Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to speak for just a few moments about a very special provision that is now before the Senate, which we will vote on next week, and that is the amendment which has been proposed by Senator Mack, Senator Graham, and myself, which is pending on the D.C. appropriations bill. Without this amendment, thousands of Central American refugee families who fled death squads and persecution in their native lands and found safe haven in the United States would be forced to return to their countries. Republican and Democratic administrations alike promised them repeatedly that they will get their day in court to make their claims to remain in the United States. Last year's immigration law, however, turned its back on that commitment and treated these families unfairly. This legislation reinstates that promise and guarantees these families the day in court they deserve--that's all, just the day in court they deserve to be able to make their case, which they were promised at the time they came to the United States, by Republican and Democratic administrations. That particular guarantee was eliminated in the bill last year. It is the attempt by Senator Mack and Senator Graham and myself to maintain that commitment to these families. Virtually all of these families fled to the United States in the 1980's from El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Guatemala. Many were targeted by death squads and faced persecution at the hands of rogue militias. They came to America to seek safety and freedom for themselves and their children. The Reagan administration, the Bush administration, and the Clinton administration assured them that they could apply to remain permanently in the United States under our immigration laws. They were promised that if they have lived here for at least 7 years and are of good moral character, and if a return to Central America would be an unusual hardship, they would be allowed to remain. They have to meet those particular requirements and if they don't meet those requirements, then they are unable to remain in the United States. Last year's immigration law violated that commitment. President Clinton has promised to find a fair and reasonable solution for these families, and the administration will use its authority to help as many of them as possible. But Congress must do its part by enacting this corrective legislation. Earlier in the course of today's debate, our colleague from Texas, Senator Gramm, talked at some length about this particular amendment and about the situation in which these refugees find themselves. I would like to just clarify and respond to some of the comments that were made earlier in the day. The first comment was this legislation reverses our immigration laws enacted just last year. The answer is the law was changed on these families retroactively, we took steps, gave guarantees, and then took action. These families had very little to do with it, and now the law was changed. They played by the rules laid out by President Reagan, President Bush, and the Clinton administration. They were promised their day in court. But last year's law went back on that promise. All we are trying to do is to make sure they are given their day in court. Then the comment was made that this should go through the Immigration Subcommittee, not on an appropriations bill. Our chairman, Senator Abraham, spoke in support of this amendment. He is the chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, and I am the ranking member. We are in strong support of this particular proposal, as I believe the members of the committee are. The further point that was made by Senator Gramm was we need to stop illegal immigration, that this is an amnesty. Mr. President, it is an insult to these hard-working refugees, and their families who have suffered so much pain and hardship and who relied in good faith on the solemn promise they were given to call them illegal aliens or call what we are doing an amnesty. Virtually all of these families are already known to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. They are not illegal aliens working underground. These are families who applied to come to the United States under INS programs, and they are here on a variety of temporary immigration categories. They have acted in accord with what our Government told them to do. Not all these families will qualify to remain here under the terms of this amendment. They still must meet certain standards that existed in the law before the law was changed and applied retroactively. The Immigration Service estimates that less than half of those who qualify to apply to remain in this country will be approved. These families are law-abiding, tax-paying members of communities in all parts of America. In many, many cases, they have children who were born in this country and who are U.S. citizens by birth. They deserve to be treated fairly. I just want to take a few moments to talk about who these people are. Zulema Balladares came to the United States from Nicaragua in 1986. If she is deported, she will be leaving her husband and four children who are lawful, permanent residents here in the United States. The Balladares have strong ties to the United States. They own their home, and two of their children serve in the U.S. Army, both served in Bosnia. Their children's ages range from 13 to 21 and have all resided in Miami for the past 10 years, the majority of the children's lives. Justina Jiron entered the United States 12 years ago along with other family members. She has two U.S. citizen children. Her youngest, a baby, has a need for surgery and ongoing medical treatment as a result of a birth defect. Thankfully, she has health insurance to cover the expenses. However, unfortunately, if she is deported back to Nicaragua, her baby will not be able to obtain the needed medical treatment, because it is not available there. Since this lack of surgery and care is life threatening to the child, the deportation of Ms. Jiron will result in sending a U.S. citizen to death. Enrique Sequeira, now 21 years old, came to the United States from Nicaragua at the age of 13 in 1988. He has been an outstanding student in the United States and has received numerous academic awards. In addition to excelling academically, Mr. Sequeira is a member of the Junior ROTC and has been involved extensively in community work in Miami. He was granted suspension of deportation November 1996, but the INS appealed that decision based on the Immigration Reform Law of 1996. If the INS appeal is granted, Mr. Sequeira faces disrupting his bright future and returning to a country he has not lived in since he was a young teenager. Leonte Martinez is extensively involved in community service helping underprivileged youths of all nationalities in several church-sponsored programs. He owns his own home and earns $38,000 a year with medical benefits for his entire family. He has been in the United States since 1986. He is married to a lawful permanent resident, has three children, two of them U.S. citizens. His mother-in-law, a lawful permanent resident, resides with his family. Mr. Martinez was granted suspension of deportation in January 1997. According to the immigration judge, his was the best case she had ever heard. Apparently it was not strong enough, because INS is appealing in order to be able to deport him. Finally, Roberto Bautista came to the United States 10 years ago from El Salvador. His wife and two children have been in the United States for 12 years. They are a typical upstanding American family. He and his wife hold down two jobs, pay their taxes, have no criminal histories, have health insurance, and have never been on public assistance. Their daughter graduated from the University of Miami and is presently employed by a graphic artist for a newspaper. Their son is an honors student at Georgia Tech, studying engineering, and was awarded the Silver Knight award by the Miami Herald for his outstanding volunteer service. These individuals are entitled to have administrative process to make a judgment as to their ability to remain here in the United States or whether deportation would serve as a particular hardship. That is all we are attempting to do, under the Mack and Graham amendment. We ought to have enough respect for individuals and individual rights and liberties to treat fairly these families that were subject to extraordinary persecution in their own countries during a time of civil war, where many of these individuals were working and supportive of U.S. efforts to try to build a better country and democratic institutions. Because of the fear of terror, the death squads and others that were loose in the land, they came to the United States and have played by the rules. They were given certain assurances that, if they played by the rules, worked hard and supported their families, they would not be summarily dismissed, they would have a judgment that would be made to see whether they had participated in this country and made an important contribution to the life and well-being of this country. I have given you a few examples, and there are scores of other examples, where people are giving back to the United States something for all that has been given to them. I think this is a matter that should be favorably considered. I am very hopeful that we will have the opportunity to vote on this. I believe we have overwhelming bipartisan support. I think I see a colleague from Pennsylvania, who is a cosponsor of this measure as well. I yield the floor. Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, few if any issues before the Senate this year are more important than campaign finance reform. Americans from all walks of life are fed up with the current campaign financing system and its excessive reliance on unlimited contributions that make conflict of interest a way of life. They are fed up with a campaign process driven by the high cost of television commercials. They are fed up with candidates who spend more time raising money from special interests instead of serving the public interest. And who can blame them? In recent years, the amount of money spent in Presidential campaigns has doubled every 4 years. Senate and House races now cost millions of dollars. Election campaigns have become more and more negative, with misleading TV spots that traffic in half-truths or outright falsehoods. And corrupting and corroding it all are the massive abusers of the current loophole-ridden campaign financing laws. The constant hunt for campaign dollars demeans our electoral process and undermines the very foundation of our country. We have the best political system that money can buy, and it's a disgrace to everything our democracy stands for. The time for change is now. We must take elections off the auction block. We must limit campaign spending. We must return the election process to the people, in which every voter is equal, no matter what their income, or what job they hold, or where they live. Democrats understand this. Democrats in the Senate are unanimously committed to campaign finance reform that limits campaign spending. All 45 Democrats in the U.S. Senate have pledged their support for the bipartisan McCain-Feingold bill. President Clinton, too, has clearly stated his unequivocal support for this important legislation. He has taken the extraordinary step of announcing his intention to use his authority under the U.S. Constitution to require Congress to meet in special session if it fails to take up this urgently needed reform. But where are the Republicans? Have they united behind a proposal--any proposal? Are they willing to join with Democrats to clean up the cesspool, and limit the amount of money and the power of money in American elections? Sadly, the answer is ``no.'' The Republican prescription for these flagrant abuses is more money in politics, not less. They prescribe an even larger overdose of money for elections, in which their friends in big businesses and their lobbyists and special interests can write more checks and fatter checks to the Republican Party. Their recipe for campaign finance reform is to tilt the balance even more unfairly against American workers. They want to increase the power of large corporations, and squash even the limited power that American workers have today. Republicans want to handcuff labor unions in the battle for a living wage, for decent health care for working families, and a secure retirement for the elderly. They want to silence union support for candidates who stand up and speak out on those basic issues. In short, Republicans want to impose a gag rule on American workers. The Republican antiworker scheme is a poison pill for campaign finance reform, and the Republicans admit it. The majority leader, Senator Lott, told the Washington Times that his amendment would kill the bill because Democrats would mount a filibuster. He said, ``I've set it up where they're going to be doing the filibustering.'' Columnist Robert Novak agrees. Writing about the Republican amendment to impose a gag rule on workers, he says its ``primary purpose in Congress is not to win Republican supporters for campaign reform but to lose Democratic supporters . . . . Republicans are divided between the many who bash labor to kill reform and the few who appease labor to save reform.'' The Lott amendment is a killer amendment, because it unfairly punishes working Americans and their unions for participating in the elections. The Lott amendment bars unions from collecting dues from any workers--even members who voluntarily join the union and participate in setting its goals--unless those workers sign an authorization form to allow part of their union dues to be spent for political purposes. This isn't reform--it's revenge. It's a blatant attempt to punish working Americans for their role in the 1996 elections--and an equally blatant attempt to silence working Americans in future elections. Republicans intend this procedure to cripple any union's ability to participate in elections. They know that imposing such a requirement on any organization would have the same result. Yet, they don't propose it for the National Rifle Association or the big tobacco companies or the American Farm Bureau or the Chamber of Commerce. They don't ask corporations to get permission slips from their shareholders before the corporation can spend funds for political purposes. The Lott amendment should be called The Rampant Republican Hypocrisy Act of 1997. How hypocritical can they get? The real measure of whether Republicans are serious about campaign finance reform is whether they will support honest limits on campaign spending. The McCain-Feingold bill that all 45 Senate Democrats support will ban so-called soft money--the millions of dollars in campaign funds that today are virtually unregulated. This immense loophole in our current campaign laws allows contributions worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to be made to political parties. The parties then spend the money to help elect candidates for Federal office. While the amount of money that an individual voter can give to a candidate is limited to $1,000 per campaign, candidates for Federal office can receive millions through the back door using this soft money loophole. Clearly, any legislation worth the name reform must ban this shameful practice. In addition, the McCain-Feingold bill limits the ability of outside groups to run ads supporting specific candidates. This practice has become another source of soft money for Federal candidates. If you don't have enough money in your own campaign to pay for your ads, then get a friendly outside group to support them. The McCain-Feingold bill says that organizations are free to run ads on genuine issues. That's free speech, and it's protected under the Constitution. But if an outside group runs an ad supporting a specific candidate, then the cost of that ad should be counted as part of the candidate's campaign, and should be subject to the Federal election laws. The McCain-Feingold bill also increases disclosure requirements for campaigns, so that the public will be able to see much more clearly the sources and the amounts of all contributions that any candidates accept. It is time for Congress to stop talking about reform and start acting to make it happen. This bill is not a perfect bill. All Senators can find some provision in it that they do not like. But the McCain- Feingold bill is an honest reform and the best hope to end the most flagrant abuses under the current system. I urge Democrats and Republicans alike to support this bill and send it on to President Clinton, so that we can clean up the current mess and restore the voters' shattered confidence in our democracy. It is time to take our campaigns away from the special interests and give them back to the people. It is time to make our democracy worthy of its name. Mr. President, I am not sure whether these have been printed in the Record so I will ask unanimous consent to print in the Record two editorials, one from the Washington Post and one from the New York Times, that comment on our Republican leader's amendments and parliamentary maneuvering so as to require the first and only vote that will be available to the Members of the Senate to occur on his particular gag rule on American workers. The Washington Post says in the first sentence: Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, having magnanimously allowed campaign finance reform legislation to come to the floor, now proposes to kill it with an amendment affecting the use of labor union dues for political purposes. . . . Everyone understands what kind of vote this is--a vote not on labor law but on campaign finance at one remove. They have it right. And the New York Times points out in its editorial: Trent Lott, as expected, has come up with a perverse stratagem to kill campaign finance reform this year. . . . Mr. Lott's purpose today is to scuttle the bill by making it unacceptable to Democrats. . . . [Members] should realize that if they let Mr. Lott kill the bill by subterfuge, their criticism of Democratic excesses will be mere opportunism and hollow rhetoric. I ask unanimous consent that both of these editorials be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 10 minutes. Mr. President, I oppose the voucher amendment to the District of Columbia appropriations bill. Students in the District of Columbia deserve good public schools, safe public schools, well-trained teachers and a decent education. Vouchers will undermine all of these essential goals by undermining the public schools, not helping them. Vouchers will simply subsidize private school tuition for 3 percent of the students in the public schools and leave the other 97 percent of the students even worse off. Public funds should be used for public school reforms that help all students, not to pay for a few public school students to attend private and religious schools. Our goal is to improve public schools, not encourage families to abandon them. We all want the children of the District of Columbia to get the best possible education. We should be doing more, much more, to support efforts to improve the local schools in the District. We should oppose any plan that would undermine these efforts. A year ago, as part of an overall effort to deal more effectively with the serious financial and other