Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President a few moments ago, as I understand, the President of the United States reversed his course on the incredibly damaging decision to suspend wage protections for workers rebuilding the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina, known as the Davis-Bacon provisions. These are the prevailing wage provisions, the age-old policy that the Government should not drive wages below the prevailing wage in a particular community. The prevailing wage for construction is $8 in Mississippi, $9 in Alabama, and $10 in Louisiana. That would work out to $16,000, $18,000, $21,000 a year as the prevailing wage. That's not too much for workers who are trying to rebuild their homes and rebuild their lives. I applaud the decision the President has made on that issue. Amendment No. 2283, as Modified

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, before speaking on the current Harkin amendment, which I strongly support for the reasons I will outline, I want the Senate to know that our HELP Committee, under the chairmanship of Senator Enzi, and the subcommittee, under the chairmanship of Senator Burr, has been working on this issue, but from a different angle. Right now we need appropriations, which are included in the Harkin amendment. And we will also consider--hopefully favorably--the Burr- Enzi legislation, which deals with a range of issues involving patent, compensation, and liability issues that are all related to encouraging companies to enter the market. These are different approaches, and each is enormously important in its own way. I thank the chairman of my committee, Senator Enzi, who always is tireless in his courtesies and his outreach to the members of the committee on his side as well as ours, and to Senator Burr for working with us. I am very hopeful that if we can schedule and pass that legislation, and get this appropriation included today, we will, I believe, have the best of all worlds. Looking at this issue globally, there are various components. We have the resource aspect of it, we have the public health aspect of it, and then the aspect that is related to providing incentives for the private sector. Hopefully, we will deal with all of those before the end of the term. I believe strongly, as Senator Harkin pointed out, that we must take action now on this legislation, to ensure that we'll have sufficient resources to deal with the purchasing aspects and also the limited, but extremely important, public health provisions which are included in this legislation. One provision provides for the global detection of this pandemic, as well as domestic detection, should it come to the United States. It also provides the resources to contain and respond to the danger by improving surge capacity, and developing an overall plan so we are able to effectively deal with this issue. We have been on notice for years. This chart is going to be difficult to read for those viewing: ``The U.S. missed the warning signs of the flu pandemic.'' In 1992, the Institute of Medicine pointed out: Policymakers must realize and understand the potential magnitude of an influenza pandemic. This is when we began to detect the dangerous indicators of this pandemic: In 1997, there was an outbreak in Hong Kong. In November 2000: Federal and State influenza plans do not address the key issues surrounding the purchase and distribution of vaccines and antivirals. This comes from a GAO report which found that very few States have made the kind of downpayment that is required to protect individuals from this pandemic. Again, in May 2002, according to the World Health: Authorities must understand the potential impact and threat of pandemic influenza. Then in December of 2003, there was an outbreak in South Korea. In January 2004, there was an outbreak in Vietnam. The reason the World Health Organization and the European Union have been so concerned about this is because of the danger of this particular flu strain. This chart indicates the death rate from this flu strain. In Cambodia, it has been 100 percent; in Thailand, 71 percent; in Vietnam, 44 percent; an overall average of 50 percent. We are talking about dozens of cases, not hundreds, not thousands, not millions. But if this strain mutates and easily spreads human-to-human, we are talking about potentially a great threat. I know the Senator from Iowa, myself, Senator Reid, our leader, Senator Obama, and Senator Durbin are frustrated about this issue. This is a General Accounting Office report that was published in October 2000, ``Influenza Pandemic. Plan needed for Federal and State response.'' The General Accounting Office reviewed what the needs were and suggested to Congress and the Administration that we respond. Five years later, we are finally getting some action on the floor of the Senate. In this chart, we can see what has happened in other countries. In comparison, the U.S. stockpile of antiviral medicine is inadequate. Senator Harkin pointed out what other nations have done. This is a sample: Australia has antiviral medicine for 20 percent of its population; Britain, 25 percent; France, 25 percent; Japan, 17 percent; and the United States, we only cover 1 percent of our population. We are faced with whether we should take action or not take action. This is a list of the various countries that have developed nationwide plans: Japan, October 1997; Canada, February 2004; Czech Republic, 2004; Hong Kong, 2005; Britain in March of 2005. I point out the British plan, I am not going to include it in the Record, but I will include it by reference. It is some 95 pages long. It sets the scene and provides the overall framework for the UK's response to an influenza pandemic. It is based on the current advice for national pandemic plans from the World Health Organization. The response is divided into phases, starting with work to be done before a potential pandemic emerges, followed by a step-by-step escalating response to the pandemic. The plan goes on: Advanced planning is essential to establish and rehearse contingency arrangements and identify and address gaps in our preparedness so we are in the best possible position to manage the