A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance and on United States currency.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation intended to help states address the educational needs of gifted and talented students. There are approximately 3 million children in the United States who are considered gifted and talented. It is important to note that gifted and talented children are not simply the kids who do well in school and get good grades. In fact, not all gifted students get good grades and not all students who get straight A's are necessarily gifted learners. What makes a child gifted and talented is how he or she learns. Gifted and talented children actually look at the world differently and often have a different way of interacting socially. As a result, gifted and talented students have different educational needs than other students.

I am reminded of an example from my home state of Iowa. I have learned of a third grade student from Iowa City named Jose. Jose was having trouble in school. He didn't always complete his assignments and he had trouble paying attention in class. He was also a bit of a loner and didn't interact much with his classmates. As a result, his teacher saw him as a problem student and struggled to get him to behave like the other children. Still, it was clear to Jose's parents that he had a hunger to learn. He loved to go to the library and was very inquisitive. Over the summer, Jose's parents had his IQ tested and he was found to have a high level of intelligence. As a result, when he started school again in the fall, his parents asked that he be identified as gifted and receive services. Jose now leaves his regular classroom a couple of times a week for what Iowa City schools call the ``extended learning program.'' As a result, he is finally receiving the stimulation he was lacking at school. Jose now enjoys school more, has made new friends, and is doing great with his regular school work.

Gifted and talented children have enormous potential. Today's gifted and talented child may grow up to become a leader in the field of science or a world-renowned performer. However, this will not happen automatically. Gifted and talented children need to be challenged and their unique skills must be nurtured. Currently, many gifted and talented children do not receive the educational programs and services they need to live up to their potential. In fact, many gifted and talented children lose interest in school; they learn how to expend minimum effort for top grades, have low motivation, and develop poor work habits. Some may abandon their education altogether and drop out of school. This is a tragedy not only for the students, but also for our society.

We hear a lot about how the United States has a shortage of individuals with the skills in math and science that are necessary for our Nation to continue to be competitive in today's global economy. Our security agencies are scrambling to find linguists who know or can quickly learn foreign languages. In fact, one of the findings included in my bill states, ``To meet the future economic and national security needs of the United States, it is important that more students achieve to higher levels, and that highly capable students receive an education that prepares them to perform the most highly innovative and creative work that is necessary to secure our Nation's position in the world.''

In times of national crisis or uncertainty, the United States has always turned to its best and brightest to solve whatever problems face us. The launch of Sputnik by the Soviet Union brought to national attention for the first time the need to develop the special gifts and talents of young Americans. Once again, we find ourselves in a time of uncertainty, facing new threats and challenges that we are struggling to understand. In order to ensure that our country is prepared to face whatever unforeseen problems will come our way in the future, we must invest now in this vital national resource, gifted students.

My legislation is not intended to make the education of gifted and talented students primarily a Federal responsibility. Education is, and should be, chiefly a State and local responsibility. Nevertheless, the Federal Government does have a role to play. The availability and quality of gifted and talented educational services currently varies widely from State to State. This situation has an especially adverse effect on disadvantaged gifted students whose parents cannot afford to pay for private programs or summer camps. Untimately, gifted and talented students in every public school should have access to specialized educational services that are designed to address their learning needs. Still, my bill would simply provide the seed money to help States begin to expand the availability of gifted education services.

My gifted and talented initiative would distribute grants, based on a State's student population, to each State education agency. States will then provide grants to local school districts on a competitive basis to be used to identify and provide educational services to gifted and talented students from all economic, ethnic, and racial backgrounds, including students with limited English proficiency and students with disabilities. Rather than providing a steady Federal funding stream directly to the local level, on which schools might become dependent, the competitive subgrants will allow States to target school districts that need to jump-start their gifted and talented program. At the same time, the local competitive grant process will encourage State education agencies to more closely examine the needs of gifted children in their respective States.

At least 90 percent of the funds provided to a State must be subgranted to school districts and the funds must supplement, not supplant, funds currently being spent. Additionally, States must make their own commitment to gifted and talented students by matching 10 percent of the Federal funds, either in cash or in kind. All of this is intended to help gifted and talents programs and services take root in each State and in local school districts so that they can grow and develop to fully address the unique educational needs of this special group of students.