challenges facing the District of Columbia, Gen. Julius Becton was appointed to improve the D.C. schools. General Becton asked for $87 million to make the critical repairs necessary to ensure that all schools would be ready to open for the 1997-98 school year on time, yet only $50 million was appropriated by Congress to repair the schools. Requests for additional funding were initially denied and were only made available by Congress at the last minute. So Congress bears part of the responsibility for the continuing problems of the D.C. schools, including the festering problems that led to the embarrassing delayed opening of the schools this fall. This voucher amendment would further undermine General Becton's efforts just as he is making headway in repairing D.C. schools, increasing security and developing effective ways to improve the schools and help all students reach academic standards. In addition, the voucher system would impose yet another bureaucracy, another federally appointed board on the District of Columbia to use Federal funds to implement the voucher system. The nominations of six of the seven board members would be controlled by Republican leaders of Congress. Only one representative of the District of Columbia would serve on the corporation. Instead of supporting local efforts to revitalize the schools, the voucher proponents are attempting to make D.C. public schools a guinea pig for an ideological experiment in education that voters in the District of Columbia have soundly rejected and that voters across the country have soundly rejected, too. Our Republican colleagues have clearly been unable to generate any significant support for vouchers in their own States, and it is a travesty of responsible action for them to attempt to foist their discredited idea on the long-suffering people and long-suffering public schools of the District of Columbia. If vouchers are a bad idea for the public schools in 50 States, they are a bad idea for the public schools of the District of Columbia, too. Many of us in Congress favor D.C. home rule and many of us in Congress believe that the people of the District of Columbia should be entitled to have voting representation in the Senate and the House, like the people in every State. It is an embarrassment to our democracy that the most powerful democracy on Earth denies the most basic right of any democracy--the right to vote--to the citizens of the Nation's Capital. The District of Columbia is not a test tube for misguided Republican ideological experiments on education. Above all, the District of Columbia is not a slave plantation. Republicans in Congress should start treating the people of the District of Columbia with the respect that they deserve. General Becton, local leaders, and D.C. parents are working hard to improve all D.C. public schools for all children. Congress should give them its support, not undermine them. We have here, Mr. President, the examples of some of the activities that are taking place in the Walker Jones Elementary School in Northwest Washington working with the Laboratory for Student Success, using Community for Learning, a research-based reform model, and it is working. The concept is called whole school reform. With increased and more intensive teacher training, in proven methods and materials geared toward better student learning, student test scores have improved. After 6 months in the program, the school raised its ranking in the District on reading scores from 99th in 1996 to 36th in 1997. In math, the school climbed from 81st in the District to 18th. It is working. These kinds of investments are working in this particular school. The John Tyler Elementary School in Southeast Washington uses the Comer School Development Model Program to restructure school management, curriculum, and teacher training. Teachers focus on reading and math instruction as well as hands-on learning in science and math. All of the students in the Tyler School, of whom 95 percent come from low-income families, are benefiting from the reforms. Academic achievement is going up. It is improving. Spingarn High School in Northeast Washington has extended the day because they felt that school safety was a first priority. The school is a safe haven for students, and the academic standards are going up. The District of Columbia has created the so-called Saturday academies for students who read below grade level. The Saturday curriculum reinforces the weekly instruction and benefits from a reduced student-teacher ratio, and the results show that it is working. These are examples of what is taking place in the District of Columbia, working for all students. They should be encouraged. They should be expanded. They should be given the resources to be able to implement those programs. Mr. President, $7 million would provide afterschool programs for every school in the District of Columbia. That would benefit all students, not just a very small group. Scarce education funds should be targeted to public schools. They do not have the luxury of closing their doors to students who pose challenges, such as children with disabilities, limited English- proficient children, or homeless students. Vouchers will not help children who need the most help. Voucher proponents argue that vouchers increase choice for parents. But parental choice is a mirage. Private schools apply different rules than public schools. Public schools must accept all children. Private schools can decide whether to accept a child or not. The real choice goes to the schools, not the parents. The better the private school, the more parents and students are turned away. In fact, many private schools require children to take rigorous achievement tests, at the parents' expense, as a basic for admission to the private schools. Lengthy interviews and complex selection processes are often mandatory. Private schools impose many barriers to admission. Few parents can even get to the schoolhouse door to find out if it is open to their child. For the vast majority of families with children in public schools, the so-called school choice offered by the voucher scheme is a hollow choice. Public schools must take all children, and build a program to meet each of their needs. Private schools only take children who fit the guidelines of their existing programs. We should not use public tax dollars to support schools that choose some children, and reject others. There are also serious constitutional objections to the voucher scheme. The vast majority of private schools that charge tuition below $3,200 are religious schools. Providing vouchers to sectarian schools violates the establishment clause of the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In many States voucher schemes would violate the State constitution, too. Courts in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Vermont have all reached decisions this year upholding the ruling that the use of public funds to pay for vouchers for religious schools is unconstitutional. If voucher proponents genuinely wanted to help the children of the District of Columbia obtain a good education, they would use the $7 million in this amendment to support reform efforts to improve the public schools. Money is not the only answer to school reform, but it is a principal part of the answer. Public schools in States across the country are starved for funds, and so are the D.C. public schools. We saw an example just this morning. The Ballou Senior High School here in the District was forced to close due to a leaky roof caused by the weekend rainstorms. Students were sent to Douglass Junior High School, one of the buildings closed by the District. Again, the students of the D.C. schools suffered because of poor facilities. Seven million dollars would begin the critical repairs to the 80 buildings that did not get new roofs this year, to make sure that this will not happen to other schools. We know what works in school reform. Steps are available with proven records of success to improve teaching and instruction, reduce crowded classrooms, and bring schools into the world of modern technology--let alone repairing crumbling schools facilities and making classrooms, corridors, and playgrounds safe for children trying their best to learn in conditions that no private schools would tolerate. Too often, with good reason, children in too many public schools in too many communities across the country feel left out and left behind. Vouchers will only make that problem worse. Three percent of the students would be helped by enabling them to attend private schools, while 97 percent of the students are left even farther behind. Supporting a few children at the expense of all the others is a serious mistake. We don't have to abandon the public schools in order to help. We should make investments that help all children in the D.C. schools to obtain a safer and better education. I hope my colleagues will reject this amendment. Again, we should not impose on the District of Columbia what voters in other States don't want. In the last year, voters in Colorado, Washington, and California have rejected the vouchers. In the past 10 years, State legislatures in 16 States have voted this down. Even the Texas legislature rejected even the vouchers this year, and we should as well. I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield the Senator 3 more minutes, if we need to.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield further? Under General Becton's new initiatives, students in grade 3 and 8 have to have the basic reading skills before advancing to a higher grade. This requirement reflects the commitment of the District of Columbia to ensure all children master basic reading skills. That has been the new program. Do I understand that if we had $7 million to try to implement those kinds of programs to work with kids, particularly those that may have more difficulty working through and enhancing their academic achievement, we would see all of the students in that class moving along together in enhancing their reading capabilities, which is key to all learning in the future? Those are the kind of investments that the Senator thinks would make sense for all the students, I imagine?

