its most critical component, its people. Without adequate number of men and women willing to serve in the military, the Nation would not be able to respond to crises around the globe. We need cutting-edge weapon systems, but we also need dedicated men and women to operate these systems. The conference report contains many new initiatives and constructive changes in personnel policies that will help to ensure that we adequately provide for our servicemen and women and their families. Specifically, the conference report provides a fully-funded and well- deserved 4.8 percent pay raise for military personnel, as well as expanded authority to offer additional pay and other incentives to retain service members in critical military specialties. The conference report also improves retirement benefits by addressing service members' concerns with the current system and approving their participation in the Thrift Savings Plan. I am very disappointed, however, that Senator Cleland's amendment to improve and expand GI bill benefits for servicemen and women was not included in the conference report. The Montgomery GI bill has been a very successful and important program for the military. But, in order for the GI bill to continue to be a valuable program, it must evolve as our military forces evolve. Access to higher education is an increasingly important issue for our servicemen and women in today's all-volunteer, professional military. Senator Cleland's GI bill provisions, included in the Senate version of the bill, made needed improvements in the GI bill that would have enhanced the program's value and benefit to our troops, and would have improved its effectiveness as a recruiting tool. I commend Senator Cleland on his leadership on these provisions and I urge my colleagues to reconsider these innovative ideas next year. The DOD authorization conference report also reauthorizes and enhances the very successful Troops-to-Teachers program. Over the next ten years, the Nation's schools will need to hire two million new teachers to fill their classrooms. Troops-to-Teachers is helping to meet that challenge by recruiting and training servicemen and women to become teachers in public schools. This program was established by Congress in 1993 and has already placed over 3,000 servicemen and women in elementary and secondary schools in 48 states. The conference report also provides for the transfer of this program to the Department of Education, so that it will be coordinated with other federal education programs that are helping communities to improve their public schools. Concern for our military personnel doesn't end with the active duty servicemember, but with the whole military family. Well over half of the members of today's military are married, and in many cases both parents are employed. The military also contains many single mothers and fathers. All of these individuals have unique characteristics and needs that must be recognized so that we can encourage their continued service and careers in the armed forces. The conference report contains a provision, which I strongly supported, authorizing the Secretary of Defense to provide financial assistance for child care services and youth programs for members of the Armed Forces and their families. These expanded child care provisions will ensure that many more military families have access to quality childcare and after-school care for their children. Also, military families are not immune to the epidemic of domestic violence that confronts the rest of America. We have a responsibility to military families to help prevent domestic violence, and to protect the victims when abuse occurs. An important provision in this year's conference report requires the Secretary of Defense to appoint a military-civilian task force to review military policies on domestic violence. This task force, comprised of military, DOD, law enforcement personnel, and civilian advocates for battered women and children, will work with the Secretary of Defense to establish Department-wide standards for combating domestic violence. These initiatives will include standard formats for memorandums of understanding between the armed services and local law enforcement authorities for responding to domestic violence; a requirement that commanding officers must provide a written copy of any no-contact or restraining order to victims of abuse; standard guidance for commanding officers on considering criminal charges in cases of domestic violence; and a standard training program for all commanding officers on domestic violence. This provision also requires the Department to establish a database, the contents of which will be annually reported to Congress. The information will include each domestic violence incident reported to military authorities and how that incident was resolved. This provision also requires the military-civilian task force to report to Congress annually about the progress made in combating domestic violence in the military. The conference report also takes a number of worthwhile steps to address equipment modernization requirements that have been deferred for too long. The chairwoman of the Seapower Subcommittee, Senator Snowe, took the lead this year in advocating a strong shipbuilding budget, as well as a strong research and development budget, for the Navy and Marine Corps. It was a privilege to work with her this year, and, I am pleased that this conference report takes these important steps to ensure that the Navy has the ships, submarines, and other equipment needed to sustain its operations throughout the world. The conference report authorizes the extension of the DDG-51 Destroyer multi-year procurement into fiscal years 2002 and 2003 and increases the number of ships to be built from 12 to 18 ships. The conference report also authorizes the Navy to enter into a five-year multi-year procurement contract for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, and increases the number of Marine Corps MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft from 10 to 12. These are all strong steps in strengthening the readiness of the Nation's Navy-Marine Corps team. Procurement isn't the only area where we need to strengthen our investment. We also need to strengthen investment in science and technology. Last year, the Defense authorization bill called for a 2 percent annual increase, above inflation, in military spending on science and technology from 2000 to 2008. Unfortunately, the Department's proposed fiscal year 2000 budget reduced spending on science and technology programs. The Air Force alone was slated for $95 million in cuts in science and technology funding. Such a decline would have been detrimental to national defense, particularly when the battlefield environment is becoming more and more reliant on high technology. Fortunately, thanks in great part to the chairman of the Emerging Threats and Technology Subcommittee, Senator Roberts, and his ranking member, Senator Bingaman, Congress restored much of this Air Force science and technology funding. This restoration will help to ensure that high quality scientists and engineers are available to conduct research to address the Department's technology needs for the future. Congress has taken a clear position in support of maintaining sound investments in Defense science and technology programs. I urge the Department to request a strong science and technology budget next year, one that will ensure the future of these important programs. One of the most significant of these science and technology fields is cyber-security. The growing frequency and sophistication of attacks on the Department of Defense's computer systems are cause for concern, and they highlight the need for improved protection of the nation's critical defense networks. This conference report includes a substantial increase in research and development for defenses against cyber attacks, and this increase will greatly improve the Department's focus on this emerging threat. Existing threats from the cold war are also addressed in this legislation. Financial assistance to the nations of the former Soviet Union for nonproliferation activities such as the Nunn-Lugar Comprehensive Threat Reduction programs is essential for our national security. I commend the administration's plans to continue funding these valuable initiatives, and I commend a Congress' support for them. One of the most serious threats to our national security is the danger of terrorism, particularly using biological, chemical or nuclear weapons of mass destruction. We must do all we can to prevent our enemies from acquiring these devastating weapons, and do all we can to keep terrorists from being able to conduct an attack on our nation. Significant progress has been made to strengthen the nation's response to such attacks, but more must be done. The conference report strengthens counter-terrorism activities and increases support for the National Guard teams that are part of this important effort. Again, I commend my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee for their leadership on these important national security issues. This conference report is essential for our national security in the years ahead, and I urge the Senate to approve it.