emergency and to ameliorate its impact. On page 5, it talks about the various aspects of the plans: communication, surveillance, information gathering, the public health response, measures to reduce the health impact, vaccination, health service response, civil contingency, workforce education and training, essential preparatory work. All of this outlined in the UK, in Great Britain. Here is Canada's plan. It is 87 pages long. What does this plan address? This is what they have: Who is responsible for the pandemic planning? It lists those in charge. Why is this an important health issue? It outlines why it is a health issue. What preparations are being made? It outlines all of the preparations that are being made. What needs to happen in a comprehensive response? It outlines all of those. What will be involved in a recovery from a pandemic? It has an entire section, all outlined here. Where is the United States? Where is our response? The USA is the big question mark, and that is what we find unacceptable. That is why the Harkin amendment is important to adopt. It has provisions dealing with antivirals and vaccines; it has the needed global interventions; and it has the detection needed here in the United States. It has the surge capacity and public health provisions that need to be expanded. Senator Burr indicated that hearings on public health provisions will take place after we pass this legislation, which is all well and good. But we need to act now. Each country with a national plan includes important public health components. We would not be meeting our responsibilities unless we did likewise. This proposal recognizes that we have a responsibility to move forward on this and provides the resources necessary to get started. This particular proposal works to fulfill the recommendations of the World Health Organization, with $3 billion for antivirals and $3 billion in vaccines. There is flexibility in these allocations and in the allocations for the public health provisions. So I would hope very much that the Senate would accept this. It is a modest downpayment. As I mentioned, there are several aspects of the battle. One certainly is the stockpiling of the vaccines and antivirals. It is enormously important that the resources are there. A downpayment in terms of the public health is also very important. And we must provide incentives for industry to encourage vaccine development and production. That is following along with the Enzi-Burr proposal, and all of us owe a debt of gratitude to them.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. We are all working together to have a bipartisan proposal that we will be able to act on. If we have positive action on the Harkin amendment, and a positive result on the Enzi-Burr proposal, at the end of this session, the Senate will have made a very strong downpayment in preparing this Nation. We eagerly await the administration's proposal, but quite frankly, I do not think we can delay any longer. Other countries have moved ahead. At this time, we have only stockpiled 1 percent of the total amount of antivirals that we will need. This is the issue. Now is the time for action. I am very hopeful that this amendment will be accepted. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment from Senator Coburn. For five years now, this President and this Republican Congress have prioritized tax cuts for the rich at the expense of urgent national priorities. It has left us with so many unmet needs. The amendment offered by Senator Coburn asks us to choose between two vitally important national priorities--protecting our national security or providing increased assistance to people living with HIV and AIDS. We shouldn't have to do that, and a responsible Congress wouldn't force our hand. An epidemic of HIV and AIDS continues to ravage communities-- especially communities of color--across the country. Approximately 1 million individuals live with the disease and they struggle every day to make ends meet and to afford the medical care, medicines, and other supports they need to live healthy and productive lives. The Federal AIDS Drug Assistance Program gives needy individuals the help they need. It is a vital part of our safety net for people living with HIV and AIDS, and it deserves more Federal support. I look forward to working with Senator Coburn soon on the reauthorization of the ADAP program as well as reauthorization of the other vital programs in the Ryan White CARE Act. We need to expand our commitment to the whole of the CARE Act programs so we can improve lives of people living with HIV and AIDS. But this amendment isn't the right approach. It is irresponsible and dangerous. It proposes to increase funding for the ADAP program by cutting our investment in the Centers for Disease Control--the frontline Federal agency in the battle against bioterrorist threats and avian flu that threaten the health and safety of all Americans. In the past they fought and protected us from the SARS virus and their expertise is often called upon to protect others across the world from Ebola and other deadly viruses. Senator Harkin has outlined the need for modern facilities for the CDC. They cannot fight 21st century threats in 20th century buildings. It is wrong to cut $60 million from CDC construction appropriations at this time when so many public health threats are converging on us and I urge all my colleagues to vote against the Coburn amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in June 2005, the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics eliminated the most reliable source of employment data on women workers by removing the Women Worker Series from its Current Employment Statistics survey. This move--opposed by a bipartisan coalition of Senators--blocks collection of key data about the status and progress of women in the workplace. I offer an amendment today to reverse that decision. Comprehensive and accurate information on gender employment is vital to ending long-standing economic discrimination against women in our society. The facts are painfully clear. Women today earn 76 cents for every dollar earned by men. They work disproportionately in lower- paying