Mr. KENNEDY. Seven years ago, 53 percent of the D.C. teachers were not certified. Last year that number had dropped to 33 percent. In 1997, all new teachers are going to be certified and existing teachers who are here must be certified by January, 1998, or risk dismissal. Is that the kind of reform that you are talking about, a comprehensive solution, rather than helping just a few children? Programs that enhance the training and bring teachers up to speed so they have world class standards and world class certification, to be able to work with all children? Is that the kind of thing that the Senator from California is talking about?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from California.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. It is a privilege to join Senator Mack and Senator Graham in offering this amendment on behalf of Central American refugees. The amendment we propose today closely parellels S. 1076 the Immigration Reform Transition Act of 1997 proposed by President Clinton, which we introduced on July 28. Without this legislation, thousands of Central American refugee families who fled death squads and persecution in their native lands and found safe haven in the United States would be forced to return. Republican and Democratic administrations alike promised them repeatedly that they will get their day in court to make their claims to remain in the United States. Last year's immigration law, however, turned its back on that commitment and treated these families unfairly. This legislation reinstates that promise and guarantees these families the day in court they deserve. Virtually all of these families fled to the United States in the 1980's from El Salvador, Nicaragua, or Guatemala. Many were targeted by death squads and faced persecution at the hands of rogue militias. They came to America to seek safety and freedom for themselves and their children. The Reagan administration, the Bush Administration, and the Clinton administration assured them that they could apply to remain permanently in the United States under our immigration laws. They were promised that if they have lived here for at least 7 years and are of good moral character, and if a return to Central America will be an unusual hardship, they would be allowed to remain. Last year's immigration law violated that commitment. President Clinton has promised to find a fair and reasonable solution for these families, and the administration will use its authority to help as many of them as possible. But Congress must do its part too, by enacting this corrective legislation. Some are opposing this legislation as an amnesty for illegal aliens. That charge is false. It is an insult to these hard-working refugees, and their families who have suffered so much pain and hardship and who relied in good faith on the solemn promise they were given. Virtually all of these families are already known to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. They are not illegal aliens working underground. These families have applied to come to the United States under INS programs, and they are here on a variety of temporary immigration categories. They have acted in accord with what our Government told them to do. Not all of these families will qualify to remain here under the terms of this amendment. They still must meet certain standards that existed in the law, before last year's immigration law was enacted and applied retroactively. The Immigration Service estimates that less than half of those who qualify to apply to remain in this country will be approved. These families are law-abiding, tax-paying members of communities in all parts of America. In many many cases, they have children who were born in this country and who are U.S. citizens by birth. They deserve to be treated fairly, and I urge the Senate to support the amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 6 minutes, or more, if the Senator from Illinois wants it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I thank the Senator very much for his kind comments, once in awhile, it's nice to win something around here. I thank the Senator for his comments.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, next week David Trimble, leader of the Ulster Unionist Party in Northern Ireland, will begin a visit to the United States where he will meet with many of us on both sides of the aisle in Congress who are deeply committed to helping achieve a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. There is perhaps no one better placed to make that happen than Mr. Trimble, who leads Northern Ireland's largest party. Mr. Trimble is to be commended for bringing his party into the current talks, which now include Sinn Fein as a result of the restoration of the IRA cease-fire in July. Those talks are ably chaired by our former Senate colleague, George Mitchell. Mr. Trimble and his party faced many difficulties in deciding to participate in talks which include Sinn Fein. There is a long history of distrust by both sides in Northern Ireland, and the fears and concerns of unionists cannot be dismissed. Mr. Trimble spent the month of August consulting with many people and concluded that his constituents want his party to participate in the talks as the best hope for achieving a peaceful settlement. Huge challenges lie ahead. Negotiating a solution which can obtain the support of both communities is a formidable task. But at long last, the principal parties are at the negotiating table and real dialogue is beginning. David Trimble deserves a significant share of the credit for this long-sought progess. I look forward to his visit to this country, and I ask unanimous consent that an excellent article in the September 29 issue of Time Magazine be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself such time as I may need. Mr. President, I oppose the voucher amendment to the District of Columbia appropriations bill. Although we all want to help the District's children get a good education, this is not the way to do it. Public funds should be used for public schools, not to pay for students to attend private and religious schools. The current debate involves the schools in the District of Columbia. The use of Federal funds for private schools is a national issue that Congress has addressed and rejected many times before, and so have many States. Now the voucher proponents are attempting to make the D.C. public schools a guinea pig for a scheme that voters in the District of Columbia have soundly rejected, and so have voters across the country. The recent voucher proposals in the States of Washington and Colorado and California lost by over 2 to 1 margins, and in 1981 voters defeated a voucher initiative by a ratio of 8 to 1 here in the District. The concept has never been brought up on the ballot again because it has so little support. So clearly Congress should not impose on the District of Columbia what the people of the District of Columbia and voters across the country reject. D.C. parents and ministers and local leaders have made it clear that they do not want vouchers. Last week, a group of ministers from the District of Columbia publicly announced their opposition to vouchers. Rev. Eart Trent, Jr., of the Florida Avenue Baptist Church, said, ``We want nothing to do with vouchers. It is going to harm a majority of our schools.'' Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton opposes vouchers for the District. The question is, who wants these vouchers? The Republicans in Congress cannot get to first base with this issue in their own States and want to impose it on the people of the District of Columbia. Vouchers would erode local control in the District of Columbia and undermine D.C. school reforms already underway. Last year, Congress created a control board and all but eliminated the locally elected school board. This bill would create another bureaucracy in the form of a federally appointed corporation to use Federal funds to run the voucher program. Six out of the seven corporation members would be nominated by the Federal Government, and those nominations are controlled by the Republican leaders of Congress. Only one representative of D.C. would serve on the corporation. I understand Senator Boxer did an excellent job earlier in the debate of going through the administrative process and machinery that would be set up and the weaknesses of that particular recommendation or inclusion in the amendment. Congress created the D.C. control board less than a year ago. The board appointed as chief executive officer of the schools Gen. Julius Becton, Jr., with Congress' endorsement. His mission is to improve the public schools. Now this bill would pull the rug out from under him. I noted, Mr. President, that in an earlier debate one of our colleagues who is supporting the amendment was talking about the $500 million that is coming from taxpayers all over the country. That money is coming from the taxpayers here in the District of Columbia. I haven't looked at the D.C. population recently, but generally it is larger than six or seven of our States. They pay in taxes, but they do not have representation in the House, with all respect to Eleanor Holmes Norton. They are not