I have intentionally included a broad range of authorized uses for the grants in my bill in order to allow States and local school districts the flexibility to address their specific needs. School districts can use these funds to provide professional development for personnel involved in the education of gifted and talented students, including gifted education teachers, general education teachers, and other school personnel like administrators and school counselors. The funds can also be used to provide direct educational services and materials. Or, school districts could use the funds to support items like innovative strategies for teaching gifted students, making materials available through regional centers, or providing high-level course work through distance learning technology.

The Federal involvement in gifted and talented education is not new. The Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act has provided valuable information on strategies to meet the needs of gifted students since 1988 through the funding of demonstration grants and the National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. In the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Congress expanded the Javits Act to authorize competitive grants to States to expand the capacity of States to meet the needs of gifted students. These new grants represent some potential to improve the ability of select States to address the needs of gifted and talented children, and I am pleased with the progress we have been able to make thus far. My legislation would build on the existing Javits Act to create a comprehensive approach to expanding the ability of States and school districts nationwide to meet the needs of gifted and talented students.

Congress has rightly placed a renewed emphasis on making sure all children are successful learners. In our efforts to leave no child behind, we must not forget gifted and talented students. I would remind my colleagues of the example I cited earlier. Jose is a success story because his parents saw his potential and pointed it out to school officials, and because he attended a school where quality gifted education services are available. There are many more students like Jose across the country who have either not been identified as gifted or who attend a school where gifted education services are not provided. I would urge my colleagues to join me in seeing that these exceptional young people across our great Nation have the support and services they need to be successful. I ask for your support for the Gifted and Talented Students Education Act of 2003.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, 137 years ago, before the term homeland

security was even coined, a group of men devoted themselves to securing the frontiers of this Nation. They protected Americans in their homes; they deterred hostile invaders, and they secured the blessings of liberty for a young country. Even more remarkable, they secured these blessings for others, while they could not fully enjoy them themselves.

I am referring to the Buffalo Soldiers. These brave men instituted a tradition of professional military service for African Americans that spans the greater part of American history. African American military service is as old as our Nation. There were black soldiers during the Revolution, a unit of free black men played a pivotal role in the Battle of New Orleans, and the exploits of African Americans during the Civil War have been captured in novels and on film. However, it was not until the Army Reorganization Act of 1866 that soldiering and service to country became a realistic option for African Americans seeking to improve their quality of life. In so doing, they raised the bar of freedom, and revealed the injustice of preventing the defenders of democracy from fully participating in it.

The city of New Orleans, and the State of Louisiana have a rich history. They have given more than their fair share of sons to the service of our Nation. Much of this history is commemorated throughout the State. Yet, these great sons of New Orleans remain unacknowledged in their home. For in Louisiana's great military tradition, surely two of its greatest military contributions were the 9th Cavalry Regiment and the 25th Infantry Regiment.

These two forces, recruited and organized in New Orleans, represent half of all the units of Buffalo Soldiers. The 9th Cavalry alone constituted 10 percent of all the American cavalry. Their list of adversaries reads like a who's who of the Old West--Geronimo, Sitting Bull, Pancho Villa. In movies, when settlers encounter Apaches, the cavalry always comes to the rescue. Yet how many times were the cavalry that rode over the horizon African American? Of course, the reality is that the Buffalo Soldiers comprised some of our Nation's most capable and loyal troops. Despite suffering the worst deprivations known to any American soldiers of the period, they had the lowest desertion rates in the Army. The 9th Cavalry was awarded 10 Congressional Medals of Honor, including a native Louisianan, SGT. Emanuel Stance--a farmer from Carrol Parish.

For these reasons, I am offering legislation that would authorize the creation of a suitable memorial in New Orleans for these gallant soldiers. There is an excellent statue to the Buffalo Soldiers at Fort Leavenworth, KS. It commemorates the 10th Cavalry Regiment stationed there. However, I believe that these men deserve to be recognized in their home city.

