Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield, then, for a final question? The Senator is the principal sponsor of this legislation and the one who was instrumental in achieving its outcome in the fall of last year, with bipartisan support and the support of the chairman of the House committee, Congressman Goodling. As I understand it, therefore, the Senator is prepared to at least urge others to withhold further education amendments and support what Senator Daschle has said? There may be just a few amendments, but that the Senator's would certainly be one of the important ones because of the importance of the timing for local school districts, and that my colleague would agree to a reasonable time period?

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator reminds us that in the final days of the last Congress, we passed legislation that would provide local communities the opportunity to hire additional teachers so we could have smaller class sizes for the first three grades. That was worked out in a bipartisan way. As I understand, from what the Senator says, the school boards are meeting now to find out whether this was just going to be something that would be for 1 year or whether it is going to be continual? The President has indicated strong support to continue it, recognizing that we need some 2 million new teachers over the period of 10 years. He wanted to really jump-start that whole process, and do it particularly in the early grades, which all the research indicates has such enormous potential for enhancing student achievement. I was wondering whether the Senator realized that last October, when we made this agreement for the 1 year--the 1-year agreement-- Congressman Goodling, who is chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, a Republican, declared: The class size reduction was a real victory for the Republican Congress. But more importantly, it is a huge win for local educators, parents who were 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 the big new Federal education programs. So Congressman Goodling, the Republican chairman of the Committee at the time, was taking credit for a Republican victory. We considered it a victory as well. It was supported by Democrats and Republicans, and the people who were going to benefit were the children, so all of those who were involved at that particular time claimed it as a victory. Now, the good Senator's amendment takes that concept, which the Senator had championed all last year, and extends it so the local families, school boards, principals, schoolteachers, and children will know there will be a continuation in the employment of those teachers over the period of the next 5 years, so that we can make some meaningful progress in reducing the class size. Is that correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator be good enough to yield for a question?

Mr. KENNEDY. I want to thank the Senator, first of all, for her passion and common sense and experience, as a former school board member and a former teacher and a mother. She has given a good deal of time and attention to this issue. We all have enormous respect for all the work she does when she is back home visiting with these communities and talking to parents and teachers about this proposal. She had an extensive inquiry as to the importance of this proposal, to bring this matter to the Senate, and has been willing to follow a very reasonable time period for consideration of it. I just want to thank her and hope that she will be successful. I certainly will do everything I can to make sure that she is.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator be good enough to yield for a question?

Mr. KENNEDY. I want to thank the Senator for her statement and for her excellent summation of some of the challenges that are facing the children of her State, and also across this country. The Senator has spoken to the members of our Health and Education Committee about some of the challenges that exist in the rural areas of her State, particularly in terms of ensuring that those children have access to the types of technologies which are commonplace in so many of our schools--not commonplace enough, but at least are important tools for learning--and to make sure that they have teachers who are going to know how to use those technologies in ways that might be taught in those schools. I know this has been one of the special areas she has been interested in based upon her own visits to a number of the different communities across Arkansas. I want to indicate to her that we look forward to working closely with her on that issue as well as other issues. It is a matter of very significant importance. We welcome the chance, as we have talked with her about her concerns about education, to make sure that these items are given priority. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. Generally speaking, we understand from the various General Accounting Office reports that there is about $125 billion worth of needs for our schools, K through 12, to bring the buildings and facilities up to safety standards and to meet other kinds of codes. In many different communities, whether it is urban or, as the Senator pointed out, rural, there are not sufficient resources to help. Those communities can help somewhat. The State can help somewhat. But they are looking for a partner. At least I find that is true in my own State. We are going to have an opportunity to address that particular need, to try to figure out how we can best partner with the State and local communities and work with those in the rural areas as well as the urban areas. I want to give assurance to the good Senator that we want to work very closely with her as we try to work through this process. I believe we can take some important steps in this Congress in that area. We look forward to her insight and her assistance in doing so.