reflected in the Senate of the United States. They are not given the full representation that they should have even in the District. So General Becton, Mr. President, local leaders and D.C. parents are working hard to improve all D.C. public schools for all children. We should support them, not undermine them. The public funds should not go to private schools when D.C. public schools have such urgent needs. The opening of D.C. public schools for the 1997-1998 academic year was delayed because in 67 percent of the schools the roofs were crumbling. They were able to repair the most severe problems and open up the schools this week, but much more needs to be done. In addition to completing the roof repairs, 65 percent of them have faulty plumbing; 41 percent of the schools do not have enough power outlets and electric wiring to accommodate computers and other needed technology; and 66 percent of the schools have inadequate heating, ventilation and air conditioning. Funding these repairs should be our top priority, not conducting a foolish ideological experiment on school vouchers. Another serious problem with the private school voucher is the exclusionary policy of the private schools. Scarce Federal dollars should not go to schools that can exclude children. There is no requirement in the bill that schools receiving vouchers accept students with limited English proficiency, students with disabilities, homeless students or students with disciplinary problems. Scarce funds should be targeted to public schools which do not have the luxury of closing their doors to students who pose such challenges. As District of Columbia parent Alieze Stallworth says, ``A lot of people think the poor kids will be able to go to the best private schools. They are fooling themselves.'' The voucher proponents argue that vouchers increase the choice for parents. But parental choice is a mirage. Private schools apply different rules than public schools, and unlike the public schools, which must accept all children, the private schools decide whether to accept a child or not. The real choice goes to the schools, not the parents. The better the private school, the more parents and students are turned away. In Cleveland, nearly half of the public school students who received the vouchers could not find a private school that would accept them. Vouchers will not help most children who need help. This voucher scheme will send 2,000 children to private and parochial schools, but of the 78,000 children who attend D.C. public schools, 50,000 of the children, or 65 percent, come from low-income families. Thus, this proposal would provide vouchers for 3 percent of D.C.'s children and do nothing for the other 97 percent. Again, a point that has been well made by my friend and colleague from California, Senator Boxer. This is no way to spend Federal dollars. We should invest in strategies that help all children, not just a few. Another serious objection to this voucher scheme is its unconstitutionality. A vast majority of private schools that charge tuition below $3,200 are religious schools. Providing vouchers to religious schools is unconstitutional. It violates the establishment clause of the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution by providing a Federal subsidy for sectarian schools. In many States, the voucher schemes would violate the State constitution, too. In January 1997, a Wisconsin trial court held that the expansion of the Milwaukee voucher program to include religious schools was unconstitutional and violated the Wisconsin constitution. The court stated, ``We do not object to the existence of parochial schools or that they attempt to spread their beliefs through the schools. They just cannot do it with State dollars.'' On August 22, the Wisconsin State Court of Appeals affirmed by a 2 to 1 vote that the expansion of the State voucher program to include religious schools was unconstitutional under the Wisconsin constitution. On May 1, 1997, the Ohio Tenth Appellate Court unanimously reversed the trial court's decision to allow public money to be paid to religious schools. The appellate court held that the voucher program violated the separation of church and state under both the United States and Ohio Constitutions. And the court ruled that the voucher program ``steers aid to sectarian schools, resulting in what amounts to a direct Government subsidy.'' On June 27, 1997, a Vermont State superior court held that the use of vouchers to pay tuition at private religious schools violates both the U.S. and Vermont constitutions. The courts are clear on the unconstitutionality of vouchers for religious schools, and Congress should abide by their rules, too. These are all judgments that have been made within the last year under State constitutions and the Federal Constitution in terms of how this particular proposal would be unconstitutional. Instead of subsidizing private schools, we need to support ways to improve and reform the public schools. That is the basic point, Mr. President. Instead of subsidizing private schools, we need to support ways to improve and reform the public schools--not in a few schools but in all schools, not for a few students but for all students. That is the challenge. Supporting a few children at the expense of the many divides communities. The Federal Government should help rebuild communities, not undermine them. We should make investments that help all children in all the neighborhood schools to get a good, safe education. I think that is the heart of the argument against this amendment. So far, Mr. President, in this debate, we have been focusing on this particular chart. Hopefully, we as a body could agree that we do not want to abandon our public schools; we do not want to undermine the communities. As we mentioned, this particular proposal only funds a few at the expense of many--about 3 percent of the total students. It gives scarce Federal dollars to schools that can exclude children. Unlike the public school system, private schools can exclude children. The choice is not made by the parents or the children; it is made by the schools. And we have given examples of how that is being done. We ignore the voter will. When vouchers were put to a vote here in the District of Columbia, they were rejected 8 to 1. The issue has not come up on the ballot again since then. All the public commentary by religious and other elected officials reflects that same position even today. And vouchers raise the constitutional problems which have been addressed, Mr. President, not just academically but in several States which have tried to adopt similar kinds of programs. Many of us feel that the use of vouchers to subsidize parents who send their children to private schools is a serious mistake because it is a statement that encourages parents to abandon the public schools, not to work to improve them. Vouchers are a bad idea for school reform, but they are far from the only idea, and what I want to do, Mr. President, is review briefly a number of the ideas that have been working here in the District of Columbia to improve the academic achievement of many students. These ideas serve as an alternative to the unwise proposal to provide vouchers. There are many worthwhile ideas for reform that deserve broad support in Congress. I have listened to the debate, and people are just throwing up their hands and saying, ``We have problems in these schools. Let's just try vouchers,'' rather than being serious and looking at what is being attempted in many of these schools and what results they are achieving, evaluating where this additional money could go to benefit the most children. That is the test, I would think, that this voucher amendment fails. So we know what works, Mr. President, in school reform. We know what teachers need to do to do their jobs well. We need higher standards, better trained teachers, up-to-date classrooms, safe facilities. These are commonsense, doable solutions, and we ought to be doing much more to implement them. For example, Milwaukee taxpayers have spent $7 million on the voucher program. The program shows no academic gains for the 1,600 students involved. But for that same amount they could have put what they call a Success For All Program in place, which has a solid track record of helping poor children learn more. And it would have benefited every elementary school in that city. Instead of spending $7 million in the District of Columbia on a private school subsidy that has no proven track record of improving academic achievement and could help at most 2,000 children, we should investigate the strategies that work for all children. The conclusion is obvious. We should choose the 100-percent solution, not the 3- percent solution. Some D.C. schools have already restructured their facilities, improved teacher training, extended the school day, and enhanced family-centered learning. And they are getting results. We should make sure that every school and community has the resources to put into practice what works, so that no child is left out or left behind. There are serious problems in the Nation's public schools--especially in urban areas. We can do much more to turn troubled schools around, and undertake a wide range of proven reforms to create and sustain safe and high-performing schools. There are no panaceas to improve schools and improve student learning. There is no blank check. That is why we need to use our limited resources wisely, to get the most benefit for our tax dollars. Improving student performance starts with a focus on the basics-- safety, discipline, high standards, and parent involvement. Sustained improvement must be based on what works, and what is supported by