Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Connie Garner, who is a legislative fellow, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the workforce bill.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in congratulating the people of Israel on the 50th anniversary of their independence. Fifty years ago, Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, declared the establishment of the State of Israel, ending a centuries- old struggle by the Jewish people to return to their rightful ancestral homeland. The modern dream of a Jewish state had been reborn over 50 years earlier, when Theodore Herzl shared his vision of such a nation during the First World Zionist Conference in Switzerland. Our predecessors in the U.S. Congress supported this vision when they passed a resolution in 1922, calling for the founding of a Jewish nation. Tragically, the Jewish people were unable to achieve that great goal during the early years of the modern Zionist movement. They were forced to endure the most brutal and systematic repression of a people that humanity has ever witnessed. The six million Jewish men, women, and children who lost their lives during the Holocaust had committed no crime. They were killed, not because of anything they had done, but because of who they were, as part of an inhuman, racist policy that robbed its victims of both life and dignity. The extraordinary courage with which the Jewish people bore this tragedy is a timeless tribute to their enduring faith, and we owe the victims and the survivors a commitment that such persecution and prejudice will never occur again. From its beginning 50 years ago, the nation of Israel has had a very close and special relationship with the United States. In a perennially turbulent and unpredictable region of the world, Israel has always been a bulwark of stability. It is our closest ally not only in the Middle East, but also in the United Nations. And during times of crisis and conflict in the region, this bond has only been strengthened. It was no coincidence that America was chosen as the site for the historic Declaration of Principles agreement between the Israeli and the Palestinian people in 1993, since we have always worked with great dedication and commitment to achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East. The Israeli people know that we will continue to work with them and support them during this long and difficult peace process. No other ethnic or religious group in human history had endured so much pain and prejudice and overcome so many enormous difficulties in establishing a nation of their own. No other new nation faced so great a threat to its immediate survival as did Israel during its first year of existence. They have created a thriving democracy in a region known for its dictatorships. They have generously opened their land to Jews from all over the world. As we celebrate this inspiring Golden Anniversary of the birth of Israel, we also honor and commend the Israeli people for their courage and commitment in achieving their dream of a homeland and in building the strong and vital democracy and friend that Israel is today.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to include the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary. The inclusion of these three countries will alter the Alliance, but the benefits clearly make this expansion both timely and worthwhile. In 1949, if the founders of NATO had been asked to predict where the alliance would be five decades later, few if any could have foreseen a more extraordinary success. The NATO nations stood firmly together as the great bulwark against communism during the Cold War. NATO is, without doubt, the most successful security alliance in history. The original purpose of NATO was to protect the West against the former Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact nations. Now, even though the Cold War is over, NATO continues to be essential. It makes sense to adopt this modest expansion of the Alliance beyond its Cold War borders to include three nations which were once part of the Warsaw Pact. The greatest threats to European security are now the long-standing ethnic conflicts that have simmered inside many of these nations for centuries. Two world wars in this century began in Central Europe. Extension of NATO's security umbrella to these three additional nations will place them in a part of Europe where wars no longer happen. Obviously, there are concerns about the expansion of NATO that Congress and the country must be sensitive to--especially the potential impact of this expansion on our relationship with Russia. We have rightly spent much of the past decade and billions of U.S. taxpayers' dollars in working with Russia to achieve nuclear arms reductions and to help Russia safeguard its nuclear arsenal and its nuclear materials. Russian cooperation with the U.S. under the Comprehensive Threat Reduction Program and our bilateral nuclear arms reduction treaties with Russia have substantially reduced the chance of nuclear war. In my view, anything that would disrupt or harm this vital progress would be a fateful error. Many of Russia's leaders do not support NATO's invitation to Poland, Hungary or the Czech Republic. But the addition of these countries to NATO poses no threat to Russia. I commend President Clinton for his effective leadership in making this point clear. We must continue to work to assure President Yeltsin and other Russian leaders that the expansion of NATO is not a danger to their country or their security. We must do all we can to address Russia's concerns and increase our cooperation in all key areas with Russia to ensure that our goal of a more secure future is achieved. We must also deal with the concerns over costs, especially the costs that Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic will have to bear to upgrade their military forces to NATO standards. These costs will inevitably have to compete with pressing domestic needs in those countries. Together, these three nations will have to spend as much as $14 billion over the next 10 years to meet NATO standards. These costs are the responsibility of these prospective new members. They committed to pay these costs when they asked to become members of NATO. The U.S. already pays 25% of NATO's commonly-funded expenses. NATO expansion should not impose costly new burdens on U.S. taxpayers. Nevertheless, these countries are on the right track, and so is NATO. This expansion of NATO is amply justified. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic will strengthen NATO. They are solid democracies, and they will make our alliance for peace even stronger. Their rightful place is in NATO, and I urge the Senate to support this Resolution of Ratification.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Republican approach these days often seems to be ``one ideology fits all.'' They want to privatize everything. They want to privatize Social Security, they want to privatize Medicare, and now they want to privatize education, and that would be their biggest mistake of all. People ask why this bill is so important and why this debate has been so hard-fought. The answer is clear. This is not just another ordinary bill, or ordinary day, or ordinary vote in the life of the Senate. The Republican Party is making a massive mistake, a mistake of truly historic dimensions, if they turn their backs on public schools, if that is the clear signal they are sending the country by pushing this misguided bill, because its fundamental purpose is to aid private schools, not help public schools. We all know that public schools have problems, but our goal should be to fix those problems, not ignore them or make them worse. Over the past few days, the Senate has had the opportunity to correct the defects in this bill and direct scarce resources to the public schools that have the greatest need. But at every turn Republicans have chosen to make this bad bill even worse. The bill uses tax breaks to subsidize parents who send their children to private schools, and it is a serious mistake. It diverts scarce resources away from public schools that have the greatest need. It undermines the important Federal role in education, and it bans voluntary national tests. It does nothing to improve public schools. It does nothing to address the serious need of public schools to build new facilities and to repair crumbling existing facilities. It does nothing to reduce class sizes in schools. It does nothing to provide qualified teachers in more classrooms across the Nation that will be needed. It does nothing to provide after-school activities to keep kids off the streets, away from drugs, and out of trouble. It does nothing to help children reach high academic standards. It does nothing to improve the quality of education for children in public schools. On issue after issue, the Republican bill undermines Federal support for education, and that is irresponsible. We know what it takes to achieve genuine education reform. The place to start is by resoundingly rejecting this defective bill that destroys the national commitment to improving education for all students. The challenge is clear: We must do all we can to improve teaching and learning for all students across the Nation. We must continue to support efforts to raise academic standards. We must test students early so we know where they need help in time to make that help effective. We need better training for current and new teachers so that they are well-prepared to teach to high standards. We must reduce class size to help students obtain the individual attention they need. We need after-school programs to make constructive alternatives available to students. We need greater resources to modernize and expand school facilities to meet the urgent need of schools for modern technology and up-to-date classrooms. We cannot stand by and enact a regressive bill to help private schools at the expense of public schools. It is clear that our Republican friends are no friends of public schools. This Republican anti-education tax bill is wrong for education, it is wrong for America, and it is wrong for the Nation's future. Public education is one of the all-time great achievements of our country. Education is the key that unlocks the golden door of opportunity. Great leaders of a century and more ago understood that. They understood what may be the greatest experiment of all in American democracy. They insisted on free public education for all, and in doing so they laid the solid foundation that made this country the most powerful and most successful nation on earth in this century. None of us--no Republican, no Democrat--should retreat from that basic bedrock principle. Yet, this unacceptable bill does that. It hangs a sign for all to see on the front door of every public school in America: Abandon hope, all ye who enter here. Get out while you can, public schools have failed. Find a private school that will take you in and we will subsidize the cost. I categorically reject that view. Public schools have not failed. Public schools are still the backbone of American education, and they always will be. Let's solve their problems, not abandon them. Let's defeat this bill and make a fresh start to do all we can to help our public schools. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will just take one moment. I hope we can move forward. We may have a number of differences--probably will-- in the conference, but this is an area where we really ought to try to get the best ideas that all of our Members have and then move it forward. I look forward to working with the Senator from Georgia on that. I know I speak for all of the Members on our side on the Labor and Human Resources Committee. No matter how the underlying legislation comes out, I will look forward to working with the Senator from Georgia and others to make sure that we are going to get an effective bill. I am prepared to yield back the remaining time that I have.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am not sure that I qualify for being in opposition because I will urge our colleagues to support this amendment. I want to commend the Senator for giving some focus and attention on the floor of the Senate to the issues of literacy and literacy training. On next Tuesday in our Human Resources Committee, Senator Jeffords will be having a hearing on our literacy legislation. It is his hope and certainly all of ours in the committee that we will pass out a strong, bipartisan proposal that will incorporate a number of the ideas that are included in the Coverdell amendment and a number of the ideas that have been included in President Clinton's literacy proposal of a little over a year ago. As we all know, now that the President has asked the colleges of this country in the work-study program for those young people to devote time for literacy training, I take pride that our Massachusetts colleges are No. 2, with California being No. 1, in the number of colleges where the young people who are benefiting from the work-study program are actually involved in tutorial work. We have tried to get every one of the colleges in our State--there are 126--to be involved in that tutorial work. I think, the fact that this afternoon we are focusing on the issue of literacy, hopefully we will pave the way for a bipartisan effort and for an outcome that will result in our ability to utilize the $250 million which have been designated for literacy training as a part of the budget of last year and was worked out in a bipartisan way. We may have had differences on the number of the education issues that we have been debating in the past days, but I certainly hope that we can in these next very, very few weeks have legislation out here that will have a responsible literacy initiative. Mr. President, we know that the Academy of Sciences has recommended a modality for the development of literacy programs. If we take the Coverdell proposal, we will find it quite prescriptive in relationship to the range of initiatives that have been recommended by the Academy of Sciences that provide greater flexibility. How we eventually are going to come out on that issue remains to be seen. But the strong emphasis on the teachers that they be well trained to teach is something that we all would have common agreement on. The idea of the role of the tutors under the President's program is an important role. I think under the Coverdell proposal we find that feature of it, hopefully, would be strengthened. I think there is probably some difference in this body about the administration of the program. Under the Coverdell proposal, you set up a whole new bureaucracy effectively with your partnership program rather than working with the State programs. It is quite prescriptive in the naming of a number of members that will serve on various boards. You have a number of States now that are doing some very, very important work. This would be a circumstance where I hope that the program would work through the State agencies that are in the Coverdell proposal. I also believe that you have particular features in here where you have the devoting of a good deal of money for assistance grants for tutors. I think most of those involved in literacy training feel that having a school-based system is a better use and a more effective use of the funds. Mr. President, I hope that at the time we address this issue Members will vote in favor of the Coverdell amendment. Then we will have an opportunity to vote after in terms of the Bingaman and Reid proposal. I hope that we will vote in favor of that as well. I think the President's proposal and ones which will be advanced in our Human Resources Committee will give greater emphasis to volunteers and to tutors than would necessarily be the case in the Coverdell proposal. We have under the leadership of our colleague and friend, Senator Jeffords, the Everyone Wins Program, which is a reading program which a number of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have been involved in at the Brent School on the Hill. We have good attendance from a number of our Members here where they go over and read each week to students. I think the kind of flexibility provided in the President's program as well as the kind of support for a number of school-based systems has some additional credibility. I hope that we will support it. I commend the Senator for giving focus and attention. I want to pledge to the Senator from Georgia, as well as to our other colleagues, that we will certainly work every way that we possibly can, those of us on the Education and Human Resources Committee, to work under the leadership of Senator Jeffords who has really been a strong, strong leader on the issues of literacy long before many others in this body, and hopefully we will have a chance to all be together and join in something that can pass and be successful and really move us towards a country that has a real commitment towards literacy. It is interesting that, if you go back into the history of our country, in the early days of this Nation at the time of the birth of the Republic we had a much higher rate of literacy than we have today. That is rather surprising to many, many people. The reason was because of the reading of the Bible, because we had church-related efforts for literacy in every community across the country in order that children were going to be able to read the Bible. We had much higher degrees of literacy at other times in our history than we have at the present time. That is one of the areas where we have slipped. I think we need to call for focus, attention, energy, and I think some resources to really galvanize the sense of voluntarism, which I believe is out there, in an effective way to really make a dramatic impact on reducing illiteracy in the country. I hope our colleagues will support that amendment. I commend him for bringing it. I pledge that we will try to work to find ways to get a meaningful program. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, may we have order?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to just commend Senator Coverdell for focusing on the issue of literacy. As we know, President Clinton advanced a literacy program in 1996. Our colleague, Senator Jeffords, has been having the hearings on this literacy issue in his committee and has been a leader on literacy issues--child literacy, family literacy, and adult literacy programs. I am very hopeful we will have a good bill that will be strong and bipartisan in the very near future. So I hope everyone will support this program. I want to just mention quickly the concern that I have is that it is too prescriptive in terms of how it develops the programs. The Academy of Sciences has outlined a series of ways of doing it. I think we ought to consider that. It establishes a new State bureaucracy. I think we ought to build on the States. The tutorial programs are not school based, and I think they would be stronger if they were. These are important issues, but what I think is enormously encouraging is that we have strong, bipartisan commitment to try to work out in the very near future a strong bipartisan literacy program. I commend Senator Coverdell for developing this amendment and his strong commitment to work with all of us. We look forward to working with him to get a good, strong bill.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for those who may be in opposition, we have some time, as I understand it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Hyannis Fire Department recently honored Harold S. Brunelle of Hyannis by appointing him as Fire Chief. This honor is a well-deserved tribute to Chief Brunelle, his 26-year career with the Department, and his commitment to the community of Hyannis. Chief Brunelle was chosen after nation-wide competition for the position of Fire Chief, and he was selected unanimously for the position in a field of 34 applicants. Chief Brunelle joined the Hyannis Department in 1972 as a Junior Firefighter and rose through the ranks because of his great ability and dedication. His selection as Fire Chief demonstrates the town's confidence in Mr. Brunelle and their faith in his able service and leadership to the residents of the community. Hyannis and Massachusetts are proud of Harold Brunelle's appointment as Fire Chief. I congratulate him on this distinction, and I look forward to working closely with him in the years ahead. I ask unanimous consent that the announcement of Chief Brunelle's selection by the Board of Commissioners of the Hyannis Fire District and an article from the Barnstable Register on Chief Brunelle's selection may be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, may we have order? The Senator is entitled to be heard.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was rejected.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this week we were supposed to be debating our Nation's policy on education. Where our Nation's children are going to school is to the public school systems. We do not have anything against the private school system, but we ought to be testing every single recommendation against does it really help our public schools or are we taking needed funds away from our public schools? This does absolutely nothing for our public schools. It gives no help and assistance to hard-working parents whose children are going to public schools. What it does do is it says we are going to give a preference in terms of charitable giving to these specific organizations over charitable giving to cancer, over charitable giving to heart disease, over charitable giving to Alzheimer's, over charitable giving to a wide range of other very worthwhile factors. What is possibly the justification for that? We ought to consider tax policy in that respect, but this is not good education policy. It does not advance our common interest of moving the public schools toward greater academic achievement and accomplishment. That ought to be the test. This fails on the education standard, and it fails on tax policy. Mr. President, I hope that the amendment will not be accepted.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Betsy Stevens, who recently retired as Disaster Chairman for the Cape Cod Chapter of the American Red Cross. Betsy Stevens has served with great distinction in this position for the past six years. One of her most impressive achievements was hosting the recent Eastern Disaster Conference. Over 200 Red Cross disaster volunteers from the Eastern United States attended this conference hosted by the Cape Cod Chapter. In her capacity as Chairman, Mrs. Stevens did an excellent job organizing and training volunteers to provide services to the victims of disasters. During her tenure, Red Cross volunteers responded to disasters such as the Oklahoma City bombing, the hurricane in Guam, and the paralyzing ice storm in Maine. On Cape Cod, Betsy Stevens was renowned for her availability to deal with sudden crises at all hours. She responded to fires and airplane crashes, and manned shelters during severe storms. She was skillful in recruiting shop owners to donate goods and services. She found emergency housing for victims and served countless holiday dinners. She deserves great credit for the exceptional readiness and high quality of the Red Cross volunteers of the Cape Cod Chapter. Her leadership will be greatly missed, but she has the gratitude of all of us for the job she did so well.