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, will the leader ask for 2 hours equally divided? Is that agreeable?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is now 6:10 p.m. on a Thursday evening, and we have had this Ed-Flex legislation before the Senate since yesterday. The Ed-Flex proposal would permit States and local communities to have greater flexibility with accountability for scarce resources that are provided by the Federal Government--in this case, the Title I program, which is about $8 billion that focuses on the neediest children in this country. There was an effort to give greater flexibility to the local communities, consistent with the purpose of the legislation, to try to have a more positive impact in the achievement of the children in this country. This legislation was thought to have been a part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We were going to have an opportunity to consider those measures together, but it was a decision of the majority of the committee to vote that out as an early piece of legislation. I voted in favor of that process and procedure. And then there was the indication by the Majority Leader that this measure would be before the Senate at an early time in this session. We had legislation last week to address the very important, critical and legitimate needs of our service men and women, to try to give them a fair increase in their pay--particularly those individuals who are serving in harm's way in many different parts of the world, but generally for the armed services of this country, in order to make up for the failure to do so at other times. We had a good debate on that, and it was voted on. We had 26 different amendments that were advanced during that period of time, some of which were accepted and some of which we voted on. But we came to a conclusion on that particular measure. So we started the debate on Ed-Flex. I don't think most of those American families who are watching now would really understand exactly what Ed-Flex is really all about. Nonetheless, it might very well provide some benefit to some young people in this country, and we were going to move ahead with it. I think most parents would understand if their children were in a classroom where there were fewer children in the class and a well-qualified teacher was interacting with that child and the 17 or 18 other children in that particular classroom, rather than the 30, 32, or 33 children in many classrooms across this country. I think parents would understand the advantages of moving toward smaller classes. I think the overwhelming majority of Americans would favor that action, and we have an excellent proposal to do that, which was accepted by Republicans and Democrats in the final hours of the session last year prior to the election. And now we have many of those communities that are asking, ``Well, should we just hire a teacher if we are only going to have a teacher for 1 year? Let us know, Congress of the United States. You didn't do the whole job last year in authorizing it for the complete 6 years. Let us know whether you are going to make the judgment and decision, as recommended by the President, that we ought to have the full 6 years.'' The President of the United States, in his budget, has allocated resources to be able to do that. The communities want to know. Senator Murray has an excellent amendment to deal with that issue. I don't know about my other colleagues, but I know that in my own State of Massachusetts, communities want to have an answer to that particular question. And we are prepared to move ahead with that debate. We are prepared to have a full discussion on the floor of the U.S. Senate. We were prepared to do that yesterday. We are prepared to do it tonight. We are prepared to do it tomorrow or Monday, or at any time. It is of critical importance, and it is the kind of business that we should be dealing with in terms of education. Families can understand smaller class size. Families can understand, as well, the importance of the development of afterschool programs. I referred, earlier in the debate, to the excellent review that has been made by independent reviewers on the value of the Title I programs, and there were a number of recommendations in there. They noted that we have made some important progress in the past few years in targeting the Title I programs more precisely, as we did in the last reauthorization legislation. But we also know of the importance of the afterschool programs. I will mention this report, the evaluation of promising results, continuing challenges, of the national assessment. This is about Title I from the Department of Education, 1999, and was just released. One of the findings shows that in a recent study of elementary schools in Maryland, the most successful schools were seeing consistent academic gains as a result of extended-day programs. Afterschool programs are extended-day programs. And there are others, such as programs that extend into the weekend and summer programs that continue the education during the summer months. There are a number of different ways that local communities have been implementing afterschool programs. Last year, we had some $40 million in appropriations for afterschool programs, and there were $500 million worth of applications for those programs coming from local communities. The President has raised his appropriation up to $600 million to reach out to one million children in the country and provide afterschool programs. We have an excellent amendment by our friend and colleague from California, Senator Boxer, and also one from Senator Dodd in that particular area--one would be based upon the schools, and the other would be based upon nonprofits. They are somewhat different approaches, but I think they both have very substantial merit. Nonetheless, Mr. President, we have the opportunity to vote and debate on a measure that will make a real difference in terms of families' lives for extended-day programs. That will make a difference. It will improve quality