occupations, and have far lower lifetime earnings than men. Congress, researchers, and policymakers across the country need the data collected by the Women Worker Series to understand the true dimensions of gender inequality in the workforce, and guide us in our effort to eliminate it. The Women Worker Series has the best available data on women in the workforce. It's been part of a broad-based survey of nearly 400,000 business establishments that examines the most accurate data available--employers' own records. The data are the most reliable way to assess monthly changes in employment, and they contain valuable insights on women's employment and unemployment in the business cycle. The information collected in the survey is indispensable to policymakers and researchers. During the comment period conducted by the Department of Labor, the comments received were more than 9-to-1 against discontinuing the series. Every business group that commented on the proposed elimination of the data, including the Women's Chamber of Commerce and Business and Professional Women, supported continuing the collection of the data. Janet Norwood, Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics in both the Carter and Reagan administrations, criticized the recent decision to discontinue this collection. Many of the comments cited studies that used the data to uncover important conclusions about the position of women in the workforce. A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, for example, used the data to find that men and women have historically been affected differently by recessions, with jobs often shifting from women to men during these periods. This study would have been impossible without the Women Worker Series. The department claims that it has eliminated the series in order to reduce the burden on employers responding in the survey. But continuing to collect this information would not be unduly burdensome. The gender series is only one question in a larger survey that the department continues to conduct. According to BLS estimates, the entire survey takes only seven minutes to fill out, so the burden imposed by a single question is virtually nonexistent. Indeed, most employers are required to track the gender of their employees for other purposes, so the requested information is almost always readily available. The decision to eliminate the Women Worker Series is an insult to working women across the country, and can only strengthen the discrimination they face in the workplace. At a time when women's employment may be changing in fundamental ways, we should be expanding--not reducing--our ability to understand the evolving role of women in the Nation's labor force. I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment and avoid taking an unfair step backward on this very important issue for working women across America. I ask, unanimous consent that letters in support of the amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. That would not upset the current situation. I am glad to yield to him.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is a very modest amendment. It is targeted to a program which is a lifeline to millions of hard-working American families in the form of education--the Pell grant. The Pell grant is the major instrument by which the Federal Government provides help and assistance to needy families in this country. The median income among families who benefit from the grant is about $24,000 a year and the median income of independent students who receive the grant is less than $13,000 per year. These families need help and assistance in going to college. This particular amendment will raise the Pell grant from $4,050 to $4,250. The cost of the amendment is approximately $800 million. I remind our colleagues of one of the great statements made in this country by an American Founding Father, John Adams, whose 270th birthday we celebrate this week. He was the architect of the Massachusetts State Constitution, written in 1780. Many of the ideas from that constitution have been accepted in constitutions all over the country. The one aspect that has been replicated in every State constitution is the State's commitment to educating children. It is said so well in the Massachusetts Constitution: It will reward its patron and benefactors by shedding its benign influence on the public minds. Laws for the liberal education of youth, especially of the lower class of people, are so extremely wise and useful that to a humane and generous mind no expense for this purpose would be thought extravagant. That is what this amendment says. We are saying this Nation, at this time, cannot afford to lose these young minds. We have 400,000 young Americans who are qualified and would be accepted to 4-year colleges on the basis of their academic records if they had the resources to be able to attend. It is an indictment of our Nation if we fail to provide these young people with an opportunity to receive an education, participate in our society, and give something back to our country. We cannot afford to lose them. The Pell grant is the indispensable link between these families and an education. This Nation has always responded when challenged in the areas of education. In response to the Industrial Revolution, we made a national commitment to expand access to high schools, and America prospered. It was an extraordinary commitment and has made an extraordinary difference in the success of this Nation, both commercially and militarily. At the time of World War II, we had 12 to 14 million Americans who served--many for 3, 5, 6, 7 years--in the Armed Forces of our country. When they returned, President Roosevelt offered the GI bill. That would open the doors of opportunity for education. For all who came back from World War II, who had been out fighting for our Nation, they would have the benefits of an education. By the millions, they took advantage of the GI bill. In reviewing the investment made by this Government, the figures show for every $1 invested in education, it was returned seven times by those who received or benefitted from the GI bill. We extended education benefits in the time of the Vietnam war. Also, when