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Health Care for Working Families Act. Today we resume the battle for health insurance for all Americans. We face a continuing crisis in health care for millions of workers and their families. Forty-one million Americans are uninsured. The number grew by more than one million last year, and if we do nothing, it will continue to grow at the same alarming rate. The vast majority--85%--of these uninsured Americans--are workers or members of their families. These citizens work hard--40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year in most cases--but all their hard work cannot buy them the health insurance they need to protect their families, because they can't afford it and their employers won't provide it. Every uninsured American is an American tragedy waiting to happen. Infants lose their chance to grow up strong and healthy because they do not get critical prenatal care. A young family loses its livelihood because a breadwinner cannot afford essential medical services. Middle- aged parents see the savings set aside to send their children to college or pay for their retirement swept away by a tidal wave of medical debt. These conditions should be unacceptable in America today. The time has come to take a simple but important step toward the day when every job carries with it a guarantee of affordable family health care. Every business is expected to pay a minimum wage, and to obey the child labor laws. Every business is expected to provide safe and healthy working conditions, and to protect against injury on the job through worker's compensation. Every business is expected to contribute to retirement through Social Security, and to the health needs of the elderly through Medicare. It is long past time for businesses also to contribute to the cost of basic health insurance coverage for their workers. Some small firms have special problems that may call for special solutions. But there can be no excuse for large firms to shirk their responsibility to provide affordable health insurance for their workers. Under the bill we are introducing today, businesses with 50 or more workers will be required to provide health insurance coverage. Approximately half of all uninsured employees and their families--15 million people--will gain the coverage they need and deserve. This legislation is a giant step toward the day when every American will be guaranteed the fundamental right to health care. Many--even most--businesses already provide insurance. The vast majority of large business, in particular, fulfill this obligation. But too many others do not. In more and more cases, unfair competition from firms that refuse to provide insurance for their workers is compelling other firms to reduce health benefits or drop coverage altogether. Health insurance for working Americans does not have to mean complicated regulations or excessive government intervention. The legislation we are introducing today is simple--less than ten pages. It will not cost taxpayers a dime. It includes no specific mandated benefits or burdensome red tape. It simply says that every business with 50 workers or more must offer its employees coverage equal in value to the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Standard Option Plan that is available to every Senator and Representative and must pay at least 72% of the cost--the same proportion that taxpayers contribute for every member of Congress. The American people deserve health care for their families that is every bit as good as the health care they provide to every member of Congress. The incremental reform enacted in recent years has helped many families, but it is far from sufficient. The time has come for Congress to take a larger step. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. I wonder why we are going through this, because I am strongly committed to achieving the compromise that was worked out with the leadership. The Senator from Indiana and, I believe, Senator Gregg were interested in this. We had a great deal of debate and discussion. I thought that giving the assurances in terms of the integrity of the test should be the tough kind of criteria that the Senator from Indiana established in terms of the makeup of these tests. I understood this was in the process now. That is why I think it is premature to wipe all of that out. I hope that if there are differences, we can try to work those out in a way that is consistent with that agreement rather than just halting the whole process now. As the Senator knows well, we are not going to have this go into effect until 2002. We have a long way to go. Rather than stop it and start it, it might be wise if we can sort of measure it at the present time rather than end it.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 3 minutes. Before the Senator from Indiana leaves the floor, I was very persuaded by the logic and eloquence of the Senator on the reasons he supported the compromise last time. I was under the impression that we still had NAGB doing that test at the present time. The independent board has already taken, as I understand it, several steps to address the key concerns that were raised during the debate and discussion. I understand they are doing the test at the present time. Is the Senator's information different?