education and student achievement. We were prepared to move ahead with that particular debate. But that, evidently, will not be the case. We had a good opportunity and a good record to explore and to engage those that would differ with us. We have the amendment that our colleagues are familiar with that was advanced by Senator Bingaman, Reid and others, that brought special focus and attention on the problems of school dropouts. Sure, we have a lot of dropout programs. But this program was very innovative in terms of the evaluation of that, and was successful in implementing a program that can make a difference. I commend those Senators for the work they have done on it. In the past, that amendment was accepted overwhelmingly by this body. That could make a difference to children that are in school now, today and tomorrow. We were prepared to debate that program, but we have been unable to bring that to resolution. As the good Senator, Senator Bingaman, pointed out, some 500,000 children drop out of school before graduating from high school each year. There are important reasons for that. There have been successful programs to try to correct that. But this was a worthwhile effort to bring the authorization of funding for that particular program. My colleague and friend from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, had a modest program to provide additional help, assistance and training to principals to help them deal with some of the more complex issues that they face. And that is a very, very worthwhile amendment. Our good friend from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, and others had a program to have a report card on various schools so that parents would have better information about how the schools were doing. There were others, but not many others. I haven't gotten the complete list at this time, but there are a few others. But on each and every one of those, Senator Daschle was prepared to recommend to all of us that we move ahead with short time limitations. As far as I was concerned, we would have been able, at least from our side, to have concluded the consideration this measure by Tuesday of next week. We were glad to try to accommodate the interests of the majority in working out the time limits of these particular measures, and even the order of them. We assume that there may be amendments to be offered by the other side, including the very important amendment that was brought to our attention with regards to IDEA and children with special needs. That amendment would provide additional help and assistance to local communities, through IDEA, to offset some of the serious financial burdens of educating of children with special needs. We have an important responsibility to children with special needs, and the States have an obligation under their own constitutions to educate every child. We did make the commitment back in 1975 that we would establish a goal of 40 percent federal funding, and we have failed to do so. I believe very strongly that we should support those programs, particularly in light of yesterday's Supreme Court decision that will permit children with special needs to continue their education. It will be supported by the local communities as well. That will add some certainty for those children, so they will be able to continue their education. That is the most important and significant aspect of the program. But there will be some additional financial responsibilities. This is an area of national concern, because all of us understand that our participation in the education process is limited and targeted to special priorities. We have made disadvantaged children and the neediest children in our country a priority. Certainly those with special needs ought to be a national priority as well. We ought to be willing to help children, regardless of what community they live in, and regardless of what their needs may be. Mr. President, these are some of the items that we are talking about. I think most families in our country could make up their mind pretty easily about the kind of priorities that we should be considering. I think the overwhelming majority of Americans would feel support for the programs I have begun to outline. Let me point out that they are very modest and important programs, with demonstrated effectiveness. Certainly we are able to do so and support those programs. Many of them, as I mentioned earlier, have already been targeted for support by the President in his budget-- financial support has been there. Mr. President, we find ourselves in the situation on Thursday evening where effectively by the rules of the Senate are not going to be debating these issues tomorrow, we will not be debating these issues on Monday, and at 5 o'clock the Senate will vote whether or not we are going to exclude all possibility of considering those amendments on this particular measure. We will not spend the time tomorrow, which we certainly could, in debating and considering these issues. We will not do it on Monday. And we will delay the eventual outcome of consideration of these measures to a future day. We heard earlier today, around noontime, that those that are supporting the measure of Senator Bingaman were actually filibustering the legislation. This is after a day and a half of considering the amendments to the Ed-Flex legislation. We had indicated at that time that we were prepared to accept--at least Senator Bingaman was--the amendment and move ahead. It reminds me of where we were at the end of the last session where we were effectively denied any opportunity to bring up the patients' bill of rights, which American families were so strongly in support of. We were denied the opportunity for fair consideration and debate on it. We were denied the opportunity to consider an increase in the minimum wage for working families in spite of the extraordinary progress that we have had--economic prosperity which so many have participated in, but not those at the lowest end of the economic ladder. We were prepared to refute the case