parents, educators, and the larger community. Research shows that student achievement can best be improved by supporting a comprehensive set of district-level and school-level reforms. General Becton's plan supports these reforms, and we should too. I refer up here to restructuring the whole school. Let me just develop that. Greater school autonomy, when coupled with performance accountability, can contribute to conditions that make better learning possible. School leaders and teachers can exercise greater control over their school and have a greater sense of personal responsibility for its success. If teachers are to act as professionals and not as robots, they need to be given responsibility for making professional decisions regarding classroom practice and school policy. Holding students to higher standards requires that adults accept higher responsibility for improving student performance. The Walker Jones Elementary School in northwest Washington is working with the Laboratory for Student Success using Community for Learning, a research-based reform model--and it's working. The concept is called whole school reform. With increased and more intensive teacher training in proven methods and materials geared toward better student learning, student test scores have improved. After 6 months in the program, the school raised its ranking in the District on reading scores from 99th in 1996, to 36th in 1997. In math, the school climbed from 81st in the District to 18th--dramatic, significant academic achievement and performance. Another result of this reform will be increased accountability throughout the D.C. school system, with better performance measures and clear incentives and consequences for administrators, teachers, and students. Evaluations of teachers and principals will be tied to achievement, and schools that fail to demonstrate improvement will be put on probation. The principles of Success for All have now been introduced into 475 schools in 31 States. Evaluations show that students in this program tend to perform about 3 months ahead of control students by the end of first grade and by more than a year ahead by the end of fifth grade. What we are finding out in 475 schools across the country is that the impact that this approach is having in improving academic performance is not just on one or two children in a class, but on all the children. This is the kind of thing we should give attention to and give support to. A second basic principle of school reform involves organizing schools around a clearer focus on educational excellence for all students, and an academic orientation that challenges all students to master basic and advanced skills in reading, math, and other core subjects. The voucher program flunks this test. Five years of evaluations by Prof. John F. Witte of the University of Wisconsin-Madison show no achievement difference between voucher students and comparable Milwaukee public school students. By contrast, in the D.C. public schools, under a new promotion policy beginning this school year, students in grades three and eight must have at least basic reading skills before advancing to a higher grade. This requirement reflects a new commitment by the District to ensure that all children master their basic studies. The District has mandated a 90 minute literacy period for direct instruction each day and suggested additional silent reading times each day. That is giving emphasis, giving priority in local schools to the area that is basic to learning any other possible subject matter, and that is reading. With all respect to computer--reading. In addition to mastering basic skills, children need to be challenged with a rigorous curriculum. One of the most effective choices that parents and students can make is to choose to take more challenging academic courses. It works. A growing body of evidence demonstrates that public school reform efforts that include high standards and rigorous courses can improve achievement for the majority of students in the public schools. States and local communities that have set more challenging standards are seeing substantial gains in student achievement. New York City's College preparatory initiative, mandating more rigorous science and mathematics courses, has resulted in the best- prepared class to enter the City University of New York since 1970. Elementary schools in the city are showing a 4-year rise in test scores. The number of Hispanic and black students who pass the science test more than doubled between 1993 and 1994. There are the result. The whole class is moving up. The whole entry class for the City College of New York is moving up in academic achievement, based on this particular New York College preparatory initiative. A great deal of attention has been paid this fall to the problem of roof repairs in the D.C. public schools. Far less attention has been paid to the fact that beginning this fall all public schools in the District will have new content and higher performance standards to define what every child in expected to learn and do. D.C. public schools are committed to helping all children meet these standards. The second point is foster world-class instruction. In addition, in order for students' performance to improve, teachers must be able to teach to higher standards. They must know the content of the curriculum and the best teaching methods for helping students to learn in genuinely challenging courses. Teachers today, however, are not getting the training they need. One of the best programs we have, the Eisenhower Math-Science Training Program--a hands-on program to upgrade the skills of teachers in our high schools--has just been block granted under the Gorton amendment, just been wiped off the books. We don't know what they are going to do with that money when it is distributed all over the country, but we know what a difference that funding makes to every one of those math and science teachers in every one of those communities that have benefited from this valuable teacher training program. Math and science students in inner-city schools have only a 50- percent chance of being taught by a teacher qualified to teach these subjects. Seven years ago, 53 percent of D.C. teachers were not certified. By last year, the number had dropped to 33 percent. In 1997, all new teachers are certified, and existing teachers must be certified by January 1998 or risk dismissal. Extending the school day can also be effective. In addition to helping in education, it can also help to create safe havens for students in unsafe neighborhoods. A recent report by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention shows that while violent youth crime is rising rapidly, children are safer in schools than anywhere else. To create a safer, more disciplined, and drug-free environment for children, we need to place more emphasis on hours spent outside school. After school programs that keep children off the street are a powerful and constructive answer to the serious problems of delinquency that plague so many communities. I would say even with regard to unwanted teenage pregnancies, the Centers for Disease Control's study shows that about 65 or 70 percent of these incidents take place in the after-school hours. This step can work effectively even in individual schools. At the Spingarn School in northeast Washington, the principal made student safety the first priority. Mr. President, 740 students attend the after-school day program and 500 students attend the night program. The school was a safe haven for students. Drug and violence prevention programs also keep students focused on learning. Students who break school rules are not dumped on the street where they are likely to become perpetrators or victims of violence. Instead, they are placed in separate programs in the school where their education is not interrupted. We also know that the more time children spend learning, the more they will learn. Programs that extend the school day or the school week can enhance academic achievement. The District of Columbia has created so-called Saturday academies for students who read below grade level. The Saturday curriculum reinforces the weekday instruction, and benefits from a reduced student-teacher ratio. I can remember when those Saturday programs were first suggested and the uniform impression was: Why bother with it? People won't show up. Parents won't bother. They would rather take the children, if they are not working, to do something else. That is just hogwash. When those classrooms opened, on Saturday especially, parents made sure their children took advantage of it. And that has been the case overwhelmingly. In the programs that developed with the Saturday curriculum, we have seen a much better student-teacher ratio and we have seen extremely important progress made. Schools in Massachusetts are benefiting from these ideas. The Timilty Middle School in Roxbury, MA was long known for its low test scores and high rates for suspending students. Project Promise was established, including an extended school day program to increase the amount of time that students spend in class. School attendance rose, math and reading skills improved, and suspension rates dropped significantly. As a result, the Timilty Middle School was recently cited as an exemplary school by the U.S. Department of Education. It was a dramatic change in the turning around of that school. Finally, school reform must include greater family involvement. Thirty years of research shows that family involvement in children's learning is a critical link in achieving a high quality education and safe, disciplined learning for every student. Schools can reach out to parents and community members. Together they