Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am very concerned about a number of provisions in the supplemental appropriations bill. First, I strongly oppose the offsets included in this bill, which will take money away from programs that help the most vulnerable Americans. Before I discuss the specific offsets, let me begin with a reminder-- emergency supplemental funds do not need to be offset. This is the law and it is grounded in the understanding that Congress needs to act expediently when disaster strikes. Emergencies are just that, emergencies, and they require swift action and the ability to release funds quickly. We do not need offsets to provide essential assistance to Central America, our farmers, or U.S. steel workers. Nevertheless, a series of offsets have been proposed that will hurt the most vulnerable Americans, low-income children and families and immigrants. Included in their offset package, are proposals to defer $350 million in Temporary Assistance to Needy Funds (TANF), a $285 million cut in the Food Stamp Program, and a $25 million recision in INS programming which will reduce INS' ability to provide immigration benefits and services. A $40 million cut in INS border enforcement is also being proposed. Taking from one poor, vulnerable community to pay for the needs of another is unacceptable. We must draw the line here to prevent the raiding programs that help poor children and families. In 1996, when the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) was passed, Congress gave states the authority and flexibility to design their own unique programs to help low-income families move from welfare-to-work. The TANF program provides fixed block grants to the states totaling approximately $16.5 billion annually. TANF is a new program that supports a wide array of services. States are using their funds to assist needy families, strengthen job preparation, and promote self- sufficiency. Across the country, states and social service agencies are developing and implementing the best strategies to move their clients from welfare to self-sufficiency. In addition to giving states the authority to develop their own assistance programs for low-income families, Congress also gave them the power to carry forward unobligated TANF funds for future use. States were expressly given the ability to tap into unspent funds at any point during the five-year block grant period, to optimize flexibility and meet their own unique needs and circumstances. In FY98, states obligated or spent 84% of the total federal funds received. Nineteen states have obligated 100% of their FY98 TANF funds. The Republican Leadership seems to have confused ``unobligated'' with ``unneeded.'' Nothing could be further from the truth. There are a variety of reasons why some states have unobligated funds. Many states have specifically set aside part of their funds in a ``rainy day'' account. This reflects wise planning. The strong economy and low unemployment rates which we are currently enjoying may not last forever. These states will be prepared because they have set aside sufficient funds to protect themselves if the economy turns downward. Other states have experienced large caseload declines but require further state legislative action to reprogram funds from cash assistance to other investments, such as child care and job training, which promote work and end dependency. Other states have proceeded slowly because they chose to engage in careful planning and needs assessment research before embarking on innovative new efforts to move people from welfare to work. Now, they are ready to utilize their funds, and now the feds are trying to take back these funds. Let me also point out that unobligated funds are not surplus funds. These funds are essential to the overall success of welfare reform. Many of the families remaining on welfare face substantial barriers to employment including lack of educational and workforce skills, substance abuse, domestic violence, and disability. States anticipate that greater investments will be required if families are going to successfully transition from welfare-to-work. As an increasing number of families with infants and young children move into the work force, the need and competition for child care, particularly during evening hours, will continue to expand. Without assistance, many states will not be able to provide needed services to low-income families. Now, just a few years after dramatically overhauling the welfare system, the Republican Leadership wants to take $350 million in unobligated TANF funds to offset some of the expenses incurred by the Emergency Supplemental Act. This is unacceptable. Congress told states to spend their money carefully, to engage in thoughtful long-term planning, and that they could keep their unobligated funds, and here we are two years later, changing the rules of the game. The Republican Leadership also wants to take $252 million from the Food Stamp Program base appropriations level. Senate appropriators contend that these funds would otherwise be unspent. Once again, the Republicans are taking a short-sighted approach. First, assuming these funds are unspent, they are not unneeded. The current base appropriations level provides an important cushion to meet unanticipated need. Second, recently released statistics on hunger and undernutrition suggest that we need to reinvest in food assistance programming. Hunger is still an urgent problem. The recent decline in food stamp use from 28 million to under 19 million does not mean that hunger is no longer a significant concern. Just a few weeks ago the Urban Institute reported that one-third of America's children are in families grappling with hunger and food insecurity. We cannot let this happen. We cannot take any more money from programs that help children and needy