Higher Education Opportunity Through Pell Grant Expansion Act

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I wish to ask a question of my colleague from Iowa, in support of the amendment being offered by the Senator from West Virginia. It was only a few years ago that I offered an amendment, during the authorizing bill, to fully fund title I. That amendment carried with over 70 votes to fully fund title I in this Chamber. It was only a matter of months ago. That was an authorization bill. It was not the appropriations bill. All of us are certainly adults, and we know the authorizing levels do not always meet with the appropriations. But we have gone on record supporting this.

I wish to underscore the point the Senator is making and the Senator from West Virginia made; and that is, I hear it. My State, in fact, has filed a lawsuit on the No Child Left Behind Act because of restrictions being required of them.

Now, again, similar to the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from West Virginia, I have great respect for this law because it is a civil rights bill, in my view. It says we should no longer tolerate social promotions of children. We ought to be insisting there ought to be accountability at every single level.

The essence of the bill Senator Kennedy and others drafted, that we were a part of, I think is sound. I think history will prove it to be such. The great shortcoming is not the failure of the law. The law is sound. It is sensible. It makes sense. The failure is as the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from West Virginia pointed out; and that is, we have not lived up to the commitment we made.

We turned around and voted overwhelmingly for that law. President Bush wanted it. The Department of Education wanted it. The Congress wanted it. We said: This is what we will do. Yet month after month, since enactment of that legislation, we have failed to meet that obligation. That is the great tragedy in all of this, not the No Child Left Behind law, but the failure of the Congress and the President to say to the people of our respective States: This is what you must do. And by the way, we will be here to see to it the funding is there to support those efforts. We have gone on record in this body, and we are now denying our own record if we turn down this amendment offered by Senator Byrd.

I wish to reinforce the point made by the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. President, I hope that will be the case. We have been trying to be responsive by being here to offer amendments when we have been asked to be here. It sort of throws off our schedule for the day. But I am happy to talk to my colleague.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, may I also suggest the amendment offered by the Senator from New York be able to follow the Dodd amendment? Can we lock these in?

Madam President, I understand that we have a 45-minute time agreement on this amendment. Is that correct?

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 2254 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, the Head Start Program, which is what this amendment is about, is, of course, very familiar to all Members. The Head Start Program began some 40 years ago. Ed Zigler from the State of Connecticut, who hails from Yale University, was the father of the Head Start concept and idea. I think it goes without saying that with the reforms that have been instituted over the last number of years, Head Start has been a very successful program during the past 40 years.

There have been modifications to the program that I think have even strengthened it over the years. Literally thousands of American children, who would otherwise not get a good start in their educational process, have been benefitting as a result of Head Start.

Annually, there are some 900,000 children in the United States who are involved in some 18,000 programs across the country. That is serving about one in four of the eligible children under Head Start.

Over the years, there have been various amendments that have been offered to fully fund Head Start or to raise the amounts considerably to increase the number of eligible children who could receive a Head Start Program. That is not my amendment today.

I should have begun these remarks by thanking my colleague from Pennsylvania. He has been recognized already by the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Iowa for his support of these programs and ideas over the years. In fact, some 24 years ago, when he and I arrived as newly minted Senators in January of 1981, we formed together something called the Children's Caucus in the Senate. Senator Specter and I were the chair and co-chair of that caucus, to raise the level of awareness about issues affecting one in four Americans who are children. We had a variety of ad hoc hearings. We did not have any funding. We did not have the means to actually go out and solicit public support for our efforts to highlight some of these issues.

The very first ad hoc hearing Senator Specter and I ever held dealt with latchkey children, afterschool programs, childcare, the related issues for single parents or both parents working. We were trying to get those children to have a good start to provide some resources and support for them. We went on to hold a variety of different hearings over the number of years thereafter. He was a great advocate and a great supporter of those programs. He continues to be today.

Today I recognize that in fact the committee has had a modest increase in the Head Start Program of some $31.2 million. I am appreciative of that. My amendment merely raises that amount by $153 million to make sure we do not have a decline or loss in services for the 900,000 children being served. This amendment is designed to protect about 20,000 children who would fall out of the Head Start Program if we were not able to keep pace with the rising costs of administering these programs.

Also, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Kennedy, Clinton, Durbin, Kerry, Murray, Corzine, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Stabenow, and Dayton be listed as cosponsors of this amendment.

Madam President, I said about $100 million. The idea is just, if we can, to get these levels of support and funding up because of the rising costs of running these programs.

Energy costs are going up on the average in Head Start Programs by 15 percent. Transportation costs are going up 16 percent. Health insurance in some places has gone up as high as 25 percent. Training for staff is up 4 percent. Facility maintenance is up 9 percent. Services for children with special needs, of course, continues to rise.

This amendment does not expand the program. It is not going to add 100,000 children to the Head Start Program. It is just designed to make sure that we do not see the program deteriorate, that we do not force children presently in the program to be dropped because we are unable to meet the predictable inflationary costs of about 2.7 percent in Head Start Programs across the country. That is the rationale for it. It is not an excessive amendment at all. It is a realistic effort to try to do what we can to see to it that these children are going to get the kind of start they deserve.

To make my case, I want to point out two studies. One was done a number of years ago. It was a survey done of kindergarten teachers throughout the United States. These were asked, How ready are children when they come to kindergarten? How ready are they to learn? Over 50 percent of kindergarten teachers in the United States, when surveyed and asked that question, responded that the majority of children were not ready to learn when they entered kindergarten.

There are a variety of reasons for that. We are not going to solve the problem overnight. But we do know now, after 40 years, that children who are in a Head Start Program clearly benefit and have a much higher degree of success than children in similar circumstances who do not participate in programs.

We know, for instance, that Head Start children are more likely to maintain grade level performance in elementary schools and on into secondary schools. We know that Head Start children stay out of the juvenile justice system to a far higher degree than children who are not in those programs. We know that children in the Head Start Program are less likely to become abusers of substances, either alcohol or drugs. We know these children, who are involved in Head Start Programs are less likely to become teen mothers.

In statistic after statistic, we find these children who get the benefit and advantages of a Head Start Program have a greater likelihood of success. It is not a guarantee of success. There are obviously children who do not make it. But we know after 40 years this program works pretty well.

Again, I am not suggesting today we expand the program. I have tried that in the past. All I am asking my colleagues today is to say for the coming fiscal year can we do what is possible to avoid some 20,000 children who are presently in the program from falling out of it?

The second study I want to point out has just come out in the last several days. I do not know if my colleagues have yet received these in their offices. My colleagues, Senator Lamar Alexander and Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, went to the National Academy of Sciences a couple of months ago. If I can paraphrase their request, they said to the National Academy of Sciences: Would you mind telling us, over the next number of years, what are the 10 things we ought to better prepare to handle the math, the science, and the technology demands of our Nation?

I am not going to recite the full study here, which is entitled ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' I will just list some of the authors. The chair is Norman Augustine, the retired chair of Lockheed Martin; Craig Barrett, chairman of the board of Intel Corporation; Rick Levin, the president of Yale University; the president of MIT, the president of DuPont company, the president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute--it is just an incredible list of distinguished Americans and academicians who worked over a period of time, I think 3 or 4 months, to come out with a series of recommendations.

I will not go through all of their report. You will get it and it is worth looking at. There were some very dramatic recommendations and ones we should take very seriously.

Their findings come in this smaller pamphlet entitled ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' In the first paragraph, these distinguished Americans say:

We are worried about the future prosperity of the United

States. Although many people assume the United States will

always be a world leader in science and technology, this may

not continue to be the case inasmuch as great minds and ideas

exist throughout the world. We fear the abruptness with which

a lead in science and technology can be lost, and the

difficulty of recovering a lead once lost if, indeed, it can

be regained at all. This Nation must prepare with great

urgency to preserve its strategic and economic security.

It continues, but I think that language directly bears on the amendment I am offering today. The No. 1 suggestion they make--I don't think they necessarily prioritize it, but the first suggestion is to train and put into the field 10,000 teachers a year in math and the sciences. The goal is that each one of these teachers might educate 1,000 students over a career, so that over time a million students in our country would benefit from a tremendous education in science and math and engineering.

If America is going to avoid exactly what these distinguished Americans have warned us against we must prepare teachers and children. Let me go back to the statistic I mentioned a moment ago, that if the kindergarten teachers of America are right, half of children entering kindergarten today are not ready to learn. It is one thing to have teachers, but what if you don't have the students who are ready to learn? If we know that Head Start kids are more likely to be prepared for school, stay in school, stay out of trouble, avoid substance abuse, don't become teen parents, then we ought to be doing what we can to keep those 900,000 kids in the program. We know full well that Head Start, after 40 years, does make a difference.

We can do a lot better. We can do so much better if we start making these modest investments. We know the modest investments in these programs pay huge dividends. Should we not try to stop some erosion in this program? That is all I am offering today, a modest 2.7-percent increase, a little more than $150 million to just keep the number of children in the program there for the coming fiscal year. Then, I hope, in the coming years when our fiscal condition is much stronger and better certainly than it is today, we can do more to see that these children have a chance to go on.

Someday I want to come back and offer an amendment again, as I did years ago, to make sure every eligible child can get in a good program like Head Start and Early Head Start. I wouldn't try that today. I know my colleagues cannot accept that. I understand the budget realities. But can we not find $153 million? We are spending $6 billion a month in Iraq. That doesn't include Afghanistan. My colleague from Tennessee and I and Senator Enzi and Senator Kennedy recently worked on a package for 1 year to help out some 400,000 students who have lost their schools as a result of Katrina and Rita--mostly Katrina. It was a great idea. Let's put aside our differences. Let's make sure these kids can get going so they do not miss a year because the schools have been washed away or destroyed.