Furthermore, it should be in a location where thousands of visitors will have the opportunity to come to appreciate the legacy of the Buffalo Soldiers. I believe that the city of New Orleans is the perfect location.

Mr. President, we have made a number of changes to this legislation after consultations with the American Battle Monuments Commission. I believe these changes should address any concerns that they have expressed. Furthermore, we have an able and dedicated organization of individuals in the State who desperately want to see this project to completion. Last year, I had the pleasure of being in New Orleans with another of this Nation's great military heroes, Senator Daniel Inouye. We addressed a group of distinguished veterans from all around the State. Among them was George Jones, President of the Greater New Orleans Chapter of the Buffalo Soldiers Association. They have been working with Eddie Dixon, the artist for the beautiful Fort Leavenworth statue, to develop an appropriate memorial in the city of New Orleans for over a decade. This bill will fulfill that noble ambition.

Mr. President, this Nation has sadly found the need to say thank you to its service men and women after the fact on more than one occasion. Unfortunately, this is another. We are fortunate to have living memories of the 9th and 10th Cavalry Regiments today. The regiments were not disbanded until the conclusion of World War II, where they served with distinction. We should take this opportunity to honor these veterans, and in so doing, honor the principles of liberty, freedom and democracy for which they fought and sacrificed. They have given so much to their Nation, we owe them this public expression of gratitude.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these remarks appear in the Record, contiguous to the introduced bill and that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I was surprised and disappointed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision not to reconsider its ruling in the case of Newdow versus U.S. Congress. To remind my colleagues, in the Newdow case, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit held that the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. The Bush administration requested that the Ninth Circuit reconsider its ruling in the case. At the end of last week, the Ninth Circuit meeting en banc refused to reconsider its ruling. The case will likely go to the Supreme Court.

When the court first made its decision in Newdow last year, I introduced a proposed constitutional amendment that simply said that references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance and on our currency did not affect an establishment of religion under the first amendment. In light of the en banc Ninth Circuit's refusal to reconsider its ruling, I am reintroducing my proposed amendment today.

Mr. President, references to God are found in every one of our founding documents from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution, as well as in the Pledge of Allegiance. The phrase ``In God We Trust'' appears on all of our currency and on many public buildings. Every day, we begin Senate sessions with a prayer and the pledge. I firmly believe that the Framers of the Constitution and the first amendment did not want to ban all references to God from public discourse when they wrote the establishment clause. What they wanted to prevent was the establishment of an official national religion and to keep the Government from getting intimately involved in the organization of one religion over another.

These references to God are ceremonial. Certainly, they do have meaning, but individuals are free to put whatever meaning on the word they choose. Indeed, I fully respect and support the rights of people not to participate in the pledge or in ceremonial prayer and my amendment will not coerce anyone to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public or in school.

Mr. President, I had hoped that the Ninth Circuit would reconsider its earlier holding. It has not. The Supreme Court may have the oppoortunity to hear arguments in this case. Should the Supreme Court ddcide not to hear the case or to overrule the lower court, then Congress should restore the appropriate balanced separation between church and state that I believe was the intent of the Framers.

I urge my colleagues to support this joint resolution.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to protect drinking water from contamination by the toxic chemical perchlorate. My bill will require the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a standard for perchlorate contamination in drinking water supplies by July 1, 2004. Under EPA's current schedule, 2006 is the earliest date a standard would be finalized.

Perchlorate is a clear and present danger to California's public health. We cannot wait 4 more years to address this threat. EPA needs to get moving and protect our drinking water sooner rather than later.

Drinking water sources for at least 7 million Californians and millions of other Americans are contaminated with perchlorate. Perchlorate is the main ingredient in rocket fuel, which accounts for 90 percent of its use. Perchlorate is also used for ammunition, fireworks, highway safety flares, air bags, and fertilizers. It dissolves readily in many liquids, including water, and moves easily and quickly through cracks and water.

Perchlorate was first discovered in drinking water in 1957, although it was rarely listed as a contaminant of concern as late as the mid- 1900s. Since 1997, when California's Department of Health Services developed a new, more sensitive analytical testing method that can detect perchlorate down to 4 parts per billion, perchlorate has been found in soil, groundwater, and surface water throughout the U.S.