families. Furthermore, Congress must uphold its commitment to the states--federal money pledged to the states should not be taken away, especially when emergency funding is available without offsets. Another disturbing aspect of the Supplemental is the inclusion of the Hutchinson Medicaid Amendment. This issue does not belong in an emergency appropriations bill. If approved, the long-term cost to Medicaid of this amendment would be approximately $140 billion. No serious consideration has been given to the enormous impact that could have on national health policy. Instead of being used to deter youth smoking and to improve the nation's health, the language in the Committee bill would permit states to use these federal Medicaid dollars to pave roads, to build prisons and stadiums, and to fund state tax cuts. Those are not appropriate uses for Medicaid dollars. Congress has a vital interest in how those federal dollars are used. Fifty-seven cents of every Medicaid dollar spent by the states comes from the federal government. The cost of Medicaid expenditures to treat people suffering from smoking-induced disease was at the core of state lawsuits against the tobacco industry. While the federal government could legally demand that the states reimburse Washington from their settlements, I believe the states should be allowed to keep one hundred percent of the money. However, the federal share must be used by the states for programs that will advance the goals of protecting children and enhancing public health which were at the heart of the litigation and are consistent with the purposes of Medicaid. That would be an eminently fair and reasonable compromise of this contentious issue. While there were a variety of claims made by the states against the tobacco industry, the Medicaid dollars used to treat tobacco-related illness constituted by far the largest claim monetarily, and it formed the basis for the national settlement. As part of that settlement, every state released the tobacco companies from federal Medicaid liability, as well as state Medicaid liability. Medicaid expenditures heavily influenced the distribution formula used to divide the national settlement amongst the states. In light of these undeniable facts, the dollars obtained by the states from their settlements cannot now be divorced from Medicaid. States are free to use the state share of their recoveries in any way they choose. However, Congress has a clear and compelling interest in how the federal share will be used. States should be required to use half of the amount of money they receive from the tobacco industry each year (the federal share) to protect children and improve public health. At least thirty-five percent of the federal share would be spent on programs to deter youth smoking and to help smokers overcome their addiction. This would include a broad range of tobacco control initiatives, including school and community based tobacco use prevention programs, counter- advertising to discourage smoking, cessation programs, and enforcement of the ban on sale to minors. Three thousand children start smoking every day, and one thousand of them will die prematurely as a result of tobacco-induced disease. Prevention of youth smoking should be, without question, our highest priority for the use of these funds. Reducing youth smoking would, of course, result in a dramatic savings in future Medicaid expenditures. The state settlements provide the resources to dissuade millions of teenagers from smoking, to break the cycle of addiction and early death. We must seize that opportunity. The remainder of the federal share should be used by states to fund health care and early learning initiatives which they select. States could either use the additional resources to supplement existing programs in these areas, or to fund creative new state initiatives to improve public health and promote child development. Smoking has long been America's foremost preventable cause of disease and early death. It has consumed an enormous amount of the nation's health care resources. Finally, resources taken from the tobacco companies would be used to improve the nation's health. A state could, for example, use a portion of this money to help senior citizens pay for prescription drugs, or to provide expanded health care services to the uninsured. Funds could be used to support community health centers, to reduce public health risks, or to make health insurance more affordable. For years, the tobacco companies callously targeted children as future smokers. The financial success of the entire industry was based upon addicting kids when they were too young to appreciate the health risks of smoking. It is particularly appropriate that resources taken from this malignant industry be used to give our children a better start in life. States could use a portion of these funds to improve early learning opportunities for young children, or to expand child care services, or for other child development initiatives. Congress has an overwhelming interest in how the federal share of these dollars is used. They are Medicaid dollars. They should not be used for road repair or building maintenance. They should be used by the states to create a healthier future for all our citizens, and particularly for our children. These problems with the supplemental need to be fixed. Congress shouldn't let emergency assistance get bogged down by these extraneous provisions. A clean supplemental should be approved as quickly as possible so that this aid can go out quickly to those in greatest need.