that a modest increase in the minimum wage is going to mean lost jobs or is going to add to the inflation in this country, ridiculous claims by those that were trying to stop any increase in the minimum wage. We will have an opportunity to consider a minimum wage increase. I must say that the responses that Speaker Hastert has given on the consideration of the minimum wage has given us some reason to hope that we will have an opportunity to debate and to act on increasing the minimum wage. But we were denied that chance in the last Congress, as we were denied the opportunity to act on a patients' bill of rights. Some of us have come to the conclusion that the only way we can get a vote is if we offer an amendment that the majority agrees with. That seems to be the rule. We are denied the opportunity on this side to bring these matters up and have a full debate. I quite frankly don't understand why this should be so. The American people want action in the field of education. I believe they want partnership--a Federal partnership with the State and with the local communities. They understand the primacy of the local control on education, and they understand the importance of State help and assistance to many different communities. And they value the limited but important targeting that is given by some of the Federal programs. But they want to have the participation of all of us in a partnership to try to help families. They have heard the various philosophical and ideological debates. They want action. They want well-qualified teachers in every classroom. They want classrooms where children can learn. They want to make sure they are going to have the kinds of technology in those classrooms which will permit children going to public school to compete with any young person going to school in any part of the country. They want their teachers' skills upgraded so they can integrate those skills into the curriculum with additional training. They want afterschool programs, because they know that it makes a difference to give a child the opportunity to get some extra help in the course of the afternoon--maybe getting their homework done instead of watching television or engaging in other kinds of unhealthy behavior--so when the parents return home, the child can spend some quality time with those parents and the parents don't have to say, ``You have been watching television all afternoon. Get upstairs and get your homework done.'' These are issues about which families care very deeply. Sure, we have a full agenda on many matters--on Social Security, but Social Security reform is not ready for debate; on issues dealing with Medicare, but Medicare is not ready for Senate consideration either. Sure, we have important responsibilities in trying to get a Patients' Bill of Rights, but we are attempting to work that out through the committee process and hopefully will have an opportunity to address that in the next several weeks. Yes, we have important responsibilities in protecting the privacy of individuals regarding to medical records, but that legislation is not ready to be considered. I really challenge the leadership on the other side to indicate to the Members what is on the possible agenda here that is more important for our attention, effort and debate than the issue of the education of the young people of this country. There is nothing. That is why this course of action, of effectively denying the debate and for the Senate to work its will in these very important areas, is so unacceptable-- unacceptable. We want to make sure that those families understand. You might be able, although I don't think they will be able, to have cloture, in effect denying Members the opportunity to consider those particular amendments on Monday. But you are not going to make this battle go away, because those amendments are going to be offered on other pieces of legislation--they make too much of a difference to families. They are not going to go away. It is the early part of this session. We are not in the final hours when you are able to jimmy the rules in order to deny the opportunity for people to bring these matters up. You cannot do that now. We are going to insist that we have this debate and discussion, and have the Senate work its will. I thank our colleagues today who have been willing to participate in this effort and have spent close to 3 hours or so in quorum calls during the course of the day when we could have been debating these issues. I hope we will not hear anymore from the other side about filibustering by amendment, because there are too many who have waited too long to try to at least get a result here in the U.S. Senate on some of these issues. I know, finally, that it is painful, evidently, for some of our colleagues to vote on some of these matters. We heard a lot of that this afternoon, ``We don't want to vote on it. It is painful to vote on them.'' That is, unfortunately, what this business is about. It is about choices and priorities, to a great extent. We have every intention of pursuing these issues. We are not going to be denied. I believe we will not have cloture on Monday. It will be up to them, then, whether we are to deal with these issues in the timely and reasonable way which we are prepared to do. But if that is not the case, I just want to make certain everyone in here knows--I know this from speaking to our colleagues who have worked so hard in so many of these different areas--that we are going to be quite prepared to advance these frequently, on each and every opportunity that will present itself. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. I accept that definition. I have not been described in that way, but I am glad to be described in that way. I thank the good Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask consent to proceed in morning business.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that Connie Garner, Mark Taylor, and David Goldberg, legislative fellows in my office, be granted floor privileges during the consideration of the bill.