Perchlorate poses a variety of serious health risks relating to thyroid function, especially in newborns, children, and pregnant women. Exposure to perchlorate interferes with the thyroid gland's ability to produce the hormones needed for normal prenatal development. This can cause both physical and mental retardation. Perchlorate is also linked to thyroid cancer.

Californians face special threats from perchlorate contamination because so many rockets and missiles were built and tested in the state during World War II and the cold war. Groundwater can become contaminated wherever the chemical is manufactured, used, disposed of, or stored.

Alarming levels of perchlorate have been discovered in Lake Mead and the Colorado River, the drinking water source for millions of Southern Californians. Communities in the Inland Empire, San Gabriel Valley, Santa Clara Valley, and the Sacramento area are also grappling with perchlorate contamination. In addition, more than 20 million Americans in at least 19 states drink water contaminated with perchlorate.

My bill will ensure that EPA acts swiftly to address this threat to our health and welfare. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I was surprised and disappointed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision not to reconsider its ruling in the case of Newdow versus U.S. Congress. To remind my colleagues, in the Newdow case, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit held that the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. The Bush administration requested that the Ninth Circuit reconsider its ruling in the case. At the end of last week, the Ninth Circuit meeting en banc refused to reconsider its ruling. The case will likely go to the Supreme Court.

When the court first made its decision in Newdow last year, I introduced a proposed constitutional amendment that simply said that references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance and on our currency did not affect an establishment of religion under the first amendment. In light of the en banc Ninth Circuit's refusal to reconsider its ruling, I am reintroducing my proposed amendment today.

Mr. President, references to God are found in every one of our founding documents from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution, as well as in the Pledge of Allegiance. The phrase ``In God We Trust'' appears on all of our currency and on many public buildings. Every day, we begin Senate sessions with a prayer and the pledge. I firmly believe that the Framers of the Constitution and the first amendment did not want to ban all references to God from public discourse when they wrote the establishment clause. What they wanted to prevent was the establishment of an official national religion and to keep the Government from getting intimately involved in the organization of one religion over another.

These references to God are ceremonial. Certainly, they do have meaning, but individuals are free to put whatever meaning on the word they choose. Indeed, I fully respect and support the rights of people not to participate in the pledge or in ceremonial prayer and my amendment will not coerce anyone to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public or in school.

Mr. President, I had hoped that the Ninth Circuit would reconsider its earlier holding. It has not. The Supreme Court may have the oppoortunity to hear arguments in this case. Should the Supreme Court ddcide not to hear the case or to overrule the lower court, then Congress should restore the appropriate balanced separation between church and state that I believe was the intent of the Framers.

I urge my colleagues to support this joint resolution.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to present Rev. Joseph A. De Laine the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor for his heroic sacrifices to desegregate our public schools. His crusade to break down barriers in education forever scarred his own life, but led to the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case in 1954.

Eight years before Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus, Reverend De Laine, a minister and principal, organized African-American parents to petition the Summerton, SC, school board for a bus and gasoline so their children would not have to walk 10 miles to attend a segregated school. A year later, in Briggs v. Elliot, the parents sued to end segregation. It was a case that as a young lawyer I watched Thurgood Marshall argue before the Supreme Court as one of the five cases collectively known as Brown v. Board of Education. For this Senator, their arguments helped to shape my view on racial matters.

For his efforts, Reverend De Laine was subjected to a reign of domestic terrorism. He lost his job. He watched his church and home burn. He was charged with assault and battery with intent to kill after shots were fired at his home and he fired back to mark the car. He had to leave South Carolina forever; relocate to New York, where he started an AME Church, and he eventually retired in North Carolina. Not until the year 2000, 26 years after his death and 45 years after the incident in his home was Reverend De Laine cleared of all charges.

Last year, I spoke to the 100 descendants of Briggs v. Elliott, and I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be printed in the Record, which show the bravery of Reverend De Laine during a troubled time in our Nation's past, and which point to the immeasurable benefits he has given our Nation.