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the past year has seen far-reaching developments which bring the dream of peace in Northern Ireland closer than at any time in our lifetimes. Today, the Friends of Ireland in Congress is releasing its annual St. Patrick's Day Statement. The Friends of Ireland is a bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives opposed to violence and terrorism in Northern Ireland and dedicated to a United States policy that promotes a just, lasting and peaceful settlement of the conflict, which has taken more than 3,100 lives over the past 30 years. I believe the Friends of Ireland statement will be of interest to all of our colleagues who are concerned about this issue, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on balance, I believe this legislation deserves bipartisan support. There is a clear need to do more to protect our country from the threat of missile attacks. This bill avoids most of the problems of previous versions and is consistent with our responsibility to continue working with Russia to reduce the immense threat from their nuclear arsenal. The bill declares that it is the policy of the United States to deploy a limited national missile defense system as soon as it is technologically possible, but it also stresses that it is the policy of the United States to continue to negotiate with Russia to reduce our nuclear arsenals. There is no doubt that the United States is facing a growing threat to our country and our interests from rogue nations that possess increasingly advanced missile technology. We must prepare for these threats more effectively by making greater investments in research and development to produce a missile defense system able to defeat these threats. But, before we decide to actually deploy such a system, we must ask ourselves the following questions: What is the specific threat we are countering with this system? Will the system be effective? What impact will the deployment of the system have on the nuclear arms reduction and arms control agreements we currently have with the Russians? What will be the cost of the system? The Rumsfeld Report in 1998 clearly demonstrated the growing missile threat from rogue nations. In spite of international agreements to control the spread of missile technology, these nations are resorting to whatever means it takes to acquire this capability. Because of this growing threat, we must do more to decide whether a defense is practical and can deliver the protection it promises. Many of us continue to be concerned that the step we are about to take could undermine the very successful nuclear arms reduction treaties and other arms control agreements that we have with Russia. Our purpose in developing a limited national missile defense system is not directed at Russia. It is intended to protect our country against the growing missile threat from rogue nations. Russia's strategic nuclear force would easily overpower the limited missile defense system that is currently proposed. But the fact remains that the United States and Russia are parties to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Without changes to that treaty, our ability to fully test and deploy this defense system cannot occur. The ABM Treaty is also the foundation for the SALT I and SALT II nuclear arms reduction treaties, which paved the way for the START I and START II treaties. The Russian Duma is again preparing to debate the ratification of the START II treaty, and will do so when Russian Prime Minister Primakov returns from his visit to the United States. President Clinton has already sent a delegation to Russia to discuss changes in this treaty. We must work closely with the Russians to make mutually acceptable changes to the ABM Treaty in order to accommodate a missile defense system. The ABM Treaty is simply too important to abandon. We also need to work with Russia to develop a joint early warning system, so that false launch alarms can be avoided. We need to strengthen the Cooperative Threat Reduction programs at the Department of Defense. We need to strengthen the Nuclear Cities programs and the Initiaitve for Proliferation Prevention program at the Department of Energy so that we can reduce the danger that nuclear material will end up on the hands of rogue nations or terrorists. Finally, we must continue to strengthen other counter-terrorism programs. It is far more likely that if terrorists use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against Americans at home or abroad, they will be delivered by conventional mathods rather than by a ballistic missile launch from another country. These threats must weigh at least equally--if not more heavily--in our defense decisions. These are very important defense decisions that go to the heart of our national security. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that we counter these threats in the most effective ways in the years ahead.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support this timely resolution and its tribute to the courage and vision of the political leaders of Northern Ireland who have given that land an extraodinary opportunity for peace. By signing the historic Good Friday Peace Agreement last April, leaders such as John Hume, David Trimble, Gerry Adams, and others launched a new era of peace and reconciliation for all the people of Northern Ireland. And I commend as well the indispensable contributions to the peace process by President Clinton, our former Senate colleague George Mitchell, Prime Minister Bertie Ahern of Ireland and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain. The goal of the peace process is to end thirty years of violence and bloodshed in Northern Ireland, reduce divisions between Unionists and Nationalists, and build new bridges of opportunity between the two communities. Through this process, they have committed themselves to finding the needle of peace in the haystack of violence--and they are finding it. When those of lesser vision urged a lesser course, the leaders in Northern Ireland acted boldly. They tirelessly dedicated themselves to