Mr. KENNEDY. We have this bill up now. The Senator has offered the amendment. In behalf of this side, we are prepared to accept it right now. Mr. President, we are prepared to vote.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, perhaps the good Senator didn't hear me. We are prepared to accept the amendment. So if there is no other speaker on it, we are prepared to vote on the amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I intend to support this amendment. Now that we have the time to get to the crux of education policy, I welcome this opportunity. The manager of the bill has now advanced this issue in terms of the debate and discussion, and I hope we will move beyond the question of whether we are just going to deal with Ed-Flex, because the manager himself has offered this particular amendment. Mr. President, I joined with those back in 1975 to make a commitment in terms of trying to address the problems of supporting those children in our schools that have special needs. Four million disabled children did not receive the help that they need to be successful in schools. Few disabled preschoolers receive services. One million disabled children were excluded from public schools. Children in this country, prior to the 1975 Act, were basically shunted aside in institutions and did not participate in the education system of this country. In 1975 we passed legislation to provide help and assistance. We set in the 1975 Act the level of a 40-percent goal for funding to help and assist the local communities. I daresay I had thought we might have the opportunity in the wake of the Garrett decision yesterday to have an opportunity to debate and discuss how we were going to be able to help and assist a number of local communities now that will have to provide additional help and assistance to the special needs children. That ought to be a matter of priority. That ought to be a matter of debate. It ought to be a matter of allocating resources to help and assist local communities. In many instances, we are finding across America that the needs of special needs children are being placed against the needs of educating the broader constituency, so we are pitting children against children. What we ought to try and do is deal with both of these particular issues. I am for allocations of resources that move us closer and closer to the level of some 40 percent, which was set as a goal for us in the 1975 Act. Let us not lose the fact that under the constitution of every State there is a commitment to educate children in their States. Sometimes they forget this, but they have a solemn responsibility. I don't know a single State that doesn't have that particular requirement. This is going to be something that we will have to work out with the various States and we will have to work this out with the local communities, but if the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from New Hampshire and others want to say they want to find additional resources in meeting the needs of special children, put me on that particular piece of legislation, too, because I am all for it. I am all for it--not at the expense of these other children. No serious educator would put it at the expense of other children. If we have better trained teachers in smaller classrooms, we will identify more easily those children that have special needs. If we have smaller class size, we will know which child needs the special attention. If we have better trained teachers, the better trained teachers will understand which of the children should be involved in special need programs and which should not. With achievement in reading programs and literacy programs, we may very well help children at the early ages not be qualified in terms of special needs, because they will be advanced and their academic achievement may very well be enhanced. If we do the kind of things that the Senator from Ohio just pointed out, more and more targeted resources in terms of the children in terms of Head Start will be enormously important. We reauthorized Head Start last year. We expanded the Early Start children up to 12.5 percent in that Head Start program, but we are still not doing enough. The Senator from Ohio points out that it is an admirable effort. In the State of Ohio they have gone ahead, evidently, and provided the difference between what is provided by the Federal Government and funds provided by the State in order to make sure that every child who is eligible in Ohio is going to qualify for Head Start. We are only reaching about 40 percent of the children across the country. By that early type of intervention, we will find out what can be done in terms of special needs children. The bottom line is every educator knows if you have a smaller class size, better trained teachers involved in afterschool programs--all of these help and assist both to make the total numbers of children that might need the kind of special needs less; and, second, to identify those that truly need that help and assistance. So there may be those that want to try and pit the special needs children against other children, but I hope that would not be what the U.S. Senate is about. Parents understand this; schoolteachers understand it. What we are basically understanding is that is the proper way to go. We can understand a legitimate effort to try and address the question of the school dropouts, which is a very important and significant national need, a modest amendment that had been considered by the