can develop a shared commitment to excellence for all students, and work in partnership to reach their goals. Family-centered services can be provided that include literacy training for parents, and teaching parents how to help their children with their homework. When teachers and parents work closely together, children can learn more effectively. The Nalle School in the District of Columbia and the Freddie Mack Foundation are working together to create the District's first full service community school to address the wide range of family needs. Working with service organizations, parents and educators, and community leaders, the school is becoming a major hub of community activity, bringing the parents in, finding out what needs the parents have, and providing them with the instruments to help and assist the children move to higher academic achievement and accomplishment. And it is working. It is working if schools and communities have the resources. Can we have a chance to go through each of these different proposals at greater length at another time? I know others want to speak to this, and we have limited time this afternoon, but we will have a chance to go through this in greater detail, I am sure, at some time, Mr. President. If schools and communities have the resources to choose effective ways, such as these, to ensure all children have an opportunity to reach higher academic standards, schools will be able to offer real alternatives to students and parents while maintaining the kind of accountability that is fundamental to ensure a good education. Congress can be part of these efforts, too. Instead of debating divisive ideological schemes like vouchers, that undermine the public schools and ignore 97 percent of the children, we can invest in what works and make school reform work for 100 percent of the children in the District of Columbia and in every community. Good education begins with decent places to learn. Yet, too many of our public schools across the Nation are falling apart, and that is wrong. I have a chart that reflects exactly what the situation is for the District of Columbia. D.C. schools have more hazardous conditions than the national average. This chart shows that District of Columbia schools' exterior walls and windows fail to meet the minimum standards in terms of safety and quality. Roof conditions are also much worse than the national average, although this number has improved somewhat because of the action that has taken place in the past 2 to 3 weeks. Heating and ventilation systems in D.C. schools have twice the problems that we have for the national average. Plumbing, twice the problems. Electric lighting, twice the problems that they have. Life-safety codes, two and a half, three times the problems that they have. Power for technology, again, well behind the curve, Mr. President. So these problems are severe in the District schools. Sixty-seven percent of the public schools have crumbling roofs--although as I mentioned, there has been some change in the recent weeks--but only 27 percent of the schools across the country suffer from the problem. I daresay, if you want to look at the national standards, they are not all that great. In Boston, there are a number of schools in the wintertime, anywhere from 15 to 18 schools, that do not open because of various heating problems every day. The situation in Boston has improved somewhat under Mayor Menino and Tom Payzant. But go to the older towns of New Bedford, Fall River, Lowell, Lawrence, Holyoke, Springfield, North Adams, and many of the other smaller communities also on the north shore, and you find problems similar to those of the D.C. schools. So the national average is not a very positive test. Senator Moseley- Braun has been the leader in the U.S. Senate in recognizing that unless facilities are suitable for learning purposes, we disadvantage children to such an extraordinary degree. Not just because there are no textbooks available or because it is colder in the wintertime, but the point that she has made, and I think so powerfully and effectively, is what it does to a child who goes into a classroom that is in such a state of deterioration. We say education is important. People in the communities say education is important. The children every single day go into these dilapidated conditions where they are not able to get the school books they need, where the roofs are leaking, windows won't close, where they don't have adequate heating, where they don't have the electrical outlets for computers. Mr. President, what kind of message is it sending to those children when we are out there putting increasing demands on those children? That is something for which I think we as a society pay a very heavy price. But that is another issue for another time. The point is, we tried to mention the places the $7 million could be used that would enhance the academic achievement and accomplishments of a great number of the students. The school facilities, as I mentioned, across the country are in poor condition. It is a national problem. Water damage from an old boiler has caused so much wall deterioration in one D.C. junior high school that the entire wing has been condemned. Leaking roofs have been causing ceilings to crumble on teachers' and students' desks. Fire doors are warped shut. Some schools are sweltering in hot weather because they lack air-conditioning. Others are so poorly insulated that students must wear coats indoors in the winter. According to D.C. public schools, $87 million was needed to make the critical repairs necessary to ensure all schools would be ready to open for the 1997-98 period. Yet, only $50 million was appropriated to repair the schools. Requests for additional funding were initially denied by Congress and only made available at the last minute. So Congress deserves part of the responsibility for the crisis that was caused by the recent 3-week delay in the opening of the schools. Isn't that wonderful? Here we are trying to tell the District of Columbia what they ought to do with scarce resources, and we were late in putting the money up so they could open in the first place, disadvantaging all of those children. Mr. President, we do not have a good enough record to dictate to the District of Columbia on education or on most other items. D.C. schools need much more repair. Any funding that we invest should be spent on improving the public schools for students. We should not be diverting the Federal dollars to pay subsidies for the private schools when public schools have such pressing, urgent needs. It is preposterous to pretend that we can prepare for the 21st century in dilapidated 19th century classrooms. Improving educational opportunities for all children deserves the highest priority at every level of Government and in every community across the Nation. Educating our youth is one of our Nation's most important responsibilities. If we fail to make sound investments in education, few other investments will make much difference for our country and its role in the world in the years ahead. In meeting the educational needs of children, we must allocate scarce resources wisely. We know what works. We must make sure that every child has access to it. We should not give public funds to schools that can exclude children. We should invest in public schools so that all children have the opportunity for a good education. We should rebuild communities, not divide them. Communities across the country are working hard to improve their public schools, and Congress should help them to do more as well, not make their current troubles worse. We should create improved conditions in all schools for all children, and we should start with safe buildings, decent roofs, good plumbing, and classrooms equipped for the 21st century of learning. Mr. President, what could we do with the $7 million? We can improve the infrastructure with that $7 million. It could buy 368 new boilers for D.C. schools. There are 157 schools, and at least with regard to trying to make sure that they have hot water and heating systems, we could do much for the D.C. schools. We could rewire 65 schools that don't have the capacity to accommodate computers and multimedia equipment. We have in the budget about $300 million a year for new technology, technology grants to try to help assist local communities with new computers. Why don't we go ahead and wire some of the schools so at least they will be able to participate in these new kinds of technologies? Why don't we train the teachers to be able to use those technologies in a way that can integrate computers into the curriculum and give these children an opportunity so that they are going to be able to compete in the future? We could rewire 65 schools. We could upgrade the plumbing in 102 schools with substandard facilities. We see the problem here, the challenge. We have double the problems in just basic fundamental plumbing in the schools. We could upgrade the plumbing in over 100 of those schools so that we can make some difference, again in terms of infrastructure. That $7 million can do a lot for infrastructure. What could $7 million do to support other programs that are demonstrating enhanced academic achievement? The few that I mentioned-- and at another opportunity, I will go into more detail on some others-- $1 million would buy 66,000 new hard-cover books for the D.C. school libraries. That is very important. If you look at what is available in those D.C. libraries and compare them to libraries in schools all over the country, you will find them dramatically shortchanged. We have a real opportunity to make a difference in the libraries of schools all over the District, and we could have an important