the pursuit of peace, and they made difficult political choices to bring their noble vision of a peace agreement to reality. As we all know, there are still miles to go before the victory of lasting peace is finally won. But because of what they accomplished, there is better hope for the future. They have made an enormous difference, perhaps all the difference, for peace. Their achievement in the Good Friday Peace Agreement has changed the course of history for all the people in Northern Ireland. The task now facing all of us who care about this process is to build greater momentum for full implementation of the Agreement. There has been welcome recent progress. Last month, the Northern Ireland Assembly approved the designation of the Northern Ireland Departments and the group of cross-border bodies. Last week, Britain and Ireland signed historic treaties for closer ties. Prisoners have been released. The British have reduced their troop levels to the lowest point in twenty years. We are also heartened by the establishment of the Human Rights Commissions. Full implementation of the Agreement offers the best way forward and the best yardstick to judge the policies and actions of all involved. The goal of peace is best served by prompt action on the Agreement. Those who take risks for peace can be assured of timely support by President Clinton, Congress, and the American people.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Spector, Senator Wyden, Senator Schumer, and Senator Smith in introducing the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999. This bill has the support of the Department of Justice, constitutional scholars, law enforcement officials, and many organizations with a long and distinguished history of involvement in combating hate crimes, including the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Anti- Defamation League, the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the National Organization for Women Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence and The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Rights Task Force. Congress has a responsibility to act this year to deal with the festering problem of hate crimes. The silence of Congress on this basic issue has been deafening, and it is unacceptable. We must stop acting like we don't care--that somehow this fundamental issue is just a state problem. It isn't. It's a national problem, and it's an outrage that Congress has been A.W.O.L. Few crimes tear more deeply at the fabric of our society than hate crimes. These despicable acts injure the victim, the community, and the nation itself. The brutal murders in Texas, Wyoming, and most recently in Alabama have shocked the conscience of the nation. Sadly, these three crimes are only the tip of the hate crimes iceberg. We need to do more--much more--to combat them. I'm convinced that if Congress acted today, and President Clinton signed our bill tomorrow, we'd have fewer hate crimes in all the days that follow. Current federal laws are clearly inadequate. It's an embarrassment that we haven't already acted to close these glaring gaps in present law. For too long, the federal government has been forced to fight hate crimes with one hand tied behind its back. Our bill does not undermine the role of the states in investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. States will continue to take the lead. But the full power of federal law should also be available to investigate, prosecute, and punish these crimes. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999 addresses two serious deficiencies in the principal federal hate crimes statutes, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 245, which applies to hate crimes committed on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. First, the statute requires the government to prove that the defendant committed an offense not only because of the victim's race, color, religion, or national origin, but also because of the victim's participation in one of six narrowly defined ``federally protected activities'' enumerated in the statute. These activities are: (A) enrolling in or attending a public school or public college; (B) participating in or enjoying a service, program, facility or activity provided or administered by any state or local government; (C) applying for or enjoying employment; (D) serving in a state court as a grand or petit juror; (E) traveling in or using a facility of interstate commerce; and (F) enjoying the goods or services of certain places of public accommodation. Second, the statute provides no coverage for hate crimes based on the victim's sexual orientation, gender, or disability. Together, these limitations prevent the federal government from working with state and local law enforcement agencies in the investigation and prosecution of many of the most vicious hate crimes. Our legislation amends 18 U.S.C. Sec. 245 to address each of these limitations. In cases involving racial, religious, or ethnic violence, the bill prohibits the intentional infliction of bodily injury without regard to the victim's participation in one of the six ``federally protected activities''. In cases involving hate crimes based on the victim's sexual orientation, gender, or disability, the bill prohibits the intentional infliction of bodily injury whenever the act has a nexus, as defined in the bill, to interstate commerce. These provisions will permit the federal government to work in partnership with state and local officials in the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. I urge the Senate to act quickly on this important legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to bring it to a vote. I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a more detailed description of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join