Senate, passed overwhelmingly with bipartisan support last year. This isn't something new. The amendment of the Senators from New Mexico and Nevada, quite frankly, have more legitimacy to be considered on the floor of the U.S. Senate than the Ed-Flex bill, because we have already considered and passed it. Even so, it is fine if we put that on. It certainly will help strengthen the Ed-Flex bill. However, now we have the parliamentary games to try, instead of permitting a thoughtful legitimate amendment that has been considered to be debated and finally voted on, to effectively try to emasculate that amendment with the second degree. I want to give assurances to those on that side that we understand; we have been here a certain period of time as well. We are glad to spend as much time as our friends and colleagues want in debating education. The longer the better. But we are going to make sure that we are going to have a vote up and down on their amendment. This bill will not pass without a vote up and down. We can do it either nicely or whatever way they want to do it. We have that opportunity. We have that right to do it. Privileges of the Floor

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I will include my good staffer. Connie has been working some 20 years, as well, on these. I agree with the Senator that they have just provided invaluable service. And for all those that work here, I hope they do recognize and get the sense of satisfaction, professional satisfaction, from really making the important difference in people's lives. That will certainly be true of all of the staff that worked on this legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I listened to our friend and colleague from New Hampshire speak about the education budget and about the expenditures in the areas of education. I just want to review here, in this time, for a few moments, exactly what has been the record of our Republican friends in the House and Senate, and the administration, over the period since 1994 when the Republicans took over the leadership in the Congress. After 1994, on March 16, 1995, one of the first acts of the new Republican House of Representatives was to ask for a $1.7 billion rescission on all education programs below what was enacted in the appropriations the year before. That is an extensive rescission, no matter how you cut it. This is in all the education programs of 1994. They asked to cut back $1.7 billion. The final rescission bill that passed on July 27, 1995, was $600 million below 1995. So, as we are looking over, now, and listening to who is interested in education, I hope our colleagues will at least give some attention, when they are reviewing the record, as to who has been interested and who has been committed, judging by the allocation of resources. Resources themselves do not solve the problems of education, but they are a pretty good indication of a nation's priorities. What we had as the first order of business in 1995 in the House rescission bill was to move ahead with a major cut of $1.7 billion for the appropriations the year before. Now, in the first full funding cycle, the 1996 House Appropriations, in August of 1995, cut $3.9 billion below 1996. Then the continuing resolution ended up at $3.1 billion below 1996. This was at a time when we had the memorable shutdown of the Government. The President said, That is too much, you will be cutting the heart out of many of these education programs. That was one of the principal reasons he went toe-to-toe with the Congress, because of those dramatic cuts in the area of education. Finally, there was a continuing resolution after the Senate adopted a Specter-Harkin amendment to restore $2.7 billion. We saw a bottom line $400 million below fiscal year 1996. In 1997, the Senate bill was $3.1 billion below the President's. This is rather extraordinary to me, that Members on the other side can stand up and talk and criticize the President on appropriations when you have this kind of record to defend--$3.1 billion below the President's. My good friend from New Hampshire ought to be talking to the Republican appropriators. Mr. President, $3.1 billion below what the President asked for, that was the Senate bill. The final agreement, after extensive negotiation thankfully moved the appropriation up, was to $3.5 billion above what the President asked for; as a result of the administration's position, a $6 billion swing in education funding. Then, in 1998, both the House and Senate bills were $200 million below the President's. Again, after tough negotiation the final agreement was $3.4 billion above, over 1997. Mr. President, these are fairly significant figures. All of us are concerned about education policy. I know my friend and colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, has long stood for making sure that we, as a country, and as a matter of principle, focus on and provide greater support for education as a national priority, so I appreciate his commitment, his position in these decisions. But we have to look at the bottom line. Coming into 1999, fiscal year 1999, they are still cutting below the President's investment. The House bill, in June of 1998, which was for the fiscal year 1999, was $2 billion below the President's; the final agreement was $3.6 billion over 1998. This is the record. Year after year after year those appropriations committees, which are effectively controlled by the Republican leadership, have consistently underfunded education. So it