challenged technologically in 1957 with the launch of Sputnik--we had a Republican President, Democratic Congress--we recognized the need to dramatically improve math and science achievement in this country. We passed the National Defense Education Act to strengthen both our national security and our global competitiveness, and the Federal investment in education doubled, with a strong focus on math and science education. At that time the Federal Government was spending 5 cents out of every $1 on education. Now we are at 1\1/2\ cents, and going south. Do we understand that? Only 1\1/2\ cents out of every Federal dollar is spent on education, and we are going, effectively, south. I think this is not the kind of priority the American people expect and the American people want. This is a very modest amendment, especially against that background. The amendment raises the maximum Pell grant by $200. Let me first show what has happened to the Pell grant over the period of recent years. Some of us remember the great debates we had in the 1960s. One of the principal issues in the 1960 campaign was: Should we provide help and assistance to young people in the form of education? That was heavily debated in the Presidential debates at that time. A judgment and decision was made when the votes were in and President Kennedy won. One of the first things he did was submit a higher education bill, which was eventually passed in 1965. There was a great debate at that time: Should we provide help and assistance to the child or should we provide help and assistance to the university? The decision was made that we would provide it to the young student so the student would have the flexibility to be able to go to the college of their choice. In 1965, when the higher education bill was passed, the Federal funding for education was close to 80 percent in grants and 20 percent in loans, for students who qualified for grants. Those were families in the lowest income bracket. The Pell grant was used extensively and benefitted millions of young people. This chart shows what has happened with the Pell grant between 1985 and 2005. It shows the shrinking buying power of the Pell grant over the past 20 years. We find that during the 1985-1986 school year the maximum Pell grant covered 57 percent of the cost of attendance at a 4- year public institution. We see, as the cost of education has gone up, that the purchasing power of the Pell grant has steadily declined. In the 2005-2006 school year the maximum grant covers only 33 percent of the cost of college attendance. Look at this. This is a chart that shows the gap between the maximum Pell grant and the cost of attending college, which continues to increase. This is a reflection of the gradual increase in tuition over the recent years, from 2001 and 2002 up to 2005 and 2006. This shows the gap--now nearly $8,100. Here, this green line shows the maximum Pell grant which has been effectively stable during that period of time, while the cost of attending a 4-year public college has been going up and up and up, putting enormous pressure on these families who have limited opportunities and resources. The Federal Government provides Pell grants. It provides Stafford loans. States and local communities also provide help and assistance to students. Here is an indication of what is happening in our States. This chart reflects the State and local funding per full-time student at public institutions, which has declined some 16 percent since 2001. What all of this says is that the purchasing power of the Pell grant has gone down. There are hundreds of thousands of children who are not going to college because they are unable to afford it. We have seen that the help and assistance given to needy students has dropped at the State and local levels, but the costs have been continuing to go higher and higher. This amendment requires a judgment and decision about a nation's priorities: whether we believe, as a nation, in the importance of supporting education and making education available to all young people, and for which we are prepared to support this very modest increase. It is useful to make a judgment based upon what we think we need here in the United States. But it is also relevant to get some idea about what is happening in other countries that are increasingly competing with the American economy. Here is an example. The numbers of engineering graduates in China and India far outpace that of the United States. In China, it is 600,000; in India, 350,000; in the United States, 70,000, and many of these are foreign students who, more likely than not, will be returning to their home countries. We cannot expect to have a first-rate economy with a second-rate educational system. It does not work that way. Not only will we not have a first-rate economy, but we will not have a first-rate military with a second-rate educational system. This is not going to be the answer to all of our problems in terms of education. Later in the debate we consider other amendments to increase support for education and to improve math and science achievement. But this amendment is essential to ensuring every American has an opportunity to go to college. Fewer and fewer good jobs are available for those without a college education. When I first came to the Senate, the greatest employer down in Quincy, Massachusetts was the Quincy Shipyard. I would say 90 percent of those workers had a high school education. They had a pretty good middle-class life. They worked hard. They got some time off to spend with their families. More often than not, they would be able to take a couple weeks with their children over the course of the summertime. There was a great sense of community. There was great involvement in all of the activities in the community, and people were able to make a very decent and good living, just as their parents had, working at that Quincy Fore River Shipyard. Generally speaking, if you look back 40 or 45 years ago, an individual had one job. More often than not, they kept that job their whole life. Now we know that workers entering the workforce today will have eight or nine different jobs during their lifetimes. Investing in education