in this tribute to our friend and colleague, Senator Bob Kerrey. The Nation's highest award for bravery in combat is the Congressional Medal of Honor. Since its creation in 1861, 3,400 Medals of Honor have been awarded to America's bravest Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen for heroic action in battles from the Civil War to Somalia. Our colleague Bob Kerrey is one of these brave American heroes. Senator Kerrey was awarded the Medal of Honor for risking his life above and beyond the call of duty during the Vietnam War. The leadership and courage demonstrated by this young, 25-year-old SEAL team leader during intense and ferocious combat are nothing short of extraordinary. These events occurred thirty years ago this month, but the same courage and leadership can be seen everyday in his work in the United States Senate. I welcome the opportunity to commend Senator Bob Kerrey on this auspicious anniversary, and I commend him as well for his outstanding service to the Senate and to the people of Nebraska and the nation. He's a hero for our time and for all times, and I'm proud to serve with him in the Senate.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Spector, Senator Wyden, Senator Schumer, and Senator Smith in introducing the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999. This bill has the support of the Department of Justice, constitutional scholars, law enforcement officials, and many organizations with a long and distinguished history of involvement in combating hate crimes, including the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Anti- Defamation League, the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the National Organization for Women Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence and The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Rights Task Force. Congress has a responsibility to act this year to deal with the festering problem of hate crimes. The silence of Congress on this basic issue has been deafening, and it is unacceptable. We must stop acting like we don't care--that somehow this fundamental issue is just a state problem. It isn't. It's a national problem, and it's an outrage that Congress has been A.W.O.L. Few crimes tear more deeply at the fabric of our society than hate crimes. These despicable acts injure the victim, the community, and the nation itself. The brutal murders in Texas, Wyoming, and most recently in Alabama have shocked the conscience of the nation. Sadly, these three crimes are only the tip of the hate crimes iceberg. We need to do more--much more--to combat them. I'm convinced that if Congress acted today, and President Clinton signed our bill tomorrow, we'd have fewer hate crimes in all the days that follow. Current federal laws are clearly inadequate. It's an embarrassment that we haven't already acted to close these glaring gaps in present law. For too long, the federal government has been forced to fight hate crimes with one hand tied behind its back. Our bill does not undermine the role of the states in investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. States will continue to take the lead. But the full power of federal law should also be available to investigate, prosecute, and punish these crimes. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999 addresses two serious deficiencies in the principal federal hate crimes statutes, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 245, which applies to hate crimes committed on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. First, the statute requires the government to prove that the defendant committed an offense not only because of the victim's race, color, religion, or national origin, but also because of the victim's participation in one of six narrowly defined ``federally protected activities'' enumerated in the statute. These activities are: (A) enrolling in or attending a public school or public college; (B) participating in or enjoying a service, program, facility or activity provided or administered by any state or local government; (C) applying for or enjoying employment; (D) serving in a state court as a grand or petit juror; (E) traveling in or using a facility of interstate commerce; and (F) enjoying the goods or services of certain places of public accommodation. Second, the statute provides no coverage for hate crimes based on the victim's sexual orientation, gender, or disability. Together, these limitations prevent the federal government from working with state and local law enforcement agencies in the investigation and prosecution of many of the most vicious hate crimes. Our legislation amends 18 U.S.C. Sec. 245 to address each of these limitations. In cases involving racial, religious, or ethnic violence, the bill prohibits the intentional infliction of bodily injury without regard to the victim's participation in one of the six ``federally protected activities''. In cases involving hate crimes based on the victim's sexual orientation, gender, or disability, the bill prohibits the intentional infliction of bodily injury whenever the act has a nexus, as defined in the bill, to interstate commerce. These provisions will permit the federal government to work in partnership with state and local officials in the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. I urge the Senate to act quickly on this important legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to bring it to a vote. I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a more detailed description of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Is it appropriate or is it in order to ask for the yeas and nays on all of the amendments this afternoon? I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 6 minutes, Mr. President. Mr. President, in the last 3 or 4 weeks, we have heard our majority