does not come, I don't think, with good grace, to suggest that somehow we have an administration or President who is not strongly committed--whether it has been to the special needs children or all the children in this country. We all are mindful that even with these kinds of appropriations we only are spending probably 4 cents out of every dollar, maybe 5 cents out of every dollar, in education. You get 2 more cents for the food program, so the total considered to be the moneys that are spent locally, about 6 cents, is the Federal funding. But 2 cents of that has to do with nutrition. We are talking about 4 cents. This is a major item, obviously, the title I program, but there is also some in excess of $4 billion in special needs. The Head Start programs and others are certainly enormously important, and they can certainly use additional resources. Federal education funding rose from $23 billion in 1996 to $33.5 billion in 1999, an increase of $10.5 billion, or 46 percent. That is a pretty good indication of at least this President's priorities in the education area. So, we hope when we come back here at 2:15 we will move ahead and accept this. We are, I believe, on this side, strongly committed to trying to find every scarce dollar resource to fund these education programs. As I mentioned, with the Supreme Court holding of yesterday, we do have, I think, additional kinds of responsibilities. It was that aspect of the statement of the Senator from New Hampshire with which I agree. With that holding, there will be additional kinds of demands on local communities. I do think we ought to try to find additional resources on that particular measure, and we will certainly work with all in this body to see what can be done to gain those resources and support. I yield.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I think this is perhaps in some respects the most notable thing that we will achieve today. As important as this is, with the reporting out of that particular bill, which is really, as the Senator has pointed out, the Americans with Disabilities Act, we effectively attempted to eliminate discrimination against those that had disability. It was enormously important, and we made extraordinary success. But to really breathe life into that legislation, you have to make sure that not only is the individual not going to be discriminated against in getting the job, but that they are also not going to have these barriers placed in front of them in holding the job which were there in terms of their elimination of their health care support and any other kinds of support services. That was the purpose of this legislation that was reported out with very strong bipartisan support. We look forward, hopefully, to being able to act on that at an early time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, will the Senator join me in indicating to the Senate the excellent results of the Senate Finance Committee this morning on legislation which the Senator from Vermont and I have worked on closely with Senator Roth and Senator Moynihan. There was a very positive bipartisan result, as I understand, 16 to 2, and although it is not directly related to education, it is directly related to the issue of employment of the disabled. Perhaps the good Senator would want to indicate to the membership the success of the Finance Committee in reporting that out.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will put in the Record the actual funding levels, in terms of the IDEA. In 1995, it was $3.2 billion; in 1996, it was $3.2 billion; in 1997, it was $4 billion. They are numbers that have to be rounded out--$4.35 billion. In 1998, it is $4.5 billion. And in 1999, it is $5 billion; the current is $5.54 billion, and the President's request was for $5.106 billion. The total increase from 1995 to the present is, therefore, an increase from $3.2 to $5.54 billion. That is a significant increase. I say to our colleagues, much of that was attributed to our Republican friends who made it a priority. Quite frankly, we joined in that effort; I think the record would reflect that. I will say, though, that we were able to see that kind of increase while we were also able to see an increase in the other programs as well. It wasn't an either/or position. That is what I hope will result this afternoon, after we have had a good discussion and debate. We are strongly committed on this side to finding additional resources for the funding of that program. We will work with our committee chair to see how this last Supreme Court decision is going to impact local communities. I think that is enormously important. We are committing ourselves at this time, the day after that decision, to work closely, because we do think that there are going to be some very important additional burdens on local communities with that decision about the scope of the ADA, including educational and health support. I think there is going to be a call for additional help and assistance. We will certainly work with the chair to try and deal with that. I have had the chance to talk with a leader on our side, Senator Harkin, who has been such a leader on so many of these issues affecting the disabled. He is in strong support of trying to find ways to help and assist local communities as well. I am sure we will be addressing this probably later in the day. I wanted at this time to make sure that our membership understood with that decision we are going to look forward to working in a cooperative way with the chair of the committee.