But there are not hurricanes and natural disasters all over our country, thank the Lord. But these children in Head Start, in many ways, live in a disastrous situation every day. They live in chaos, many of them. They live in families and neighborhoods where it is amazing that anyone can come out of them intact. Head Start has reached into these communities and provided a safe place, a harbor for children with talents and abilities. If you go to a Head Start Program you see the children are bright and they want to learn and they overcome obstacles, as their parents do every day, to give them a chance to get going. I don't want some kid in a Head Start Program to be dropped out this year who could have become that engineer or that scientist who becomes that CEO of Intel or who becomes the head of Lockheed Martin or becomes the president of RPI or Yale University. And they are there. These kids are not just in the private

schools. They are not just in the affluent neighborhoods. Talented Americans are in every neighborhood in America, and we ought to be able to do better for these children. We ought to be able to say: This year things are tough, we can't expand the program. But we are not going to lose any kids. We are not going to leave any child behind in a Head Start Program.

Listen to the warnings of this report. It can happen with abruptness, and once lost, very difficult to regain. So while we expand the pool of teachers, while we do everything we can to give kids a chance to learn, we have to make sure these kids are ready to learn. Head Start, for 40 years has done that.

It has made it possible for kids to become ready to learn. Not that they make it in every case, again, but we know without any question today that the difference between a child who is in an Early Head Start or Head Start Program and a child who is not is the likelihood the Head Start participant will avoid the obvious pitfalls that can happen so quickly in a young person's life. There is a greater likelihood they will go through it.

I am offering this amendment today, pleading with my colleagues, let's not lose 20,000 kids. We have not yet even begun to discuss this ``Rising Storm'' report. I like big ideas, and one of the reasons I am so fond of my colleague from Tennessee is because he likes big ideas. He wanted to come to the Senate to grapple with a big idea, and this is a big idea. I am sure he has not, nor am I, endorsing every dotted I or crossed t here. But it is a very big idea. Head Start is a big idea that Ed Zigler had 40 years ago, and today there are some 900,000 children in this country who benefit from it, less than 50% of those who are eligible. It is a big idea that needs to be protected. We need to be thinking about both parts of the equation--we need teachers and we need students. We can do a lot better, in my view, if we try to do both. We are not going to deal with this report this year. But it seems to me we know Head Start works and the success we have had with it, and knowing the costs that the nearly 19,000 programs across the country are facing--energy, transportation, health insurance, training for staff; all of these increases ranging from 15 percent to 25 percent in the next year. Just to try to keep these programs whole, to hold them harmless, is something I think is worth doing.

Therefore, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and my colleagues with the hopes that there will be enough votes maybe to overcome the budget considerations. Again, I say to my colleague from Pennsylvania and my colleague from Iowa, you have a thankless job. I know it is not easy to have Members like myself coming over, making these cases to you. But my hope would be in some instances, particularly this one, that we would undertake the responsibility of trying to at least keep the program alive.

Barbara Tuchman wrote a wonderful book years ago. She is no longer with us. She wrote a number, but one of them is called ``The March of Folly,'' and it mostly dealt with strategic military questions, going throughout past history. Her point was that nations commit folly when they engage in behavior they know is unwise yet they pursue it anyway. This is a different kind of problem than a mistake you make when you didn't know it was a mistake until later. But the follies, according to Barbara Tuchman, were when you knew you were making a mistake and you went ahead and did it anyway.

In a sense, for us not to keep these programs whole is the ``March of Folly'' when it comes to America's future. We know, we know it as well as we know anything in this body, that the key to America's success has been based, throughout its 220-year history on an educated population. I have said this maybe 1,000 times; 201 years ago, Thomas Jefferson said:

Any nation that ever expects to be ignorant and free

Expects what never was and never possibly can be.

If that was true in the beginning of the 19th century, here we are in the beginning of the 21st century with all the explosions of advances around the globe. If we don't make these investments, if we don't do everything possible to educate our children, knowing that the failure to do so puts this Nation at risk on every level, is in fact the ``March of Folly.''

It could be a new chapter for Barbara Tuchman were she alive today and writing the sequel to her own book. To not support these efforts, I think, leads us on a path that these distinguished academicians and others have strongly identified in their report.

Again, read their words on the opening page, if you will, of ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.''

We are worried about the future prosperity of the United

States. Although many people assume the United States will

always be a world leader in science and technology, this may

not continue to be the case. Inasmuch as great minds and

ideas exist throughout the world, we fear the abruptness with

which the lead in science and technology can be lost and the

difficulty of recovering a lead once lost, if indeed it can

be regained at all. This Nation must prepare with great

urgency to preserve the strategic and economic security.

Those words are about as clear as they could be. Head Start is an integral part of that, in my view. There is a sense of urgency that ought to be about it.

My hope is again that my colleagues will see their way through to supporting this amendment.

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, much as I regret, I move to waive the appropriate sections of the Congressional

Budget Act, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, may I inquire how much time remains on this amendment?

Madam President, it is my understanding that the Senator from New York is going to offer an amendment.

I thank the Senator. I thank the Chair.

I will wait until you make the point of order.

Mr. President, I will, if I may, take a few minutes in support of the amendment by my colleague from New York. I am a cosponsor of this amendment. As she very graciously pointed out, over a number of years, a number of us have worked on this issue. But my colleague is much too humble. The fact that she has only been in this Chamber a little short of her first term belies her interest in this subject matter, which goes back years.

As she pointed out, she was a lawyer working with the Children's Defense Fund. I know our mutual friend, Marion Wright Edelman, has had this issue on the agenda for years and years and years. While the Senator from New York is a relatively new Member of this Chamber, she is not a newcomer to this issue. I am delighted she is taking the lead on this issue this year to highlight the importance of this issue.

She made all the important arguments. Again, I think the Senator from New York and I both agree, saying to our friend from Pennsylvania: We don't want you to go anywhere. We like the fact you are the chair. You won't mind if the Senator from New York and I might prefer that Senator Harkin were the chairman of the committee and you were the ranking member of that committee. You will appreciate our desire to be in the majority, not in the minority, on these issues. But we appreciate immensely the deep commitment of the Senator from Pennsylvania on these issues, not just intellectually but passionately as well. And that is understood.

But, certainly, as you understand and we understand the situation you are in, you must understand, as well, the position we feel so strongly about; and that is, the people who rely and count on us to come up here and raise these issues to try to see if we can't do a bit better.

I know within the Budget Act the restraints are there. But we all know as well that we can make choices here in this Chamber. We can make choices about revenue raising, about different priorities within our overall budget. I don't want to leave anyone with the impression that it is impossible for us to do this. It is not impossible for us to do this. If the will of a majority here exists--or in this case a supermajority to overcome the Budget Act--we can do this.

It is a matter of choices we all get asked to make every single day. They are not easy choices--I understand that--from time to time, although I think the case for special education is so profoundly clear that it ought not be that difficult. We all appreciate the position the manager of the bill is in when he offers, as he must, a point of order because what we are suggesting does break the ceiling. But that should not be a restraint on anyone else who has the opportunity to make a choice about whether they think this issue has merit.

The Senator from New York has pointed out there has been a number of people over the years--Republicans and Democrats--who have supported increasing funds for special education. The Senator from New York rightly goes back and talks about a not too distant history--this is not ancient history--when millions of our fellow citizens, merely because they were confined to a wheelchair, because they had a physical disability, had a learning disability, were deprived the opportunity to receive an education in our country.

It was only 30 years ago we decided it was important we provide an opportunity for every child--every child--to reach his or her potential and that our educational system ought to be able to accommodate those children, and to see to it they have the opportunity to become as independent and as successful as their God-given talents would provide them. That has been a great success in our country.

Back not that many years ago, only 20 percent of children with disabilities ever got an education. Imagine that. It is not that long ago. The Senator from New York has pointed out how she met children, when she was doing her work early on, who were in wheelchairs, children who were blind.

My oldest sister Carolyn--whom many of my colleagues have met; I know my colleague from New York has met--was born legally blind. She just retired after 41 years of teaching. She holds two masters degrees in early childhood development. She ran and taught in Montessori schools, and taught, in the late 1950s, in the Whitby School in Greenwich, CT, with Nancy Rambusch, for those who follow Montessori and educational issues.

But for the financial situation of my family and my parents, who could go out and provide an opportunity for my sister Carolyn who was born in the 1930s, I would hate to think what might have happened to my sister under different economic circumstances. What I also regret, as well, is what those children over those 41 years would have lost from a remarkable human being who taught them.

Today, many of these children across our country who have a physical disability, a learning disability, can go out and achieve great success. I know, for instance, a great new airline in the country-- JetBlue, I think it is called--the man who started that company lives in my State of Connecticut. He has nine children. He is dyslexic. Nelson Rockefeller, who presided over this Chamber as Vice President of the United States, who was a former Governor of the State of New York, which my colleague who has offered this amendment represents, was dyslexic. He had a difficult time reading a speech. Yet think of the achievements he reached. Again, economic circumstances gave him opportunities.

What we are saying today is we do not want to deprive these families, these individuals, of the opportunity to achieve their potential and to serve our country, not just themselves because we have all benefited as a result of the last 30 years of educational opportunities.

My colleague from New York makes a very good point. I have often said if you go back to any community, any county in the United States today and ask them: What could we possibly do to be of help to you?--now, there are unique circumstances. There may be a road or a bridge or a dam or some special project. But I promise you, I don't care whether you go from New Hampshire to Pennsylvania to South Dakota to New York, walk into a county or small town and ask, What are the things we can help out with, and you will hear about No Child Left Behind. That may come first. But I will tell you what is either first or second, unless there is some special need that exists in that community. It is special education, and particularly if you go to rural communities, small towns.