leader on three different occasions indicate that the most important issue we are going to address in the early part of this session was education. Over the period of the last 6 days, we have tried to debate a number of the ideas that we have on this side of the aisle, and certainly there ought to be the opportunity to debate amendments from the other side of the aisle as well. We have tried to do that, but have been effectively closed out from that opportunity. I would like at this time, to read a statement by Senator Patty Murray, who, because of a death in the family, will be unable to be here to make this representation in the final few minutes of consideration before we go into a series of votes--the most important being the time-sensitive issue of smaller classes for grades K through 3. This is what Senator Murray says: Mr. President, I want to express how deeply disappointed I am. The Senate had a tremendous opportunity to work together to make a tangible difference in our children's lives and their futures. But instead, Republicans have chosen the path of partisanship and division. Last October, the Senate reached a bipartisan agreement to reduce class size and improve teacher quality. Republicans and Democrats worked together to reach a compromise that is sending funds to local school districts this July. We did it because we knew it was the right thing to do. That simple fact has not changed in the last 5 months. So I am absolutely baffled about why we could not reach this agreement again. The Senate's failure to pass this amendment was irresponsible and inexcusable. The Senate Republicans have broken their promise to teachers, to parents, and worst of all, to children in the first, second, and third grades across the country. The Senate Republicans are hoping that this issue will just fade away, but the education of our children is far too important for me to allow that to happen. I will be back for as long as it takes to get them to recognize they cannot continue to stall. Until they take real steps to reduce the class size, Mr. President, the Republicans owe the children of this country an explanation. This is what we heard last fall. At that time, leading Republicans in Congress hailed the class size agreement. House Majority Leader Dick Armey said, ``We were very pleased to receive the President's request for more teachers, especially since he offered a way to pay for them,'' effectively supporting the first year of getting smaller class sizes. Republican Congressman Bill Goodling, Chairman of House Education Committee, declared that the Class Size Reduction Act was ``. . .a real victory for the Republican Congress but, more importantly, a huge win for local educators.'' Senator Slade Gorton said the same thing about the Class Size Reduction Act, representing the Republicans in negotiation on education, ``On education, there s been a genuine meeting of the minds involving the President and the Democrats and Republicans here in Congress. . . .'' Now before the Senate we have the amendment of the Senator from Washington, to fulfill that commitment--which Republicans were taking credit for 5 months ago--and we are being denied this opportunity. We will have a chance this afternoon to vote on it. This is the time, today is the day, where the U.S. Senate can go on record for smaller class sizes in grades K-3. Today--today is the day to do it. I say to my good friend from New Hampshire, all of us are very concerned about our nation's children. We, on this side, do not yield that there is anyone who is more concerned about those needy children in our local communities. The fact of the matter is that his battle is not with us--it is with the Republican leadership that supported this program 5 months ago. Special ed educators all over this country are supporting the Murray amendment. Why? Because they think you can serve special needs children in many different ways, not just in targeting money for a particular funding program, but in smaller classes. We put that in the record. So we reject this idea that we are pitting one group of children against another, which effectively is what the Republican amendments are doing. Mr. President, today in just 8 minutes we will start a series of votes. They are on amendments that can make a major difference in student achievement. They are supported by parents, local school boards, principals, and teachers all across this Nation for smaller class size, expanding after-school programs, reducing drop out rates, and ending social promotion. We have a chance on the floor of the U.S. Senate, to take votes and declare that we want action in those areas. That is what we are trying to do. We have been trying to do it for 6 days and have been denied that through parliamentary mechanisms of our Republican friends. I hope those Americans who care so deeply about those issues know how important it is to the children of this country. It is intuitive. Every parent knows if you have a child in a smaller class the child is going to do better. We have an opportunity to do something about that and I hope this afternoon we will have a strong vote in support of the Murray amendment--the children in this country deserve it. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is the Murray amendment. Senator Murray is not here today, due to a death in the family, otherwise, she would be making the presentation at this particular time. Basically, the Murray amendment builds on what was agreed to in the budget last October by providing 6 years of funding. It gives certainty to school boards all across the country that we are making a national commitment to see smaller class size in schools all across the Nation. In the President's budget, there is $11 billion that is effectively allocated for this particular purpose. It follows the pattern that was agreed to last year that states if a particular district has already achieved 18 students, they can use the funds for professional enhancement or for special needs children. That is why it has the support of the special education community. This amendment has the wholehearted support of all the school boards, of all the parent-teacher organizations, of the school teachers and local authorities across the Nation. It is a major national effort to try to get smaller class sizes. We are going to need 2 million teachers over the next 10 years. This is only going to provide 100,000, but it will make sure that they are well-qualified teachers. It will place support the early grades, which ought to be our priority. I hope it will be accepted. It also includes, Mr. President, the sense of the Senate that the budget resolution shall include an annual increase for the IDEA part B and funding so that the program can be fully funded within the next 5 years. So, we are committed to that as well. And it also says these increases shall not come at the expense of the other education programs. If you support this amendment, you are also supporting a commitment to fund the IDEA over the period of the next 5 years. I withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I made a motion to table, and I asked for the yeas and nays. It is not debatable. I asked for the yeas and nays on the motion to table. I made a motion to table, and I have asked for the yeas and nays, Mr. President.

Mr. KENNEDY. I move to table the Lott amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. This is the language: . . . to carry out effective approaches to reducing class size with highly qualified teachers to improve educational achievement of both regular and special needs children. That is defined as ``providing professional development to teachers, including special education teachers and teachers of special-needs children. . . .'' We already have it. The local school communities are committed to making their own judgment and decision. Why are we turning that all over, Mr. President, now in the final hours of this? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The special needs community supported that amendment last year. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield back our time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to make it crystal clear that I am not in favor of amending IDEA in any significant way, now or in the near future. In the last Congress, members of both the House and the Senate worked hard to bring all sides together to reauthorize IDEA. Now, Congress owes children and families across the country the most effective possible implementation of this legislation. The amendments enacted in 1997 were the product of comprehensive, bipartisan negotiations involving Congress and the Administration, with extensive public input. The final product involved compromises on many sensitive and complex issues, and it has been widely recognized as a significant improvement of this landmark legislation, to protect the rights of 6 million children to a free, appropriate public education. The Department of Education moved quickly to propose regulations, and the final regulations are expected this Friday. In many communities, schools are only just beginning to use the tools that are available to them under current law in cases where disciplinary action is warranted for a disabled student. Schools have broad power to develop and implement behavioral intervention plans for children with disabilities, and to use early intervention in ways that can avoid the need for disciplinary actions at all. The 1997 changes in the law and the implementation of the regulations under it must be given a chance to work. At this point, it is clearly premature to make substantive changes in the statute. The goal of this Congress should be to give all children the educational opportunity to pursue their goals and dreams. We should not prematurely undermine the implementation of this landmark legislation. Mr. President, for the reasons outlined earlier, we were prepared to move towards a voice vote. There is one change in terms of the IDEA regulations. There will be some IDEA regulations with regard to discipline that have been included in this amendment that are generally not objectionable. However, since it does effectively undermine the previous agreement, I hope it would not be accepted. Mr. President, I have three letters--one from the National Parent Network on Disabilities, the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, and the National Organization on Mental Retardation--from organizations that are opposed to this amendment, and I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last year we made a bipartisan agreement to support the hiring of additional teachers. We had a $500 million increase in IDEA and $1 billion increase in terms of the teachers, including special needs teachers. Communities need funds both for IDEA and smaller classes--and for other top priorities too. We can reduce class size and give children with disabilities a better education. There is no reason to choose one or the other--both are priorities and both can be met. Every local community in this country is trying to decide whether they are going to hire additional teachers within the next few weeks. If we say now we are going to accept the Lott amendment, you are emasculating this particular provision, which the local communities have been basing their judgment on, and saying, no, that isn't what you are going to do, you are going to have to come up with a new kind of a program. If we make a commitment to a local community that permitted them to hire general teachers or special needs teachers, I daresay one of the principal reasons that the special needs community supported this amendment last year was because we added that specific provision. We are saying let us, let the local communities live out the bipartisan commitment that we made to them 5 months ago. They can make that local judgment depending upon the needs of the community. How can you have greater flexibility than that--rather than overturn the whole proposal that was out there and dump this on the school committees that are all finalizing their budgets in the next few weeks? I hope that the amendment would not be accepted.