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's an honor for me to join in this tribute to a wonderful friend and outstanding colleague, Congressman Mo Udall. He served the people of Arizona with extraordinary distinction and he was a dear friend to all of us in the Kennedy family. Mo came from a remarkable family with a long and respected history in politics and public service. His grandfather led a wagon train of settlers into the territory in the 1880's. His father served as chief justice of New Mexico's State Supreme Court. His brother, Steward Udall, served with President Kennedy in Congress, and my brother respected his ability so much that he appointed him to serve as secretary of Interior in the years of the New Frontier. Today, Mo's son, Mark, and his nephew, Tom, are carrying on the great Udall tradition of public service as newly elected member of the House of Representatives. So the Chambers of Congress ring once again with the respected Udall name. Mo came to Congress a year before I did, and under similar circumstances. He was elected in 1961 to fill the seat vacated when his brother Stewart became Secretary of the Interior. Every working man and woman in America owes a debt of gratitude to Mo for his many years of distinguished public service. His brilliant leadership on important environmental issues, campaign financing, and reform of the House of Representatives itself endeared him to all of us who knew him, and to millions who benefited from his extraordinary achievements. On many issues, he was far ahead of his time, and his courage in tackling difficult challenges in a Congressional career of thirty brilliant years was admired by us all. President Kennedy would have called him a profile in courage, and so do I. As Chairman of the Interior Committee, Mo was ``Mr. Environment'' in the Congress, urging the nation to deal more effectively with the increasingly urgent environmental challenges we faced. He worked hard to designate millions of acres of federal lands as wilderness, and to enact landmark legislation to regulate the strip mining industry and manage nuclear waste. Mo was at the forefront of efforts year after year to protect the environment, expand the country's national parks, promote land-use planning and restructure the energy industry. It came as no surprise when the National Wildlife Federation named Mo as its legislator of the year as early as 1973. Under Mo's leadership, Congress passed the nation's first campaign finance reform legislation in 1971. That landmark disclosure law, which required federal candidates to file detailed public reports of their financing, remains one of the most important aspects of election reform as we know it today. As a member of the Post Office and Civil Service Committee, Mo led battles to improve pay scales for federal employees, institute a system of merit pay, and reform and strengthen the entire Post Office Department. Mo's leadership was equally pre-eminent on many other issues. Somehow, for thirty years, whenever you probed to the heart of a major battle, you always found Mo Udall championing the rights of citizens against special interest pressure, defending the highest ideals of America, and always doing it with the special grace and wit that were his trademark and that endeared him to Democrats and Republicans alike. I think particularly of his influential role in ending the Vietnam war. Mo Udall was one of the first members of Congress in the 1960's to break with the Administration and oppose the war. Because of Mo, we were able to end the war more quickly. I also think of his early battles to reform the seniority system and to make the Congress more responsive to the people we serve. In carrying forward these efforts today, we continue to follow the paths he blazed so well throughout his remarkable career. Above all, I think of the extraordinary courage he displayed in his latter years, battling the cruel disease that finally led to his resignation from the Congress, in 1991, thirty years almost to the very day since he arrived in the House. in his final battle, as in so many other battles, Mo won the respect and admiration and affection of us all. And through it all, Mo charmed friend and foe alike with his extraordinary sense of humor. Mo came from a small town named St. Johns in Arizona, and he loved to tell people that he knew something about small towns. As he said, ``I was in fifth grade before I learned the town's name wasn't `Resume Speed.' '' He was also the master of the self-deprecating joke. He often told the story of his visit to New Hampshire during the presidential primaries in his 1976 campaign. At one stop, his advance woman urged him to shake a few hands in a nearby barber shop. So he stuck his head in the door and said, ``I'm Mo Udall, and I'm running for President!'' The barber replied, ``Yes, I know. We were just laughing about that this morning.'' His brilliant wit could ease even the tensest moments and bring people together. When Mo Udall laughed, Congress and the nation laughed with him, and then went on to do the nation's business more effectively. I have many warm memories of the years that Mo and I served together in Congress. In so many ways, Mo was a Congressman for all seasons. He served the people of Arizona and America long and well. We miss his statesmanship, and we miss his friendship too. We miss you, Mo, and we always will.

Mr. KENNEDY

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