impact in making sure that each student is going to have the textbooks which they require in the classroom. They don't have those today. Here we are talking about spending $7 million to give vouchers to 2,000 students when the other students who are left back in the classroom don't even have the textbooks to be able to follow what is going on in the classroom. Maybe we will hear other testimony, I am sure we will, about the miracles of vouchers in improving academic achievement for students, but I haven't heard any convincing arguments made in the course of this debate. To the contrary; we can take additional time and demonstrate where the various reviews have failed. Mr. President, $1 million would fully fund after-school programs in 25 schools; $7 million would fund after-school programs in every one of the District of Columbia schools and benefit every child--every child-- not just 3 percent; every child. In any fair evaluation about what is happening in these after-school programs, we must note what a difference these programs have meant, when we tie them in to academic help and assistance, in advancing students' academic achievements and accomplishments and in improving interest in school and attendance rates. The programs are reducing absenteeism and keeping children safe and secure and beginning to challenge and open up new opportunities of learning for children. You would be able to do this with the $7 million for every school in the District of Columbia. But, no, we are going to take 3 percent of those children and give them a voucher with which they may or may not be able to get into some school, not which their parents are going to be able to get them into, or not that the child is going to be able to get into, but the school is going to make that judgment and decision. Mr. President, $3.5 million would link 58 more schools to research, improving designs and improving day-to-day instructions. Those are the other kinds of programs that I referred to earlier in my comments. I certainly hope that this amendment will not be accepted. We too often around here look for easy answers to tough, complicated problems. Recently, if we find out we have a problem, more often than not we propose a constitutional amendment to deal with it. We have more constitutional amendments pending in the Judiciary Committee in this Congress than in the history of the country. We have gotten to where we think if we just pass a constitutional amendment, all of these problems are going to be resolved. We are not going to be able to deal with all of the problems that all of us understand are out there in the public school system on the cheap. It is going to be tough, difficult work. Money in and of itself is not the only answer. In many instances, you can probably get a much better and higher grade education with the amount of resources that are being expended. We understand that. We know that. But, nonetheless, what we are talking about here with this particular amendment is a reflection of our priorities--of our priorities. How are we going to spend that $7 million? Are we going to prioritize 3 percent of those children with a program that I believe is unconstitutional? And perhaps those that defend it are going to be able to make a case to respond to what is happening up in Wisconsin and what has happened in Vermont and other States that have struck down vouchers over the last year--maybe they will be able to sustain it. Perhaps they will be able to make the case with those 3 percent of children going to these private schools, that they are demonstrating what a breakthrough kind of academic brilliance that they are able to achieve and accomplish, and we are going to find the whole country is going to be shaken by this experience and we are going to do something dramatic about it. The fact is, Mr. President, those that have demonstrated over the course of their lives--some with more success than others--know that this is hard, tough work, that it is a combination of elements. Children are not going to learn if there is disruption in those classrooms, if the classrooms are not safe. Children are not going to learn if they go to school hungry during the course of the day. Children are not going to learn if they do not have the textbooks. Children are not going to learn if they have an inadequately trained teacher. Children are not going to learn if they know that their walls are crumbling down and they do not have light. Just like the children are not going to learn if they have hearing problems or if they have vision problems or if they have some asthmatic problems--they are sick. One of the benefits that we have taken care of, hopefully, in the recent action here, is to try and make sure that children are going to get the preventative health care so that when they go in there at least they are going to be healthy children when they go to those classrooms. We know some of the things that inhibit children from learning. We do not know all the things that enhance their academic achievement, but we know some. And we know some of the ones that have a proven record, demonstrable record, with solid results. The question that the Senate is going to have to ask is, are we going to try this kind of a program here for $7 million when we can invest that $7 million in some of the programs here in the District, replicating the ones here in the districts that the parents want, that the teachers know have been successful, that have been carefully evaluated, that will benefit the greatest number of children? Or are we going to reach down from Olympus and say, ``OK, we here in the Senate are deciding for you, even though you don't want it. We're going to experiment here. We can't pass this kind of legislation back in our own States where it's been defeated at times that it has gone before the electorate, but we're going to try it on you here. We have $7 million. And in spite of the fact that your religious leaders, your business leaders, your elected leaders do not want that, and want it invested in these other programs, that's too bad. That's too bad on this. We're just going to say, `You're going to have to have it because we want to experiment with it.' We want to try and find some silver bullet to solve this problem''? I hope, Mr. President, that this amendment is not accepted. Mr. President, how much time is left?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will just take one moment to ask Senator Hutchison--I understand this issue about vouchers was actually considered by the Texas legislature this year and was actually rejected. That is part of the problem that many of us have.

Mr. KENNEDY. Touche. I mention to my friend from Idaho before he leaves, we acknowledge the previous failure that he had outlined here very eloquently this afternoon when we established the control board. The D.C. school chief executive officer, General Becton, has had 10 months to enact changes. In that short time, they have consolidated and closed 12 school buildings, hired only certified teachers, established annual testing for all students, and set standards for teachers and principals. They have only been in effect for 10 months and here we already are changing and interfering with their priority. I think for the reasons that the Senator has pointed out--there has been this dramatic change in terms of the leadership, those that are trying to provide new leadership, and here we are in the Congress trying to second-guess.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield the remaining time to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to take this opportunity to pay tribute to an outstanding leader in the American labor movement. All of us who know and admire George Murphy are proud of his lifetime of commitment to improving the lives of working communities across America, and are saddened by his retirement as general counsel of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. In a very real sense, George has lived the American dream. He was born and raised in Washington, DC. His father, William, served as a police officer here. His mother, Rose, was a dedicated school teacher. George's parents instilled in him the commitment to excellence and service that have made him one of the finest and most respected labor attorneys in the country. Throughout his 31 years of service, he has demonstrated extraordinary dedication to the ideals and principles of the labor movement that have led to so many achievements for union members and for millions of other workers across the country whose lives are better today because of George Murphy. George's impressive leadership for the benefit of all working men and women and their families will be long remembered. I extend my warmest wishes and congratulations to George on his retirement. His outstanding service is an inspiration to us all.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield as much time as he needs to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor for me to join as a sponsor of the Oceans Act of 1997. Our goal in this legislation is to deal more effectively with one of the most important aspects of our overall policy for the environment--our efforts to preserve and protect our management ocean and coastal resources. I commend Senator Hollings for his leadership on this important legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor for me to join as a sponsor of the Oceans Act of 1997. Our goal in this legislation is to deal more effectively with one of the most important aspects of our overall policy for the environment--our efforts to preserve and protect our management ocean and coastal resources. I commend Senator Hollings for his leadership on this important legislation.