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I intend to vote for the Jeffords substitute to the Ed-Flex bill today because it is a small step forward in improving the federal, state, and local partnerships in education. It helps to guarantee that accountability goes hand in hand with flexibility, and that increased flexibility will in fact lead to improved student achievement. But I'm concerned that we are not fulfilling the 7-year commitment we made only a few months ago to help communities reduce class size. It makes no sense to take a small step forward by passing Ed-Flex, and a giant step backward by breaking the class size commitment. The National Parents and Teachers Association, the American Federation of Teachers, the Council of Chief State School Officers, and the National Education Association strongly oppose the Lott Amendment, because it undermines the commitment to class size reduction that was approved with broad bipartisan support only a few months ago, and because it pits class size reduction against helping disabled children. Congress made a specific promise last fall to help schools hire 100,000 new teachers over the next seven years to reduce class size. We should keep that promise, not undermine it, and not put it in competition with IDEA. School districts can't choose to do what is right for some children and not for others. They must--and do--serve all children. They need a federal helping hand to make sure all children get a good education. We should not force communities to choose between smaller classes and students with special needs. Pitting one child against another is wrong. We should meet our commitment to improving education for all children. Nothing is more important on the calendar of schools right now than their budgets. Over the next few weeks, schools across the country will be making major decisions on their budgets for the next school year. And in many of these communities, the budgets are due by early April. In Memphis, school budgets are due on March 22. In Fayette County, Kentucky, school budgets are due on March 31. In Boston, Savannah, Las Vegas, and Houston, school budgets are due in the first week of April. In San Francisco, they are due by April 1. In Council Bluffs, Iowa, school budgets are due April 15th. In Altoona, Pennsylvania, school budgets are due in April. Communities can't do it alone. They want the federal government to be a strong partner in improving their schools--not sit on the sidelines-- and certainly not break its promises to help. The Senate should not turn its back on our promise to help communities reduce class size in the early grades. We need to act now, so that communities can plan effectively for the full seven years. No school can hire teachers one year at a time. That makes no sense. Communities want to reduce class size--and they need to be sure that Congress will do its part to help them over the long term, as we promised. I intend to vote for the final Ed-Flex bill to move this defective legislation to the next stage, where I hope we can reach a satisfactory compromise. Clearly we should not break promises to communities. We should make commitments and keep them. And I will oppose a conference report that includes any provisions to undermine our commitment to reducing class size. I will continue to work to make sure that we meet our commitments to helping communities give all children a good education. The nation's future depends on it. I want to thank the leaders, Senator Lott and Senator Daschle, for their courtesy and I want to congratulate my friend and colleague, the chairman of the committee, on his work, too. I want to thank Danica Petroshius, my education advisor, for her able assistance on this legislation and tireless work, along with Jane Oates, Dana Fiordaliso, Connie Garner, and Mark Taylor, along with my committee staff director Michael Myers. I also thank Greg Williamson of Senator Murray's staff, Suzanne Day of Senator Dodd's staff, Elyse Wasch of Senator Reed's staff, Bev Schroeder of Senator Harkin's staff, Roger Wolfson of Senator Wellstone's staff, and Lindsay Rosenberg of Senator Wyden's staff. And I also thank Sherry Kaiman, Jenny Smulson, and Susan Hattan of Senator Jeffords' staff, and Meredith Medley of Senator Frist's staff.

Mr. KENNEDY. How much time do I have?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support this resolution, and I urge the Senate to approve it. I oppose the unilateral declaration of an independent Palestinian state. Such a provocative action would violate the letter and the spirit of the peace process in the Middle East, and could well be an irreparable blow to that process. The issue of an independent state is clearly one of the most critical issues in the peace process, and just as clearly, it is an issue that must be negotiated by the parties themselves. I hope very much that Chairman Arafat will be successful in resisting the pressure he is under to take this irresponsible action. The peace process is too important, and the parties have come too far, to allow this to happen. It is very important for all of us in the United States who care about peace in the Middle East to make our views clear on this fundamental issue. I commend the Senate leadership of both parties for enabling the Senate to go on record today in strong opposition to any such unilateral declaration.