and continuing training has to be a lifelong national commitment. This particular amendment is focused on those who are just entering the educational process after they get out of high school and those who are from low-income families. We need the skills of those young people. We cannot, as a nation, afford to let those skills go untapped. We cannot effectively write off a whole segment of our Nation because it's too expensive to go on into higher education. And too often, that is what is happening. We have all seen the statistics about the increased cost of gasoline, the increased cost of prescription drugs, the increased cost of energy, particularly in my part of the country. We have talked about that and debated it here in the last few weeks. But we have also seen at other times that those in the basic middle income, even though they have seen very dramatic increases in productivity, in what they have been able to produce, have not seen a significant increase in their wages or in their family income over the period of these past years. That is a fact. That has been a reality. So there is increasing pressure. We find out that even for those families who are able to patch together the means to get to college, even with the Pell grants today, more often than not, it takes the average family--even with their limited ability to borrow--over 20 years to pay back those loans that were needed to meet the cost of getting their child into higher education. We are trying to say to Americans, to children of hard-working American people, that we recognize that education is a key to opportunity in this country. Our chart demonstrates the difference between the lifetime earnings of individuals with college degrees and those without them $1 million over a lifetime. A key value in our society is fairness. The reality is, we, as a country, can well afford--in the richest nation in the world--to offer a helping hand to those who have limited incomes in the form of Pell grants. So this is an issue of fairness. It is an issue of opportunity. It is also a question of competitiveness. If we do not have a solid educational system, we are not going to be a first-rate nation commercially or militarily. At a time when we are feeling the increasing forces of world competition, we see what is happening in other countries. Now we are not just exporting blue-collar jobs out of the heartland of our Nation; we are finding, increasingly, that high- tech jobs are not only moving out, but that many of our high-tech industries are moving out to take advantage of the training and education in other countries, particularly in India, and other places in the world. So it is about fairness. It is about opportunity. It is about competition. Finally, as I mentioned, it is about national security. We need to have in our military the best-trained, best-led troops. But they also need the best in terms of technology. This requires well-trained and educated personnel. Unless we have a talented pool of college graduates, our military, our intelligence community, all of our employers, and our Nation are going to suffer. And we won't have that talented pool unless we provide opportunities for our young people. This amendment takes a step in the right direction. Mr. President, $200 does not sound like a lot when we are talking about the billions of dollars in this budget. But today we know that a $200 increase in student aid would mean that hundreds of thousands of students would be able to afford college. Two hundred dollars does not sound like a lot, but it is a lot to low-income families. It is a lot for millions of working families, as they are looking at their bills and trying to make adjustments and trying to make college a priority. It is a lot, and it is something we ought to respond to in this particular appropriations bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see the Senator from New Hampshire on the floor. As I understand, he wanted to be able to offer amendments.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following be added as cosponsors of my amendment: Senators Clinton, Schumer, Lieberman, Mikulski, Kerry, Reid of Nevada, Lautenberg, Dayton, Cantwell, Kohl, Bingaman, and Durbin.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. He has worked hard in terms of prioritizing education, and certainly it has been a priority of his service in the Senate and also on the Appropriations Committee. I appreciate that kind of commitment, but he tells us that we only have a given amount of resources to allocate. The Senate voted to add $5.4 billion to the Budget Act. When we voted on that issue earlier this year, it was $5.4 billion more for education--for education. That was one of the few amendments that passed when we had the debate on the Budget Act--$5.4 billion more for education. And when the budget came back, it did not come back with that $5.4 billion. The House had no increase for this purpose. The conference committee did not split the difference and come back with half. They came back with zero. But a majority of the Members of this body voted for that increase. Now we have another chance, and here we are just asking for $200 per Pell grant for the neediest students in the country. The Senate, when it had its opportunity on the budget, supported a very enhanced funding level for higher education, but it went over to the Budget Committees behind closed doors and came out with zero. So he is right. In this particular budget that he has been allocated there is not the flexibility to very substantially enhance support for education; nonetheless, I think this amendment reflects the priorities of the Senate in the earlier part of the year and reflects the priorities of the American people. I am reminded that it isn't just the families who are affected. It isn't just the education community. The business community also strongly supports increased access to higher education. Business leaders agree that education is essential to our competitiveness. Listen to what the Committee for Economic Development says in a recent report: Education has been a major source of productivity growth in the United States during the postwar era. Education increases