I know in my own State, if you go to meet with the first selectman or selectwoman and ask, What is the cost, you may find that you have one or two special needs children whose educational costs distort the local budget. And it can throw their budget all out of whack. What it does, unfortunately, as well, is it sort of singles out these families and children as if somehow they are culpable for creating financial difficulty to their community or their county.

We made a promise 30 years ago. We made a promise that we would pick up the cost of 40 percent of the special educational costs. We are now at about 18 percent. What the Senator from New York offers us would get us to a little more than 24 percent, for 1 year, by the way. This is not an amendment that provides the funding in the succeeding years. It would result, without any question, I can tell you, in rural communities in my State, in lowering property taxes, without any question whatsoever. I suspect that would be true in larger communities as well, but certainly in smaller communities, in rural areas in the country, if we could begin to meet our obligation.

We are not creating an obligation here. We are merely fulfilling one. We could actually make a huge difference in a tax that is very onerous to most people in the country--rising property taxes. That occurs because of, primarily, education costs, in most areas. It is the education budget that drives the property tax increases more than anything else.

So if you are interested in reducing some of the taxes on our people, particularly on one that affects middle-income and lower income people, who could really use the break, then you ought to be supporting the amendment offered by the Senator from New York; not to mention, of course, the advantage and the benefit that our country receives because we are providing an opportunity for children who can make such a difference in our society.

The other day I was talking with my colleague, Senator Isakson. I think Senator Isakson made this point. If he didn't then I stand corrected. But I believe it was Senator Isakson. We were talking about special education and the importance of these programs, and I was recalling that not that long ago I went to a program in Connecticut where there is an effort to integrate special needs children with mainstream children. Part of the day these children are also in special classes. Seeing special needs children interacting with their peers was a wonderful thing to see.

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Iowa and I have been conferring on our schedule this morning. We have a number of amendments lined up. The first amendment will be offered by Senator Byrd on title I, scheduled for 10 o'clock. We are pretty close to being on schedule. There may be some intervening business.

I want to take this opportunity to urge our colleagues to come to the floor and offer amendments. A cloture motion was filed yesterday with advance notice to all Members. It will be voted on tomorrow. Under the rule, Members have until 1 o'clock today to file amendments. At the moment, we have openings in the afternoon. So we urge our colleagues to come forward with their amendments.

Mr. President, I have listened with great interest to the comments by the very distinguished Senator from West Virginia. It is always a treat to listen to Senator Byrd, hear a little Roman history, hear a tune from time to time, and hear the lengthy experience that Senator Byrd brings to this august body.

He was elected to the House of Representatives in 1952. Before that he had been a legislator for the State of West Virginia. He was elected to the Senate in 1958. We were reminiscing the other day about his having served with President Truman, only for a few days, because President Truman did not run in 1952. President Eisenhower did. And Senator Byrd always very carefully denominates the service ``with'' as opposed to ``under.'' That is exactly correct. I share his insistence on parity.

When they wrote the Constitution, Congress was article I, not the executive branch. It did not come in until article II, and the judiciary, not until article III. But the Supreme Court has sort of rewritten the Constitution more than once.

Now, if we were to rewrite the Constitution, they would be article I. I don't know where the Congress would be, they have taken away so much of our authority. We have lost our authority under the commerce clause.

The Supreme Court wrote an opinion in a case called United States v. Morrison involving the legislation on protecting women against violence; notwithstanding a mountain of evidence, a voluminous record, they said it was insufficient, and they disagreed with our ``method of reasoning.''

It surprised me, in preparation for the hearings from Chief Justice Roberts, to know that Congress had a defective method of reasoning. I didn't know that until I read that in the Supreme Court opinion. Somehow when you move from the columns of Congress, the Senate, lined up directly with the columns of the Supreme Court, you lose some reasoning capacity in the interim--which I doubt very much. Then when they interpreted the Americans with Disabilities Act, Justice Scalia said they were tasking the

Congress, getting us to do our homework, that we had not made a sufficient record.

So when I listen to Senator Byrd talk about the Constitution and about our duties, it is with great interest. I recollect a few years back when Senator Byrd chaired the Committee on Appropriations and I had the audacity to challenge his mark. It was not done by any Senator. I thought I had that standing. I looked at my Commission of Elections, and I had that standing. I got 3 votes out of 29: Senator D'Amato, Senator Kasten voted with me. Senator Kasten was not here at the 1992 elections, so it was a long time ago that Senator Byrd looked across the table in S-128, the appropriations room, and said: Someday you may be chairman, you may set the mark.

I am not too far away and have not gotten there yet to be chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

We wrestle with these appropriations budgets. It is really a tough job. This subcommittee of the bill we have today for $145 billion has to fund education and health, which are our two major capital assets. If you do not have good health, you cannot do anything. If you cannot have a good education, you cannot move ahead in this world. Senator Byrd and I have both benefited from a good education. I didn't come from a school quite as small as his. I went to high school in a town of 5,000, Russell, KS, where Bob Dole had gone to high school. However, education is the key to the future and I know that, and I appreciate that.

We have struggled mightily to make the best allocation we can with the priorities ahead. As I listened to Senator Byrd talk about title I of No Child Left Behind, I would like to see the funding increased on No Child Left Behind. I would see our priorities on a budget of $2.6 trillion arranged differently if I set the priorities.

Maybe someday I will get to be chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and can set the priorities. But even as I say that, there is so little of that money in discretionary spending that so much of the authority of the Committee on Appropriations is taken away. We have to do the best we can. We labored mightily to craft the best priorities we could.

There will be a number of amendments. There was an amendment offered yesterday by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, on Pell grants. I would like to have had more money for Pell grants. I said if Senator Kennedy can show the priorities of what could be cut, I would be glad to consider that.

As I listened to Senator Byrd today, I would like to have $5 billion more and accept his amendment and see more money go to title I and No Child Left Behind, but the money simply is not there.

I have to disagree with my distinguished colleague when he says there has been a betrayal of the promise. I don't think the authorization constitutes a proposition. The authorization is always higher than the appropriation. In the dark ages of the past, my colleague--Senator Harkin is returning to the Senate--the dark ages of the past when Senator Harkin was chairman of this subcommittee, Democrats took control in that fateful time, the spring of 2001, and controlled the budget process 2001 and 2002 for about a 17-month period. I took a look at what the figures were at that time. I noted the authorization on title I for fiscal year 2002 was $13.5 billion, and the appropriation was $10.35 billion. I understood that because we crafted that bill together.

When I say the ``dark ages'' I say it only in jest. Senator Harkin and I have worked coordinately. With all the bickering that exists in this Senate--and it is a lot--there is a deep trench here that crosses the aisle on many days in the Senate but not when Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter or Bob Byrd and Thad Cochran or Ted Stevens work on a bill. We cross the partisan line.

Senator Harkin and the Democrat-controlled Congress could not fund it all the way up to the authorization. And in 2003, again, when Senator Harkin was chairman of the subcommittee, the authorization was $16 billion and the appropriation was $11.689 billion.

I took a look at the funding for the 5 years of the Bush administration and compared it to funding in the 5 years of President Clinton's administration. As to title I, under the Bush administration, the budget request for fiscal year 2006 is $13.342 billion; President Clinton's last year at $8.357 billion. There was an increase during the Bush years of $4.985 billion.

With President Clinton, I compared from 1997 to 2001. In 1997, the budget request by the President was $7.165 billion, and President Clinton's last year it was $8.357 billion. So there was an increase during President Clinton's watch of $1.192 billion.

I cite those figures only to point out President Bush has not done too badly by comparison to President Clinton. They both struggled as well.

When we look at the total funding on education, President Bush's budget for 2006 is $56.219 billion, going back to 2001 as a base, $40.088 billion, the education budget request by President Clinton has increased $16.131 billion.

If you take a comparable period for President Clinton and use the fiscal year 2001 figures of $40.088 billion contrasted with fiscal year 1997, $25.829 billion, there was an increase of $14.259 billion.

Now, these figures are subject to differences of inflation. They are not exact. But it ought to be understood, or at least the point I seek to make is that it is not a political matter. When it comes to education there is recognition by both parties that it is a very high priority item.

On the comparison, I find fault with neither party. Both Presidents have tried to do what they could with a lot of conflicting problems. Certainly, when Senator Harkin was the chairman of the subcommittee, he did his best. We worked together. When I had an idea, I would bring it to him and we would try to work it out. When he had an idea, he would bring it to me and I would try to work it out.

We have been talking about the avian flu issue, which we will talk about later. I was in my hideaway--that is a small Senate office for somebody watching on C-SPAN2, where you go to hide to try to get some work done, instead of your office where you are surrounded by many assistants who want answers to their specific problems which are the most pressing of the day.

The phone rang. It was Senator Harkin trying to prepare an opening statement for the Harriet Miers confirmation hearings. We have other work to do besides this big appropriations bill. It was quiet until the phone rang. It was Senator Harkin. Would I take a call from Senator Harkin? Of course, I will take a call from Senator Harkin, put him through.

We talked about avian flu and what we are going to do. He had some good ideas on avian flu, and we will discuss that in some detail a little later today.

Wherever he has an idea, and I am the chairman, I am all ears. If I can accommodate Senator Harkin, I am going to do so. He was hard to get off the phone this morning. That happens from time to time. He was giving me a very heavy pitch. I tried to interrupt him at one point and said: Tom, I hate to say this, but I think you are right.

It didn't stop him, he kept going, kept going. About 30 seconds after I said that, he stopped, and said: Yes, you said I was right.

I said: That's right, Tom. Can we finish this conversation and continue it in the Senate when we have the issue before the Senate?

In conclusion--the two most popular words of any speech--while I would like to agree with Senator Byrd and I would like to see $5 billion more, we do not have the money under the allocation. If anybody has any ideas about how to rearrange the priorities, I am willing to listen.