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

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 8 minutes. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the Ashcroft amendment to prohibit the administration from developing voluntary tests for academic achievement. Schools need clear-cut standards of achievement. Realistic tests to measure achievement are an essential part of good education. The same voluntary tests that received broad support in the Senate last year, the testing compromise, had a vote of 87-13. Voluntary national tests based on widely recognized national standards makes sense. They give parents and communities and schools an effective way to improve education and to chart the progress they are making. The voluntary national tests will be designed to assess fourth grade reading and eighth grade math. They are basic subjects and basic stages in each students' academic development. The assessments are timely and worthwhile. Every student, parent, and school will benefit from them. The Ashcroft amendment will keep them in the dark. Parents want to know how well their children are doing and how well their schools are doing compared to other students in other schools across the Nation. Today, too many schools in communities across the country are attempting to educate their students without the kind of assistance and guidance that ought to be available. They have no way to compare the performance of their students with students in other schools and other communities in other parts of the country. We know by every current indicator the performance of American elementary and secondary school students falls far short of the performance of students in many other nations. We have to do better. Knowing where schools and students now stand is an essential part of helping them do better. As the Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin, pointed out, the tests will be entirely voluntary. I repeat, entirely voluntary. States and local districts will have the opportunity to participate if they choose to. Nothing is mandated by the Federal Government. Nothing is mandated by the Federal Government. There is no Federal control of local education. What is being made available on a voluntary basis is a long overdue opportunity for schools across the country to have realistic guideposts to measure the academic progress of their students. The tests will be based on national and international standards that will show whether students are meeting widely accepted criteria for achievement in reading and math. No current test is available to provide this essential information to students and parents and teachers and school administrators. Families have no way to measure the performance of students in their community on a comparative basis with students in other schools and other communities and other States. Mr. President, 87 of us agreed last year that the National Assessment Governing Board, which is a bipartisan group, is well equipped to oversee the tests. It is a time-honored bipartisan group of skilled educators, made up of different representatives of the educational community. Voluntary national tests do not undermine local efforts on school reform. They enhance them. We need to do what we can to support local efforts to improve teaching and learning, especially in such vital areas as reading and math. Voluntary tests are an important way to support local school reform. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Ashcroft amendment. Finally, I think this is an empowerment issue for parents. Basically, we are permitting on a voluntary basis, the States and then again the local communities, to make a decision about whether they are going to have these tests in the various communities and then to permit, obviously, the parents to know how their children are doing. By knowing how they are doing, then the parents can make judgments and decisions about what additional steps ought to be taken to try to improve the academic achievement and accomplishment of their children. These kinds of tests are in the interests of the parent, so they know how their children are doing in schools, it is in the interests of the school board member to know whether they are making the correct judgments in terms of allocating resources and priorities, and it is in the interests of the community so they will know how they are doing in comparison with other communities. All of these issues were debated at very significant length in the last Congress, and steps were taken to make sure that the bipartisan or virtually the nonpartisan education group was going to be developing these tests. They are in the process of doing so at the present time. They are not going to go into implementation until the year 2002. We are in 1998 at the present time and they are going into effect in 2002. So we are approaching this issue very modestly. They are going to be tested before they will be accepted. We will have ample opportunity to review the results of both the tests, the testing results as they give application to the tests, long before they go into effect. The question is whether we will take this step by step and make judgments that will ultimately enhance the power of parents in knowing how their children are doing. If the Ashcroft amendment goes into effect, we are terminating that and denying a very important ingredient to parents and local communities. Parents in local schools want to know how their children are doing. Too often they have been kept in the dark. If there is a local decision, a local judgment, a State judgment, to put these into effect, they ought to have that opportunity to do so. Under the Ashcroft amendment, they will be denied that opportunity to do so. I think this is a very modest program that is being put into the process at the present time and we should not undermine it this early in the process. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. The yeas and nays on the Murray amendment, Mr. President? I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY. Two minutes. No one has represented that. But what we have found, for example, as a result of very extensive hearings--I do not know which ones were cited--is that in Flint, MI, efforts over the last 3 years to reduce class size in grades K through 3 have lead to a 44 percent increase in reading scores and an 18 percent increase in math scores. In Wisconsin, student achievement in grades K through 3 is also finding similar results. Project STAR in Tennessee, K through 3 in 80 different schools in Tennessee. And in California similar kinds of results. So the idea that this is not a worthwhile educational policy tied into other education policy as a way to help to assist local schools that make that judgment fails, I think, to be credible, and I think that is why we are all grateful we are going to be in a situation that we can have the vote on the amendment of the Senator from Washington and a vote on the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas. I hope this body will vote in favor of both. I thank the Senator from Washington for bringing this very important measure to the Senate. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Washington is on the floor. I will just take a moment or two to talk about support for smaller class sizes. The idea that we say this is going to be the answer in education, of course, no one has represented that.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the amendment of the Senator from Washington is really targeted on a key area of educational policy--that is, the reduced class size--for all the reasons she eloquently presented to the Senate just a few moments ago. It is a time-tested way of enhancing academic achievement and accomplishment for our public schools. The fact is that she has taken this proposal, offered it to the Senate so that we would have an opportunity to state whether we believe that smaller class size would be useful and helpful, particularly in the early grades. That is what this is really targeted on. The Senator from Arkansas has come in and offered an amendment that effectively vitiates her amendment, by saying that we should be committed to at least 95 cents of the educational dollar going into the classroom. Well, we are in favor of that. This is a rather clever way, evidently, by our Republican friends of trying to obscure the issue of whether smaller class size is an important educational tool. We agree that 95 percent of the funds ought to go to the classrooms. In many programs, it's more than 95 percent; 98 percent goes through to the classrooms. So why the Senator has made this proposal is to wipe out the Murray amendment. Let's not fool ourselves. We can stand up here all day long and say how we want to preserve taxpayer funding to targeted areas in educational programs. We are for it. We are all for it. It is not a new idea. It has already been accepted in the House of Representatives. We hope there will be a voice vote on it. But we ask the Senator, why attempt to vitiate the excellent program or deny the Senator the opportunity to get a vote on her program for smaller class size? That is what you are basically about. Let's not kid ourselves. Let's not stand up here and take the time of the U.S. Senate and try to say we are all for trying to get the money into the classroom. We are all for that. The Senator has the legitimacy to take the time of the Senate to do so. We are for it. But what you should say is: By accepting my amendment, we effectively emasculate the Murray amendment, which has tried to put the Senate on record saying that smaller classrooms can be one of a number of tools to try to enhance academic achievement and accomplishment. You are effectively trying to deny that. Let's call a spade a spade. That is why I certainly hope that we have every intention of getting a vote on the Murray concept. We will have that opportunity to do so at some time. I hope we will persevere. I think the amendment of the Senator from Washington is a carefully crafted amendment and that we in this body understand the importance of moving towards smaller class size. I heard the Senator eloquently speak from her own personal experience. There isn't a Member in this body who can speak with the personal experience of the Senator from Washington. She has been in the classroom. She has been in large classes and in smaller classes and has been a school board member. There isn't a Member in the Senate who can claim those kinds of credentials. She knows about this as an important concept. We are not going to be denied by any Senator in here from at least getting an opportunity to vote on that. You can try what you like, but you are not going to be successful. I hope we can get beyond the chaff that is out here and get to the real wheat, which is the Senator's amendment. If the Senator wants to have a vote on his, good. I hope we would get on with it, if we are serious about having an education debate. But make no mistake about it. The thrust of the Senator's amendment is to effectively deny the Senate an opportunity to vote on the Murray amendment because we all virtually agree. I have not heard a voice out here that isn't going to support the Senator's amendment, which is about 95 cents out of every dollar going to the classroom. That is not what this is about. It is to deny the Senator from Washington of having a fair chance to have her amendment heard. We know our Republican friends are so tied up with this idea of using scarce resources for private schools, and we know the drive that has in terms of the whole Coverdell proposal. But they want to deny even the opportunity for the Senate to address in a short period of time a very important and significant educational policy issue. Even under these restrictive rules, which we had to agree to, they are not going to be able to prohibit the Senator from getting a vote on it. I hope that we do that in a way that will be accommodated. We can do it nice or do it rough. But we are going to get a vote on it. The Senator can make up his mind which way he wants to play with it.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes. But I see the Senator from Washington on her feet at this time. Maybe she would like to address this and then I will make some brief comments about it.

Mr. KENNEDY. I withhold the balance of the time.