productive human capital, which in turn contributes to overall increases in economic growth. Increases in a country's average level of educational attainment by 1 year can generate sizable increases in the annual economic growth, as much as 6 to 16 percent. Look at what happens, Mr. President. Low income students enroll in college at less than half the rate of their high-income peers. These are students who are qualified for college--who worked hard, took rigorous courses and prepared for college. And once they enroll, only 6 percent of those low-income students receive a BA compared to 40 percent of those in the higher income levels. We are talking about children with comparable levels of academic achievement. Why is this happening? They are equally qualified students, but they have to leave college because of financial need. That is what this amendment is addressing. It is a question of priorities. We have the vote. If we are able to get the votes on the floor of the Senate, this will happen. This must be a priority. It certainly is for Natalie from Turners Falls, MA, a single mother enrolled in college for the first time, who always lived below the Federal poverty line. She writes that without Pell grants ``I would be stuck in this way of life with no `light' to look forward to. . . . Knowledge is power and education is key.'' It certainly is for Mary Susan from Sacramento, CA, who went to college and became a teacher. She writes: I would not have been able to go to college to become a teacher if I didn't have a Pell grant. I have been telling students at the low-income school I work at that they can go to college, too, if they study hard and get good grades. But if the Pell grants are not available, many will not be able to go to college. Sara from Pensacola, FL, received Pell grants when she was a single mother enrolled in community college and later a 4-year college. She received her BA in English and is now employed making four times the income she made before earning her degree. She writes: The Pell grant saw me through college. Without it, there was no way I could afford to go to school. The Pell grant works. Yvonne from Port Richey, FL, served in the Air Force, then held a civilian job which she lost after September 11. She is now a single mother back in school. She writes: If it were not for the Pell grants I would not be able to return to school and be retrained for a new career. Jen from Denver, CO, writes: The only way I was able to attend college was with grants and loans. Sixty thousand dollars later I have a college degree. Obviously, with loans this high I was not fortunate to have parental help. The $2,000 a year I received from the Pell grant was substantial even though so little. To take this away from students is a tragedy. Cutting funding for education of any kind is wrong. That is a person with a very modest Pell grant. You see what a difference a few dollars makes. Scott in Georgia received Pell grants during college, which helped him put himself through college. He writes: Pell grants gave me the ability to focus more on school and work less part-time hours. I am extremely grateful that the Pell grant ensured that I didn't make any brash decisions based on lack of finances. I am sure the Senator from Pennsylvania has had the same experience I have had. You go to so many of these community colleges where these Pell grants offer the opportunity for students, and during the break time students--instead of talking about their books, instead of talking about lectures--are talking about their next job or where they are going to get the next job and what it is like to be working in that particular job. That is what is happening increasingly as our young gifted, talented people are being constantly squeezed. Our country is becoming more divided between the haves and have-nots. The Pell grant, which has been the key to opportunity, has always been something that has kept the door constantly open for so many young people. As I say, it is the key to opportunity. It is the key to competitiveness, the key to national security. And it is the real key to fairness. Education ought to have a very special place in our national priorities. I appreciate what the chairman has done in the area of education, but it does seem to me that the Senate as a whole should reflect that kind of high priority by ensuring expansive opportunities so our young people who have gifts and talents are able to get into school--public and private universities, community colleges, and others--and they are able to be a part of the American dream. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Budget Act of 1974 I move to waive the applicable section of the Budget Act in reference to the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield? I don't want to interrupt his comments here, they are so important, but has the Senator, in his following of this issue, been able to detect any plan, any strategy that has come from the administration from which he believes the American people can gain great satisfaction that we are headed in the right direction? Does he know of any plan or program, any strategy that would result in the opportunity to bring those service men and women home with honor?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this amendment is a very modest amendment. It effectively adds $200 for students who receive Pell grants. These are students who come from families with low incomes. Pell grants have been a backbone of our education policy and are essential to providing these students an opportunity. We initially passed in the budget a $5.4 billion increase in funding for higher education. All of that was eliminated. We have an opportunity this afternoon to make a small difference for those who receive Pell grants. This amendment is about education. Education is about opportunity. This amendment is about competitiveness because in today's global economy we need well-educated individuals. This amendment is about national security because education is the key to having a strong national security. Finally, it is about fairness. Americans understand fairness. They believe in education. I hope this amendment will succeed.