It is customary for the allocation, the appropriation, to be under the authorization. That happens whether Democrat or Republican. You do not put on a villain's hat necessarily because you are in one party or the other. We will continue the struggle and continue to try to do our best on education.

I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his contributions.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment provides budget authority and outlays in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation for fiscal year 2006 and, therefore, is not in order.

Mr. President, it would be my preference to stack the votes, unless the Senator from West Virginia would like to have a vote now.

All right. In deference to the Senator from West Virginia, we will accede to his request. It would be my hope--I talked to Senator Harkin about this--that to the extent we can, while we have people here ready to offer amendments--we have just worked out a time agreement with Senator Dodd, 45 minutes equally divided for his amendment--while we have Senators in the Chamber ready to proceed, we do so to the extent we can, unless there is a circumstance which requires a different outcome.

I understand Senator Alexander may have a related issue. I have just been informed about that. May I suggest to the Chair that we hear from Senator Alexander to see how it impacts on the vote before we move ahead with the vote?

Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Tennessee if he would be agreeable to a time limit of, say, 30 minutes equally divided?

Under the regular order, we will then proceed to a vote, objection having been heard. We will entertain Senator Alexander's amendment at the earliest time the managers can. May I remind my colleagues that this is going to be a 15-minute rollcall vote, with 5 additional minutes. We had an 18\1/2\-minute vote yesterday. Let's see if we can beat that record. I know we are going to proceed. I will talk to my colleagues, and we will work out the sequence.

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

Mr. President, I think we have worked out a procedure where there will not be either a side-by-side or second-degree amendment offered. The Senator from Tennessee would like an opportunity to speak for 10 minutes on it, and we will hear Senator Alexander for 10 minutes and then proceed to a vote on the Byrd amendment. So I ask unanimous consent at this time that Senator Alexander be recognized for 10 minutes, that we then proceed to a vote on the Byrd amendment, and then we proceed to take up the Dodd amendment and seek to proceed with the order we have established.

Let us hold off on this. There may be some amendment on the Republican side. I doubt there will be, but I don't want to have a series of amendments on both sides.

I think that would be agreeable, but I would not want to be bound to it at this moment.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to press this issue if we can't get agreement, but I would like to stack the Dodd amendment, say, behind the Clinton amendment so we can save time.

Let me restate the understanding. There will be 10 minutes for Senator Alexander, and there will be a vote on the Byrd amendment. We will then proceed to a Dodd amendment. If there is no intervening Republican seeking recognition to offer an amendment, we will proceed to the Clinton amendment, and we will discuss at a later time the sequence of votes.

Mr. President, that is correct. The Senator from Tennessee will speak in opposition to the Byrd amendment and in support of the budget point of order, but he will just make a statement. Nothing will be offered.

Mr. President, one more reminder. This is a 20-minute vote.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

We are now prepared to proceed with the Dodd amendment. I ask unanimous consent that we limit the time on this amendment to 45 minutes equally divided.

Madam President, that is correct.

Madam President, listening to the passionate presentation by the Senator from Connecticut, I agree with virtually everything he said but nothing more than when he said that Senator Harkin and I have thankless tasks.

It is very hard to reply to what the Senator from Connecticut has had to say about the importance of Head Start without agreeing with him, and his reminiscences back to January following the 1980 election when 18 new Senators came to the Senate--16 Republicans and 2 Democrats. I was one of 16, and Senator Dodd was one of 2. His class has maintained 50 percent representation. Our class is down to one-eighth, 12\1/2\ percent. Senator Dodd and I formed the Children's Caucus. He wasn't a chairman anywhere because he was in the minority. He wanted to have a gavel--at least half a gavel. I chaired the Juvenile Justice Subcommittee. We talked and formed a caucus. I think we did very good work. I think some of the work we did has followed its way into Head Start and very important juvenile programs.

As Senator Dodd has said, it is a thankless job to manage this bill, to make allocations of $145 billion among education, health care, and labor and work safety. We have done the very best we could in our allocations. It has been crafted, as I said, jointly by Senator Harkin and myself.

Over the years, I have been and still am a steadfast supporter of Head Start. We have in this budget almost $7 billion for Head Start, a very substantial sum of money. Between fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 2004, we have doubled Head Start.

Nothing would please me more than to be able to accede to the request by the Senator from Connecticut, which is, as he accurately stated, a moderate request. Yesterday, the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, offered an amendment on Pell grants which I thought was a good amendment. We had Senator Byrd's amendment this morning for increased funding on education title I, which is a good amendment. It is difficult not to be able to support these amendments. But in my job, it is necessary to take the allocation which the budget resolution gives us and make the allocations as best we can.

If Senator Dodd had some suggestion as to an offset--that is, where we could move some money from one account to another on the basis of priority--I would be glad to consider whatever he had to say. But I am constrained to stay within the limits which the budget resolution has provided. That requires, much as I dislike to, raising a budget point of order.

Much as I dislike doing so, I raise a point of order under 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment would put the authority and outlays in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation and, therefore, is out of order.

Madam President, I yield back my time.

Madam President, we are going to move to the amendment by the Senator from New York.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside temporarily and the vote in relation to this amendment be determined by the majority leader after consultation with the Democratic leader and that we move ahead to the amendment to be offered by the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton.

Madam President, I concur with the Senator from New York about the tremendous importance of special education. That has been a priority of mine since becoming chairman of the subcommittee.

In the 1996 fiscal year, the Federal contribution was 7.3 percent. Since that time, through fiscal year 2005, we have raised it to 18.5 percent. We are still a good bit shy of approximating a 40-percent figure, but when we look at the funding for IDEA, there have been very marked increases as we have moved along, with an increase one year of $1.3 billion, another year $1.1 billion. We are now at a position where the total funding for IDEA has come up very dramatically but candidly is not as far as I would like to see it. We now stand in a range of funding of $10.7 billion.

The amendment offered by the Senator from New York increases funding by $3.959 billion, almost $4 billion. Like the amendment offered by Senator Dodd for Head Start, I would like to see the money for IDEA. Last year, Senator Dayton offered an amendment for $11 billion which-- even that draws a smile from my colleague from Connecticut. Or the amendment offered by Senator Byrd for $5 billion, or the one yesterday for Head Start.

A few years ago, after managing this bill for some time, I made a determined effort to become chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations. It seems to me a good place to be so when these votes came up I would be free to cast a vote to exceed the budget limitations, since it takes 60 votes. That means if you take 44 Democrats and Senator Jeffords and 14 votes possible, you can be with the good guys and still not bust the budget. That luxury is not enjoyed by the manager, however. It is one of the footnotes in the manager's book, you cannot raise a point of order and vote against a point of order. It presents a very difficult voting record for reelection to vote against Head Start, against education funding, against Pell grants, and against special education.

I have stayed with this Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Education because it is important. Senator Harkin and I have led the way on funding for NIH. We have some very important funding for the Centers for Disease Control. But I think we have done a great deal with this budget, to the maximum extent possible. Each year it becomes much more difficult. The increase of $100 million for special education this year is insufficient. I wish there were more money that could be advanced. I am well aware that the education for special education, disabled, and handicapped puts people in the mainstream of American life and improves the quality of their life. It is important.

But when we have a budget resolution that is thought out--and I voted for the $5 billion Senator Kennedy wanted to add to education which would have given money. It was a 51-

to-49 vote. I was importuned by the Republican cloakroom with great pressure to change my vote and make it 50 to 50 so that amendment would go down. I stayed with Senator Kennedy's amendment. If we had had $5 billion more, we could have accommodated what Senator Clinton wants and what Senator Dodd wants and some of Senator Byrd's request, but we do not have the money.

My duties require me to raise a point of order, which I now do formally, but I will desist because I see Senator Dodd on his feet for a short speech.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment provides budget authority and outlays in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation under fiscal year 2006 concurrent resolution and therefore is not in order.

Mr. President, in the absence of any Senator seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, we have a request from Senator DeMint for 15 minutes of morning business. This would be a good time to accommodate that request.

I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, I think the idea offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, that all of the earmarks be specified in the conference report, is a very sound idea. The earmarks from this bill have traditionally and always have been properly identified.

I am very pleased to accept the amendment.

Mr. President, the purpose of the advertisements, I have one in my hand, is to set the stage for recruiting people, as represented to me, to use the vaccine when it is developed. This ad, for example, pictures a man which says:

I'm fighting to stop a killer. HIV is a killer. I'm a

witness. I have buried babies, I have buried old people and

young people, people like me, people like you. HIV is

serious. So my life's work is helping others learn about it

and prevent it. Today, thousands of research, medical

professionals, and volunteers are committed to discovering a

vaccine that prevents HIV and stopping this epidemic. To them

I say, I'm with you.

This ad tries to stimulate awareness of what is being done, an ultimate tool in finding people who will be volunteers.

NIH has run this ad. What I suggest to the Senator from Oklahoma is that we set the amendment aside and take a closer look at the purposes NIH has in mind in using it. Then we can revisit it and decide whether to accept it or whether to contest it and have a vote on it.

I ask to set it aside and move on to the next amendment.

Mr. President, the Department of Health and Human Services opposes this amendment saying that they are important for their work and best practices. I note that a similar amendment was offered on the Transportation, Treasury, and HUD appropriations bill and that it was agreed upon by a voice vote.

Before taking a definitive position, I would like to conduct a further inquiry with HHS. In preparation for this bill being on the floor, we have an idea of the amendments which are going to be offered, and we have information provided by the administrative agency. I understand the logic of the position of the Senator from Oklahoma. I do not want to abandon the agency without giving them an opportunity to present in a fuller way their ideas. We will consult with them and come back to the Senator from Oklahoma.

I do.

I would think it mandatory that the Senator's staff be present.