Mr. KENNEDY. What is the issue before the Senate?

Mr. KENNEDY. Further inquiry: An aye vote effectively would be related to keeping the pending amendment alive?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for addressing the Senate on this very grim day that marks the loss of the 2,000th young American in Iraq. I welcome my memory being refreshed by the Senator's very eloquent statements about what took place at that time and subsequently about his policy differences, which I share so deeply. While the Senator said we should wait, does the Senator not think it might have been appropriate that we give the inspectors adequate time to complete their inspection prior to the time we were going to have the troops begin the invasion? As members of the Armed Services Committee, we were told that we were transferring the information Don Rumsfeld had to the inspectors. Under the excellent questioning of the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, Secretary Rumsfeld was asked about the information that would be transferred to the inspectors, and he gave the assurance to the Armed Services Committee that this was a continuing, ongoing process in which we were involved. Then we found out subsequently that there was no transfer of information. There was no transfer of information because, as the Senator has pointed out, those weapons had not been there. But that information was never shared with the Members of this body. There was never an effort to try to see whether the international inspectors could find what the Secretary of Defense swore to, effectively, about the weapons of mass destruction--and the Senator used the words north, south, east, and west, which are very much the words the Secretary of Defense used. He assured the American people he knew where they were.

Mr. KENNEDY. We understood they were going to notify the inspectors and give assurances to the American people. Doesn't the Senator believe it would have been appropriate at least if we had waited until that kind of process continued and we find out whether weapons of mass destruction were there or were not there? That is part of the waiting, is it not?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator for reminding us about that period in history. I gather from what the Senator is saying, with all the mistakes and blunders that have been made--

Mr. KENNEDY. --what the Senator is asking for is out of respect for the extraordinary heroism of our current men and women in the service, that they deserve something better than the cliches and slogans for policy.

Mr. KENNEDY. And that they need to have a real policy that is going to reflect how we can bring those brave American service men and women home with honor.