Of course. The Senator and his staff are welcome to whatever information we have. We want the Senator to know what it is every step of the way. I believe in full disclosure. Let us find out what the facts are. It has always been a point of mine that if one comes to an agreement on the facts, they can almost always come to an agreement on policy that flows from the facts. We will set up a meeting jointly.

Mr. President, I do.

We would be glad to accommodate the senior Senator from Oklahoma. We can handle that amendment.

Mr. President, we will find a time which is convenient to the senior Senator from Oklahoma.

On to the pending amendment, it is always difficult in the floor debate when we talk about facts to know what the facts are. My training is that we want to find out the facts, so we have a trial and present witnesses, the witnesses testify, and then we find out what the facts are.

I do know this about CDC because I visited the facility about 5 years ago and found it in shambles. I have seen a lot of Federal installations. I have never seen one as ramshackle as the Centers for Disease Control. We saw premier scientists with their desks in the corridors. We were advised that there were many toxic substances which were not properly secured. It was a mess. I then consulted with the Secretary of Health and Human Services--this goes back a few years, as I say--and no attention had been paid to it.

Senator Harkin later made a similar visit, and that year, on an immediate basis, my recollection is we appropriated $175 million. Then we took a look at their plans for very extensive renovation when we had appropriated seriatim substantial sums of money.

When the Senator from Oklahoma says that monies have not been spent, it is represented to me that contractors will not contract with the Federal Government unless they know the money is in hand. Understandably, unless there is authorization and appropriation, nobody wants to do business with some Federal employee who makes representations without having the cash in hand. That is the advice which is coming to me.

The landscaping is said to be very modest, which would not include a Japanese garden. I would like to inquire more to find out about it. From what I have seen of the officials at the Centers for Disease Control, Dr. Julie Gerberding is an extraordinary public servant. I know that when I have wanted some information on the problems of pandemic flu, I had to find her in Bangkok, where she was making an international survey. I know when we had a deadly botulism in western Pennsylvania a couple of years ago, I called her up and she came on a weekend to Beaver County, Pennsylvania. I do not think it was just because the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee was calling; that is the kind of service they perform.

They wrestle with HIV, SARS, and hurricanes, and now they are wrestling with pandemic flu. Among the many people in the Federal Government whom I have dealt with--and there have been quite a few in the course of my time--I would rate Dr. Gerberding, who is the head of it, very highly.

Having mentioned Japanese gardens, I have just been handed a note from my staff that says it does have a Japanese garden. Well, I wish to inquire further. Maybe there could be a less expensive exotic garden than a Japanese garden.

I do, at my risk, commend the Senator from Oklahoma for his tenacity and for his sharpness in digging up wasteful spending. I do believe that on this one, he is on the wrong track, but the Senators from Georgia are present, and I know they want to be heard. I think the distinguished ranking member wants to be heard. So I will yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending Coburn amendment be set aside and we proceed with another amendment.

Mr. President, the amendment as outlined by my colleague from Pennsylvania provides for 1 million HIV oral rapid tests. The funds are provided for within the amounts already in the bill. These tests are essential. He correctly states my agreement and acquiescence. I join my colleague in urging agreement.

Mr. President, my colleague and I were just discussing the amendment. I believe it is acceptable.

I yield to my colleague.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2291 and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this is an amendment which would delay the implementation of the Medicare reimbursement for all power mobility vehicles for a period of 6 months. It has been cleared by Senator Harkin. I ask for its adoption.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2260.

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

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2239.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

This is an amendment that is to instruct the Department of Health and Human Services to purchase of no less than 1 million rapid oral HIV tests.

As we all know, the problem of HIV and the spread of HIV continues to be a problem. Experts tell us that over half of all new HIV cases are as a result of someone who was unaware of their HIV status. The idea is having better testing out there, along with oral testing where it does not require any drawing of blood or needles--obviously, for a lot of folks that is a concern. This provides a safe effective way to be able to get these results in a timely fashion to give people the notice they need before they engage in an activity that might cause the further spread of the HIV virus.

I understand from my colleague from Pennsylvania, this is an amendment he is willing to accept. If there is no discussion, I urge agreement of the amendment.

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

Mr. President, this is a commission, a bipartisan bicameral commission, that will be set up as a result of this amendment that would undertake a comprehensive and thoughtful review of Federal social service programs and make recommendations that would be appropriate to provide beneficiaries more choice in how they receive their social services that are paid for from the Federal Government.

One of the things I hear as I work in communities that heavily rely on social services, a lot of places where they would like to get social services--community-based organizations, in some cases faith-based organizations--are not able. They either do not qualify for Federal funds or do not have the technical expertise to get Federal funds. The President has put forward a faith-based initiative. The Congress has passed charitable choice legislation. We have done a lot to try to get more providers in social services involved, and even in some areas provide more flexibility--such as vouchers for certain services that are out there so people can take that voucher and get the services from qualified places.

There is still a level of frustration out in the community. I think we need to do a more comprehensive job in

looking at how we address the issue of giving people choices as to how they get their social services. I think this is a way to bring some of the best minds that we have into the social service delivery area, folks from both the House and the Senate and the White House, appointees, to sit down and look to see, is there a better mousetrap than the current system of social service delivery? Is there a better way for us to restructure some of these programs to give more efficient and effective services at less cost and with more consumer buy-in and choice?

One of the reasons some of our social services plans do not work very well is people do not interface well with the delivery systems in place right now. This commission would be tasked to determine how we can, in fact, remove some of these barriers to folks who do not access the social services systems.

One of the big problems we have continually with a lot of our programs--whether it is health programs, housing programs, rehabilitation programs, or other programs--is we have large segments of the community that simply do not participate. They may be eligible for services, but they do not participate in the services. So we have to figure out: How do we better reach these people? How do we better make these services available in such a way that we can actually start reaching people in how they live their lives and in a way that meets their needs?

As far as the money for this commission, I have asked that it be such sums as may be determined by the committee. Hopefully, they will allocate such resources they have available to stand up this commission. But, to me, it is important we get better utilization. For my mind, just giving more money to the different Departments to figure out ways to advertise or to do things to bump up their enrollment in some of these programs has been tried in the past, and it basically does not work very well. I think we need to at least have some of our best minds look at this together, as to how we could redesign this system and get recommendations given to the Congress as to how we can do a better job providing services.

With that, Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, we have discussed it with the members of the Finance Committee which, as you know, I am a member of. To my knowledge, I am not aware of any objection on the part of the Finance Committee as to this particular provision. I will be offering a couple other amendments promptly which are under the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee which they do object to, which I will just offer and withdraw. But to my knowledge, they have not objected to this particular amendment.

Mr. President, to my knowledge, we filed the amendment. My staff has discussed it, I know, with the Finance Committee. I do not know about any other committees. This is not a bill I introduced and has gone to committee. This is something I have brought up on this bill.

So to answer your question, I think, as directly as I can, no, we have not filed this with the Finance Committee as a bill to have them review it as a bill in committee, if that is your question.

I would be happy to.

Mr. President, I perfectly understand what the concerns are of the Senator from Iowa and would be happy to work with him over the next several hours to get that amendment cleared.

Amendment No. 2237

Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 2237 be called up and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Thank you, Mr. President. The next two amendments I am going to be talking about are amendments that I have offered and on which I want to have a discussion. They are in the subject area of this appropriations bill, but they are provisions that, as my colleague from Pennsylvania advised me, rightfully belong as amendments to a welfare bill.

But as Members of this Chamber know, we have not had the privilege in the Senate of having a welfare bill come across this floor, even though the welfare bill of 1996 expired a couple of years ago. We have passed extension after extension. As a result of that, the work requirements in the welfare reform bill of 1996--which have been so effective in transforming the lives of millions of Americans who were trapped in the welfare system--those work requirements in most States have gone away because the requirements only required that 50 percent of the caseload, at the time of the passage of the bill, had to be working.

Well, we reduced the caseload more than 50 percent, therefore the work requirements went away for the caseload

that is remaining. So many States have begun to sort of go back to the pre-1996 provision of welfare. It is easier for States to do that. Work programs cost money to the States. Other initiatives to try to help people get out of poverty, they cost money. So if you do not have to spend that money as a State, if you can just simply continue to pay out the money and not have to provide all these other services, it is a lot cheaper for States to do. In fact, that is what States did for years upon years upon years, as the welfare rolls grew.

There is still a time limit, so that is a good thing. That causes a lot of people, in spite of the lack of effort in many cases by States, to move themselves off of welfare because of the limits on the ability to get relief. But I believe we can do better. So I have many times come to the floor of the Senate and asked for consideration of the bill, asked for a specific number of amendments, and, candidly, we have had objections from both sides of the aisle. I think that is unfortunate.

So as a result, I have brought forward amendments to this bill on two programs that I think are vitally important in the next step on welfare. We did a great job in the welfare reform bill of 1996 in providing an economic path to recovery for millions of Americans, in providing incentives to work. We made work pay more than staying on welfare. In many cases prior to that, that was not the case.

We also did a lot in providing strict time limits and giving States very tough provisions to require work as a way of getting people out of poverty, instead of simply just allowing them to be maintained in poverty. It gave them a requirement that a certain percentage of the caseload had to be at work. That is all for the good. We saw the rate of poverty from 1996 to the year 2001--until we had, unfortunately, a recession in this country--we saw the rate of poverty go down, and go down dramatically.

One of the greatest indicators is poverty among African-American children. Poverty among African-American children, in the year 2001, was the lowest ever recorded--lowest ever recorded--and was a dramatic decline from one of the highest rates ever recorded, which was in the mid-1990s. So you can point directly to this act as a way of helping to alleviate poverty.

But I think what we have found since 1996, yes, we have had economic successes, but still there are people struggling at the margins of society. One of the reasons that is the case is, even though we now have moms who have gotten jobs--and it was predominantly moms who were on welfare--what they have not gotten is families brought back together. What we have not seen is an increase in the amount of family unification, moms and dads coming together and marrying and raising children in poor communities.

In fact, the rate of out-of-wedlock births has not changed substantially at all in most of these communities. The amount of fatherlessness in these communities continues to be of epidemic proportions. And we now have folks on the left and the right writing about this. This is no longer just a conservative cabal when we talk about family unification; families, mothers and fathers raising children. Now even those on the left have said there is no longer an argument. Children raised in healthy, stable, two-parent married families do better.

It should be a social policy to encourage those kinds of relationships for the benefit of children, for the benefit of mothers, for the benefit of fathers, for the benefit of neighborhoods, for the benefit of the country. Yet when it comes to that here in Washington, DC, when it comes to public policy that helps build those strong relationships, that helps nurture and foster those relationships of marriage and fathers taking responsibility for their children, the Government stands in absolute neutrality.

We do nothing to promote stable marriages. We do nothing, other than attach fathers' wages and get child support and establish paternity. We do nothing to help nurture and bring fathers back into the lives of their children and into productive and healthy relationships with the mother of their children.

What I have suggested, in both amendment No. 2237 and No. 2238, are two initiatives that are better placed and will be placed and will be debated in full on the welfare bill. One is a healthy marriage initiative. The second is a fatherhood initiative. Both would provide funding.

Let's review some of the statistics of the impact of marriage. This was done by the Brookings Institution. Those on the other side of the aisle will know that the Brookings Institution is not often cited on the Republican side of the aisle. It shows you that the debate is over. There is no debate anymore about the impact of marriage and the impact of having fathers involved in their children's lives. I talked about the effectiveness of five factors in reducing poverty rates. We hear a lot of talk on both sides of the aisle--unfortunately, more on the other side of the aisle--about reducing poverty. Hopefully, that will change soon.

In 1992, we did what was, in fact, the most effective thing in reducing poverty, this study found. The most effective thing was not to double cash welfare payments. Some on the other side of the aisle have suggested that all we need to do is pay people more from the Government. If we give them more, they will get out of poverty. Wrong. That doesn't work. In fact, the percentage reduction in poverty rates, if we doubled cash welfare, would only decrease the poverty rate by 8 percent.

What did work? Full-time work. Full-time work decreases the poverty rate by 42 percent. We have done that. We have required work, not full- time work, but we require 20 hours. The bill that is being proposed, that we have yet to bring to the floor, requires 24 hours. But we have required work, and it is working to take people out of poverty.

What is the next biggest factor in reducing poverty? Again, according to the Brookings Institution report, an increase in marriage. We did something to require work. Many States have more generous welfare benefits than what is prescribed by the Federal Government. In fact, I know there is some money out there for healthy marriages, but very few States and very little Federal money goes to do anything about helping to improve the health of marriage among the poor. It is vitally important that we recognize that there is a direct social-policy, social-service-community, child-mother-father benefit for encouraging healthy marriages. The Federal Government doesn't spend a penny. This Congress has not spent a penny on something we know could reduce poverty by 27 percent and, more importantly, provide more stability in the lives of children, reduce domestic violence, and improve the lives of millions in communities across America. We will not spend a penny this year. That is why I offered the amendment, because I want to spend more than a few pennies, because we know it has an impact.

What impact does it have? Let's look at the benefits of marriage for children: better school performance and less dropouts; fewer emotional and behavioral problems; less substance abuse; less abuse or neglect; less criminal activity; less early sexual activity and fewer out-of- wedlock births. I am not too sure I know anybody who doesn't think all of those things are good. The Federal Government doesn't spend a penny.

Think of all the things we spend money on in Washington. One of the things you hear most when you go back home is all the waste, fraud, all the money we throw at projects for which people have no rhyme or reason as to why we spend the money. Yet here is something that we know will help children, mothers, fathers, neighborhoods, will build on a stronger America, and we don't spend one red cent.

You might ask the question: Why is that, Senator? Why don't we spend any money on this? Let me tell you what some of my colleagues on the Finance Committee have said. The response was: Well, who are we to impose our values on other folks; who are we to suggest that marriage is something the Federal Government should be concerned with; that is a private matter.

Is this a private matter? Is less substance abuse a private matter? Is less abuse and neglect a private matter? Is less criminal activity a private matter? This isn't a private matter. We are talking about policies that have a direct impact on the health and safety of children. It is not a private matter. Supporting healthy marriages is a public good. If you think about all the

other things we spend money on, I can't imagine anything that would be a more valuable expenditure than to provide more stable families for children growing up in poor neighborhoods.

The second amendment is an offshoot of the first. That is to try to bring fathers who have children out of wedlock back and get them involved in their children's lives--not necessarily to marry, but to have them involved. I was at a conference within the last year where Jason DeParle, a writer from the New York Times, was giving a talk. He was talking about a book he had written, following three women in Milwaukee, WI, post welfare reform of 1996. He wrote about many things, about how welfare reform is working in some ways and not in others. One way he talked about where it wasn't working was with regard to fathers. There was a question from the crowd about who these dads are. We are not talking about the best neighborhoods in America when it comes to crime, wealth. We are talking about a lot of dads who, yes, were or even are incarcerated, were or still are dealing with addiction, dealing with unemployment, dealing with a whole host of other maladies that affect large segments of our population.

The question was: Do we want these dads involved in the lives of these children? I thought that was a bold question. Jason's answer was, in a word--I won't quote him, because I didn't write it down--well, they may not be the best role models of dads, but they are still their dads. These children, like all of us children, want to be loved by their dads. They need that love, as imperfect as it is. As a dad, I know how imperfect it can be. We all do. But it is still your dad.

These programs are not perfect. We are not bringing ``Father Knows Best'' Robert Young dads back into the home. We understand that. But these children still long for their dad. Do we have a Federal program that helps bring dads back into the home? Do we spend any Federal dollars to help reunite fathers with their children, in spite of all the benefits that we know about two parents? No, we don't. We will spend more money on daycare, billions more on daycare. We will spend more money on afterschool programs, Head Start Programs, early programs, late programs, noon programs. We will spend all sorts of money on Government programs. But will we spend a penny to help reunite a father with his children? No. Who are we to impose our values, is the line I hear.

Did anyone ever ask a kid whether he wants his dad back? What kind of value is that? We need to start thinking about how important it is for young children growing up in a hostile world in poor neighborhoods in America to have a shot to be with their dad and to start funding those groups who are out there--and there are hundreds across America who are working hard every day on a shoestring--to help dads be a dad.

I can't offer this amendment because it is authorizing on an appropriations bill. We aren't going to get a welfare bill, so kids across America are going to have to wait a little longer while Congress decides whether we want to take the time to help find their dad. Hopefully we can find the time sometime soon. The kids are waiting.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I concur with my chairman in that regard. The only other observation I make, we are not encouraging a lot of amendments. We are just saying if you have amendments come over and do them this morning or this afternoon so we can finish up the bill, hopefully, by tomorrow. I know there are some important amendments-- Senator Byrd certainly has one coming up on title I--that we need to address in this bill.

Again, I am hopeful, if people do have amendments, that they will come over. And, again, Members need to know amendments have to be filed by 1 p.m. today to be considered under the cloture motion.

Mr. President, I understand that the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, needs to make a modification to his amendment, and I know, also, the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, wants to offer an amendment before we begin Senator Byrd's amendment. Senator Byrd has been kind enough to yield to them a few minutes so we can get that done before he proceeds on his amendment.

Mr. President, as always, it is a joy and interesting to listen to my friend and colleague, my chairman, talk about the past and what we have done together. He is

right, we have worked together closely. I followed his lead on a lot of things, such as when Arlen Specter, back in the mid-1990s, wanted to do double funding for NIH. He took the lead on that. I did what I could to help. And we got the job done under his great leadership.

So we have worked together on a lot of different things. And where we have had differences, we have had differences, but we have always been, I think, upfront and open about those differences. While I love Arlen Specter dearly, and respect him greatly, he is not my twin, he is not my clone, so we do have different ways of approaching things once in a while. And that is the way it ought to be around here. There should not be, as he said, this big gulf between us, but there ought to be an honest airing of differences of views on how we ought to approach things.

Take the Byrd amendment, for example. I stated earlier, when we first brought the bill to the floor, that Senator Specter had done a superb job, and he was always open with my staff and me in crafting and putting together this bill. I said when you are dealt a bad hand, you have to do the best you can. And Senator Specter did. So in terms of the bill itself and how it is crafted, I do not have problems.

What I have problems with is our allocation. That is where I have problems. Since I did not support the budget, I said at the time we laid the bill down the other day: Look, if people are going to come here with amendments that offset and jiggle things around in the bill, I will not support it because we worked very hard, Senator Specter worked very hard, to craft a bill that was fair in terms of what we had to deal with. So I would not support amendments which jiggle things around. But if someone has an amendment they want to offer which would not jiggle things around, but add money--which I understand takes 60 votes to waive the Budget Act--I am going to be for that because I don't agree with the Budget Act. I don't agree with what the budget calls for.

So I will support the Byrd amendment because he is not trying to take money from one pot and move it to another; he is saying the budget was wrong. We ought to waive it and put the money in.

Now, with all due respect, again, to my friend from Pennsylvania, in going back over the history of this, I wish to point out that the Byrd amendment only closes 50 percent of the gap between the authorization level and what is in the Senate bill.

I have here a chart that shows the authorization and the appropriations levels going back to fiscal year 2002. Senator Specter made mention there was an interim period there when our party was in charge for about a year, so we were in charge of the budget and the appropriations at that time.