Mr. KENNEDY. And do it in a way of which we can all be proud.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know we are going to pause at 3:40 p.m. My friend and colleague from New Jersey has an important statement, but he is letting me proceed. Winter is rapidly closing in on States across America. Yet even after Hurricane Katrina shocked the Nation about the desperate plight of the poor, the administration and the Republican Congress continue to ignore our neediest citizens. According to the Energy Information Administration, home heating bills will soar this winter. Households heating primarily with natural gas will pay an average of $350 more this winter for heat--an increase of an incredible 48 percent over last year. Those relying primarily on oil for heat will pay $378 more--an increase of 32 percent. The people most in need of help on this issue are the 37 million Americans living in poverty today--including 13 million children. According to a recent report by Economic Opportunity Studies, families in poverty will owe an average of 25 percent of their entire income for their energy bills this winter. The Federal poverty guideline is $16,090 for a family of three. That means that $4,022 will be spent on home energy bills, leaving only 12,000 or $1,000 a month for expenses the entire year. A family whose rent is $800 a month would have only $200 left. For a household of three, that's only $63 per person per month for food, clothing, and health care. Mr. President, 46 million Americans lack health insurance in this country. If such families have a health emergency and no health insurance, their annual income could be further strapped. What if the family owns a car so they can get to and from work? More money will be needed to pay the high cost of gasoline and to make monthly car and insurance payments. Since many families live below the Federal poverty line, they will have even less money left for other needs after they pay to heat their homes. A recent study by researchers from Stanford University, the University of Chicago, the RAND Corporation, and UCLA found that when poor families' heating bills go up during cold winter months, they reduce their spending on food. LIHEAP, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance program, was created two decades ago to prevent low-income families from being forced to make these impossible tradeoffs. Yet Federal funding for LIHEAP has been stagnant for over a decade, even as the need for assistance has risen sharply. As a result, the purchasing power of LIHEAP assistance, adjusted for inflation, is now only a little over half of what it was in 1982. Thirty-three million households are eligible for LIHEAP assistance. These households will spend nearly $55 billion in energy costs. Yet the LIHEAP program is funded at only $2 billion. According to the National Energy Assistance Directors' Association, LIHEAP assistance reached 5 million families this year--the highest level in ten years, but only 15 percent of the eligible population. In Massachusetts, LIHEAP serves 134,000 families, which is only 15 percent of the 867,000 families eligible for assistance. Earlier this month, I visited the Curtis Hall Community Center in Boston, MA, with Mayor Menino. I heard first hand about the extreme need for home energy assistance among senior citizens. Last winter, Eileen Duggan, a widow from Jamaica Plain in Boston, kept her oven on high and wore several layers of clothing because her time-worn furnace was inadequate to provide enough heat. She started buying less food so that she could use her small monthly budget to pay her heating bill. Despite her best efforts, she still couldn't pay that bill, and last April, with the New England winter chill still in the air, she asked the utility company to stop sending her oil. ``I told the oil man: `Don't give me anymore. I can't afford it,' '' she said. Other low-income families have also been sharing their stories. One example involves a single mother who lives in Haverhill, MA, with her 18-year-old son who is handicapped, her 19-year-old daughter, and her daughter's child who has a medical condition. Both mother and daughter work as school bus monitors, and they have little or no income over the summer. Their rent is $950 a month. Their last gas bill was $1,729. Because they couldn't pay the bill, their gas was shut off last winter. Even if they qualify for $600 in LIHEAP assistance, the gas company may still refuse to reconnect their service, unless the family comes up with another $400 to $800 towards their debt. Millions of low-income Americans set their thermostats at just 60 degrees or even lower--if their heat is still on--while Congress, the administration, and the vast majority of us rest content in warm homes. Yet the Bush administration and the Republican Congress do nothing year after year. Time and time again I have stood on the Senate floor urging Congress to open its eyes to the needs of the poor. It is shameful that after the President and the Republican Congress froze LIHEAP funds through the continuing resolution, they continue to tune out the pleas of low-income families who need home heating assistance. Last week, the Republican leadership decided to use a procedural maneuver once again to block emergency funding for LIHEAP. Almost every Democratic Senator supported this additional relief, but Republican Senators overwhelmingly opposed it, and it was defeated. There is no excuse for the Republican majority to look the other way--but they do. They continue to ignore families who lie awake at night worrying how to make ends meet. They refuse to acknowledge the parents who worry, day after day, week after week, month after month, how to feed their children and keep the heat on, or the elderly who turn down their thermostats, put on extra sweaters, or even turn off the heat in an attempt to save money. It is time to tell low-income families across the country that we hear them, that we care about them, and that we don't intend to leave them shivering in the cold again this winter. That is why I strongly support the Reed-Collins amendment to add $2.9 billion to the LIHEAP program. We need to increase LIHEAP funding now to avoid real harm to real people this winter, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I urge our colleagues to listen to our colleagues not only from New England, from the Northeast, but other parts of the country in urging favorable consideration of this amendment. I join them in saying I have seen the faces of too many senior citizens, too many elderly people who are on fixed incomes. I have seen their fear about what is going to happen in their homes and the hard, difficult choices they are going to have to make this winter unless we provide this assistance. This assistance is desperately needed for our region of the country. It is Katrina in a very real way. Like Katrina, it is an emergency in terms of heating homes. I hope we can get favorable consideration of the amendment.