I point out that at that point our appropriations were a little over 70 percent, maybe about 75 percent of the authorization level. Today, we are less than 40 percent of the authorization level. So what Senator Byrd has said is the authorization level is going up, our appropriations are staying flat. We now have this huge gap. We are trying to close this gap. It is not 100 percent. It is about 50 percent of closing that gap, and that would tend to bring us back to about where we were 3 or 4 years ago, in terms of the difference between the authorization level and the appropriations level.

Now, there is one other thing that happened during this period of time. The Congress passed something called No Child Left Behind, a new mandate on the States, a new mandate that States had to do in education. Now, I am on the authorizing committee for education. At that time, Senator Kennedy was our chairman. I can remember sitting at the White House, and I can remember sitting up here in meetings discussing No Child Left Behind, I say to my friend from West Virginia, and about what it was going to cost.

The White House, through their representatives, agreed on what level we would fund No Child Left Behind. Now, that was only authorization because it was an authorization bill. But we were told by the White House that they would meet these authorization levels. One of the reasons I voted for the bill, not that I was enamored with it, but I felt the White House had made a commitment they would fund No Child Left Behind at the levels we agreed to. We agreed with the White House: These levels? OK, yes, we agree at these levels.

Here they are. This level, right here, $22.75 billion for fiscal year 2006. That is what we agreed upon. Yet our appropriation for this year is $12.8 billion. That is why I said it is about--well, I said 40 percent. I made a mistake. It is a little over 50 percent. But in fiscal year 2002, we were at about 75 percent of funding, and that was at the beginning of No Child Left Behind.

So what Senator Byrd is trying to do is make us live up to what we had agreed to do, with both the White House and the States. I dare say, any Senator here who goes home and talks to their State government, talks to their school districts--go out and talk to your school districts and find out what they are saying about No Child Left Behind. They are saying: Wait a minute. You put all of these mandates on us. You said you were going to fund it. Now you are not, and now we are being penalized because we can't meet the goals of No Child Left Behind.

We have put them in kind of what they call a catch-22 situation: Darned if you do; darned if you don't. Either way, you lose.

So that is why I am supporting Senator Byrd's amendment. The budget needs to be waived. We need to meet our commitments on this.

Mr. President, I will yield to the Senator from Connecticut.

That is right.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Connecticut. He was also on the education committee and was involved in those discussions during No Child Left Behind. The Senator from Connecticut chaired the education subcommittee there, so he knows full well the commitments that were made at that time by the White

House and the Congress to fund it. Senator Kennedy was absolutely right, we are not doing what we agreed to do in this regard.

Mr. President, prior to yielding the floor, might I ask, what is the pending business before the Senate?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Byrd amendment be temporarily set aside. I have an amendment I send to the desk and ask for its consideration.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we now return to the Byrd amendment and that it be the pending business of the Senate.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the vote on the Byrd amendment, Senator Dodd be recognized to offer his amendment, after which point there would be a vote on the Dodd amendment, after which point if there is a Republican amendment that is to be brought up and disposed of; if there is not, the Senator from New York be recognized at that point to offer her amendment, followed by a vote.

Madam President, before we proceed to the Dodd amendment, I believe the pending amendment is my amendment. I have a modification at the desk. I ask for its consideration.

I further ask unanimous consent that no second-degree amendments be in order on the Dodd amendment prior to the vote.

Mr. President, I join my chairman and support his views on this amendment. He correctly stated a lot of the history of how this has come about. Between the two of us, as we have alternated as chairmen of this subcommittee, it has been a strong bipartisan effort, not just between the two of us but on both sides of the aisle for a long time, to bring the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta's facilities up to the 21st century.

I remember having gone down in the 1990s. I had seen this movie ``Outbreak'' starring Dustin Hoffman. It supposedly had taken place at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. I was quite taken by all of the containment facilities and how

modern it was in this movie, and I wanted to go down and see all this. Imagine my surprise when I went down to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and I asked to see these wonderful facilities that were in this movie and I was told the movie producers had come down to film the movie there, saw the facilities, and said no one would ever believe these ramshackle buildings are our Centers for Disease Control, so they went out and built their own movie set to make the movie.

I went around and looked at their buildings, some predating World War II, in which the most virulent specimens of viruses and other things were being dealt with. There was a tremendous concern about safety. We perhaps didn't think about it in terms we are thinking about it now, but in terms of terrorist activity, about someone being able to abscond with some of those very lethal strains, plus the environment for scientists to be able to work down there.

After looking at this and consulting with one another, and others, and with probably three administrations, Republican and Democratic, it was decided we needed to bring these buildings up to the 21st century. We embarked on that and we are about through bringing them up. They are state of the art, as they should be.

We have always prided ourselves in America of being on the leading edge--not on the edge, being way out in front of everyone in our medical research, but also in terms of the Centers for Disease Control. I don't know that there is any institution in America dealing with health and safety that is called upon more around the globe to do something than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Whether it was SARS a few years ago--think about it. We prevented SARS from coming to America. We did. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention did. They are called upon all over the globe, whether it is for Ebola, swine flu, of course now the avian flu, a pandemic that may be confronting us shortly.

These buildings need to be finished. We have the plan. We have gone through. We have had our oversight hearings and we found they came through on time and under budget, so I think we ought to finish it.

I would say the AIDS Drug Assistance Program the Senator is talking about is a good program. I have no problems putting money into those programs if they are good programs. But to take it from the Centers for Disease Control for that is--talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul, you are invading one entity that goes to control and prevent diseases and illnesses in America and putting it into another one. It doesn't make much sense. I think we ought to finish our projects, be proud of the buildings that are built there, be proud of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and what they do for America and for the world.

I am opposed to this amendment. We ought to finish the job we started on. I don't know about Japanese gardens. I don't know that much about gardens and stuff such as that. But, you know, if I might make a minor observation, I remember traveling through the Soviet Union years ago and looking at all the government buildings built in Moscow and places such as that, East Germany. They were stark, sterile, concrete block buildings. Who would ever want to work there? They were ugly; depressing. Is that what we want to build here?

As I said, I don't know much about Japanese gardens, but this is the premier facility in the world regarding health and disease prevention.

I understand that the building in question where this garden is--in fact, I went down and saw it. It is designed to emphasize healthy living. The stairs are located on exterior walls to increase daylight and to encourage daily physical activity. We talked about that with Dr. Gerberding. The green space around the building includes a stream fed by water runoff collected from the building to make the area inviting for exercise. I remember seeing that. I didn't think it was a Japanese garden; I thought it was a green space. But it is to get people out, exercise, walk more. As far as I am concerned, the more green space and the more daylight and the more exercise people get there, the better off we are. That is what they are preaching, right? They are preaching to us to do more exercise to stay healthy. I guess they are going to start doing that more on their own at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

I understand what the Senator from Oklahoma wants to do here. If he wants to increase money for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program, that is all well and good, but not at the expense of taking it away from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

I have no objection.

Mr. President, this is the first time I have seen this amendment. This is setting up a congressional commission on expanding social service delivery options. I have no problem with that.

But the way it is spelled out and everything, I would ask the Senator from Pennsylvania, the author of the amendment, has this been brought up before the authorizing committee? Has there been any hearing on this? Has there ever been a hearing on this, or has the authorizing committee acted on this at all? This is authorization on an appropriations bill.

Again, I thank the Senator. I personally do not have any problem with it, but this is something I think--I always have a little question when any Senator, on this side of the aisle or that side, anywhere, has a pretty thick amendment that involves commissions and how you select commissions and what they do.

I have not even had a chance to read this amendment. I don't even know what is in it.

Again, I ask my friend from Pennsylvania, has this amendment, in its present form, been submitted to either the Finance Committee or the HELP Committee? They probably share jurisdiction there. Have they looked at it to see if there are any objections to this?

Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Pennsylvania--well, you have offered the amendment. That is fine. The amendment is at the desk. I wonder if we might put off voting on this amendment.

I would like to have the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, and perhaps the HELP Committee because it perhaps crosses both--to have them at least take a look at it. If it is fine, then I do not care.

Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.

Mr. President, am I correct, has the Senator from Pennsylvania laid down the amendment? Is the amendment at the desk?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be temporarily laid aside.

Mr. President, I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, if this can be given to the chairs and ranking members of those committees, to have them look at it, and if it is fine, then I have no objection. As I said, I have not had a chance to look at it, and it is not in my jurisdiction at all.

Mr. President, I have no objection if the Senator wishes to proceed at this time. Am I recognized?

I yield to the Senator, as I may, without any objections, for 10 minutes, and I retain my right to the floor.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Amendment No. 2275

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be waived.

Mr. President, I have offered an amendment on behalf of the Nation's disadvantaged students and the schools that are struggling to educate these disadvantaged students.

Hear me, I have offered an amendment on behalf of the Nation's disadvantaged students and the schools that are struggling to educate them. When Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act 4 years ago-- how short are our memories--it promised--get this--we promised to give schools the funding they would need to help every young person in this country to succeed in the classroom. I wish I had that when I was starting out in a two-room schoolhouse 80 years ago. That promise has not been kept. We have not even come close, and there is no better example of that broken promise than the title I program.

Title I is the most important Federal education program we have. Did you hear, Senators? Title I is the most important Federal education program we have. It helps the students who need help the most--who need help.

When Caesar was about to drown, Caesar said:

Help me, Cassius, or I sink!

Here is a program that is not well. It needs help or it will sink-- help for the millions of children who are being left behind.

It is also the program that, under the No Child Left Behind Act, will hold schools accountable--yes, hold schools accountable for improving student performance. They should be held accountable. That is why when Congress wrote the No Child Left Behind Act it authorized specific funding levels for title I for every year through fiscal year 2007. But every year--now get this--every year when it is time to appropriate the money, we have come up short.

This chart here beside me tells the story. Focus your eyes on this chart. Here is the title to the chart, ``Falling Behind On `No Child Left Behind.' '' How about that? ``Falling Behind On `No Child Left Behind.' '' The numbers are in billions, billions of dollars. Take a good look at this chart, I say. This chart tells the story, a pretty sordid story. The first year of the law, fiscal year 2002--this bar right here--the No Child Left Behind Act authorized $13.5 billion. There it is, the first year: $13.5 billion authorized. How much did Congress appropriate? Congress appropriated just $10.3 billion. The blue shows $13.5 billion authorized. The red shows we fell short. We only appropriated $10.3 billion.

In fiscal year 2003, watch this gap. The gap grew wider. The blue line shows that Congress authorized $16 billion, the blue bar, but Congress appropriated just $11.7 billion. There was $16 billion authorized, $11.7 billion appropriated.

Each year, as one can see on this chart, Congress has fallen further and further behind, behind in its promise to America's most needy students.

The authorized amount for fiscal year 2006--that is where we are now--appropriating moneys for fiscal year 2006, the authorized amount is $22.75, way over here on the chart, $22.75 billion. But the amount in this bill is just $12.8. Look at it. That is $10 billion less than the law promised to these disadvantaged students and to the schools in which they study. What a shame, $10 billion less--$22.75 was authorized, $12.8 billion was appropriated.

What a gap, $10 billion. That is $10 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born--$10 billion. That is $10 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. What a gap. What a gap, $10 billion. That is enough to provide the full range of title I services to more than 3 million needy students who are currently being left behind by our Nation's schools. And at the current funding level in the Senate bill, they will continue to be left behind.

We got a hard look at some of those disadvantaged students during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Those disasters cast a bright light on a part of America that many people would like to pretend does not exist-- a part of America where the school buildings are crumbling, where there are not enough good teachers, and students are afraid for their own safety. These are real live people, live students who have a future, who have a horizon out there, who have a vision, and yet we are not keeping our promise to them. They are being left behind.

I took a piece of plastic clay

And idly fashioned it one day

And as my fingers pressed it still

It moved and yielded to my will.

I came again when days were past,

The bit of clay was hard at last.

The form I gave it, it still bore

And I could change that form no more.

I took a piece of living clay

And gently formed it day by day

And molded with my power and art

A young child's soft and yielding heart.

I came again when years were gone,

He was a man I looked upon.

He still that early impress wore

And I can change him never more.

Never more, never more.

That is what we are talking about, a piece of human clay, human clay.

We are leaving those children behind.

Those are exactly the kinds of students who are being left behind today and they are exactly the kinds of students who can be helped by title I.

America can do better. I say America can do better for these students. That is why I am offering this amendment to increase funding for title I. I wish I could increase this program by the entire $10 billion to fulfill this commitment, our commitment, the commitment we made when Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act. However, I know I wouldn't get enough votes from the other side of the aisle, I have to say. They are all good people over on the other side. They are all patriotic people. They are good citizens and they are dedicated to the service of the people. But I realize I can be wrong sometimes. I think they are wrong. I don't think some of them will vote for this. We will see.

I am proposing instead that we get halfway there. We are just going halfway--$10 billion shortage--$10 billion shortage in our promise for the children, the disadvantaged children of this country, $10 billion short. I am going to ask for half of that, at least try to close half the gap, half of it.

I am proposing that we get half the way there, that we close the gap over 2

years: $5 billion now, $5 billion the following year. I am proposing we get halfway there, that we close the gap over 2 years by adding $5 billion.

That is enough to fully serve more than 1.5 million disadvantaged students who the administration would leave behind, and we would leave behind. These children will be taught by highly qualified teachers and receive the complete range of instructional services called for under the No Child Left Behind Act. States will benefit from this amendment-- your State, Mr. President, your State, my State.

In my own State of West Virginia, schools would receive a total increase of just $800,000 for title I if the bill is passed as it is now. Under my amendment, those students in West Virginia would receive an additional $39 million above the bill. Tennessee would receive an additional $78 million.

Do you hear me? The people of Tennessee--are you listening? Are you listening? Tennessee would receive an additional $78 million.

Pennsylvania--are you listening? Pennsylvania is the State of which Benjamin Franklin was once president. Yes. Old Ben Franklin. Pennsylvania would receive an additional $185 million.

Louisiana would receive an additional $111 million; Mississippi, an additional $62 million.

I offered a similar amendment 2 years ago and those who opposed my amendment argued then that Congress is under no obligation to fund title I at the authorizing level because authorizations are only guidelines. Title I is not your average authorization program. Most educational authorizations don't put requirements on States and local school districts, but the title I program in the No Child Left Behind Act puts more requirements on our Nation's schools than any law in the past 35 years.

This law requires every State to develop a plan for helping all students reach a proficient or advanced level of achievement within 12 years. That is all students. That is all students, not just those in the affluent suburbs. No, not just those in the affluent suburbs, but poor students in Appalachia. That is where I come from, you see. When I was a boy I would have been included, Robert Byrd. And the gulf coast includes children with disabilities. Do you hear me? Hear, listen. That includes children with disabilities. And it includes students of all races. How about that? And ethnicity. How about that? All races, all ethnicities.

Schools must leave no child behind--not your child, not my great- grandchild. And if schools that receive title I funds fall short of this goal, they face serious consequences. Schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress in raising student performance for 2 consecutive years--listen to this--have to give students the option of transferring to another public school. Yes. That means the school has to redirect money it would have spent for instruction and use it--for what?--for transportation instead.

This past school year, almost 11,000 schools and districts in the country failed to make adequate yearly progress for at least 2 straight years.

Did you hear that? Almost 11,000--11,000--schools and districts in this country failed this past year to make adequate yearly progress for at least 2 straight years.

The penalties get more severe the longer the school fails to make adequate yearly progress. Ultimately, if a title I school falls short for 5 years in a row, it can be taken over--get this--the school can be taken over by the State, or the entire staff can be fired.

Help me, Cassius, or I sink.

These are serious penalties. The entire staff can be fired. There is the door. There is the door. The entire staff can be fired and replaced. That gets pretty tough. That hits close to home.

These are serious penalties, and I support them. I believe it is high time that we hold schools accountable for their performance and getting their act together. I believe it is high time we hold schools accountable for their performance. But--here is the conjunction ``but''--I also believe that if we in the Congress are going to demand that schools raise student achievement, we, I, you, Senators, all Senators, all Members of the other body, if we are going to demand that schools raise student achievement, we have a responsibility to provide those schools with the additional resources that they need to improve.

That is what we are talking about on this chart. We are falling short. We are falling behind in the No Child Left Behind Act. Unfortunately, as I say, we are not keeping our promise. In fact, for most school districts, Federal funds are moving in the opposite direction. In fiscal year 2004, more than half of the Nation's school districts received less title I funding than they did the year before. What a shame. How about that. Look at that.

Listen. Hear me. I will say that again.

In fiscal year 2004, more than half of the Nation's school districts received less title I funding than they did the year before. In fiscal 2005, two-thirds of school districts took a cut in title I funding.

If Congress passes the Senate bill as it stands now, most districts will receive less title I funding for the third year in a row. That is not what Congress promised. That is not what Congress intended when it passed the No Child Left Behind Act.

The funding level for title I in this bill is a betrayal of the law and it is unfair to all people in this country who are working so hard to implement the law. Parents and teachers want their schools to be held accountable. They want every child--not just this one or that one but every child--to succeed. They are holding up their end of the bargain. Are we? Are we holding up our end of the bargain? It is time for the Congress to do the same.

I voted for the No Child Left Behind Act. I support the reforms in that law. But schools need more funding if we are truly going to leave no child behind. What is more important than our children? What is more important than the education of our children?

I urge my fellow Senators to approve this amendment. We gave our word to the people, didn't we? Yes, we gave our word to the people when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act. Let us keep our word.

I yield the floor.

I don't either.

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, wishes to speak for 5 minutes. If I may take 5 seconds.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. President, I hope the Senate will vote quickly. But before it does, I thank the Senators who have just spoken, particularly the manager of the bill, Mr. Specter. He is an outstanding Senator. I have seen this Senate turn over more than 3 times, complete turnover of 100 Senators more than 3 times. I tell you, my friends, I have never seen a more eloquent, more dedicated Senator to his State, to his people, to the people of this country, to his work here, than Senator Specter. I admire him. Some day when he runs for reelection, I may make a little contribution to him. I will leave that for another time.

I also thank my colleagues. What splendid colleagues they are. Senator Dodd, traveling in the wake of the Senator from Connecticut who signed the Constitution of the United States. What a man, Roger Sherman. And then

the Senator from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy. What a great State that was and is. Read your history on the Revolutionary War, those times. Someone talked recently about the people of my generation who saw World War I, who lived through World War II and the Vietnam War, the other wars we have participated in, the Great Depression. My, these are great Senators. I can see their pictures out there on the medallions in the room just outside this Chamber. And the chairman and ranking member of this committee, my, what Senators they are. They are right, and they are right to oppose it in saying we don't have the money. I know they are right. But Congress could shift those priorities.

How about the big tax cuts for the wealthy? How about the war in Iraq? How much are we spending there in treasure, to say nothing of the blood that is being spilled? Yes, we could do better, but we are doing the best we can under the circumstances now. I don't fault the Senator from Pennsylvania. I admire him. If I were in his position, I would understand his responsibility.

My responsibility is to try. We can do better.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, for which I voted, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I prefer to have the vote now.

Mr. President, I propose that we vote on this amendment. The Senator can still offer an amendment if he wishes to do so after this vote. Let's go. I ask for the vote. I object to any request to set this amendment aside.

Reserving the right to object, and I have no intention to object, Mr. President, as I understand it, 10 minutes will be utilized by the Senator from Tennessee for remarks only.

I have no objection.