Floor Statements

Mr. President, as many of you may know, almost every person in uniform who has looked at this believes that this program is of critical importance to our national security structures in the 21st century. There is not any debate that exists there. We believe it is an important element. If we don't do this, there is a great fear that this line will be dropped and the C-17 will be lost.

We, obviously, have an interest in Connecticut. The engines are made in our State. But this aircraft is far more important than where the engines or the bodies are made. It is important to our national security needs. That is why we have this bipartisan support.

We thank the chairman and ranking member for their support as well of the amendment being offered by the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Connecticut. I am proud to be a sponsor of it.

We urge adoption of the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I would like to briefly discuss an amendment that was offered to the Defense Authorization bill yesterday by the Senators from Colorado. I voted against this measure, and I did so with some reservation.

If approved by this body, this amendment would have provided retirement benefits to government contract workers, who, by no fault of their own, now find themselves denied of pension and lifetime medical benefits that they were expecting to receive. In fact, the tragedy of their situation is that because of these workers' efficiency, they are actually being denied pensions and health insurance--in this case, they are clearly victims of their own success.

As the Senators from Colorado explained, the Federal Government had given employees of Kaiser Hill Company until December 15, 2006 to complete their work decontaminating and demolishing the former nuclear weapons facility at Rocky Flats. However, because Kaiser Hill's workers finished their work a year ahead of schedule, they are being penalized under the terms of their contract.

Like countless other Federal contracts, the arrangement for Rocky Flats workers used a numerical formula for determining who would receive lifetime benefits after the work's completion--if the sum of an employee's age and years of employment at the nuclear weapons plant added up to 70, the worker would be fully eligible for these benefits. But with Kaiser Hill declaring the job complete 14 months before their deadline, over 70 workers who would have qualified for these benefits could not.

I commend the Senators from Colorado for offering their amendment. They have every right to be troubled by the way workers in their State have been affected by this contract. And I share their deep concern that rather than be rewarded for their good work, the workers of Rocky Flats are actually unable to obtain the benefits that they had expected. Under terms of such a contract there is absolutely no incentive for workers to perform as effectively as these fine Kaiser- Hill employees did. I cannot disagree with that notion at all.

Nonetheless, yesterday, I felt compelled to vote against the amendment--not because it was offered without the best of intentions. I believe that the workers of Kaiser-Hill deserve to be commended for their quick and thorough work. However, I am afraid that if we are to single out these workers' contract, Congress would be creating an unfair standard that would help one segment of the Nation's Federal contracting workforce while leaving the rest without any similar support.

If this amendment had been approved, I would be concerned about benefiting some to the exclusion of others who might be deserving of similar consideration. I believe that we ought to revisit the issues facing these workers in the context of other Federal contract employees who might be in a similar situation. I stand ready to work with my colleagues from Colorado as well as others from other States who share my concern about these workers, who have been penalized due to no fault of their own. I believe that the Senators from Colorado have identified a critically important problem with formulas being used to regulate benefit disbursements in Federal contracts. And I hope these issues will be revisited to ensure that we are rewarding good and efficient performance and providing American workers the benefits that they deserve.

vote explanation

Mr President, yesterday I voted against the Agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006 and I did so with some reservation. At the outset, I want to commend the managers of the bill, Senator Bennett and Senator Kohl, for trying hard to keep the bill as close to the Senate bill as they could, but the House hijacked the bill on several important points.

I am grateful that the conference report included funding for Tufts University, working with local Connecticut farmers to develop more effective agricultural operational and marketing practices. Even though the physical university is in Boston, Tufts is using the funding exclusively in Connecticut so that our farmers can diversify their crops and market them more aggressively in local markets. Additionally, the University of Connecticut, in conjunction with the University of Illinois, received funding to continue a research program on therapeutic cloning

in cattle. Finally, language was included to again urge the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS, to indemnify a Connecticut poultry producer who undertook a successful emergency vaccination protocol 2 years ago.

So while I am pleased that there are a few items specifically for my constituents, I remain deeply troubled by the path this Congress is taking as it tries to cut spending for programs that benefit our most vulnerable populations while at the same time planning for tax cuts for the most wealthy, who neither need nor, on the whole, seek the extravagance that the majority insists on heaping upon them.

The Senate conferees are to be commended for pushing hard for increases in food and nutrition programs, including the McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program, but at the same time, House conferees insisted on the option of privatization of the food stamp process. That is often code word for closing down local centers and relying more and more on remote call centers and the Internet. This puts a disproportionate burden on those people who need the services most. I know that in my State of Connecticut, this action could adversely impact 109,250 households and that number is likely to grow. Unfortunately, the Republican-controlled Congress often sees privatization as the panacea for saving money. Instead, studies often find that contracting out these services often costs more money. But the problem doesn't stop there. As Congress moves forward with the budget reconciliation process, we will have to come to terms with the fact that the House has insisted on draconian cuts of nearly a billion dollars in the food stamp program. If this number were to stand, nearly 300,000 low-income individuals could be denied benefits. The majority in Congress refuses to increase the minimum wage. It refuses to increase low-income heating assistance, despite dire predictions of record heating costs this winter. Now Congress is on the verge of cutting off 300,000 people from food assistance. Such a move is irresponsible, and it is unconscionable.

Finally, the House conferees insisted on denying American consumers with simple information about the meat they eat. As our colleagues know, mandatory meat labeling was included in the 2002 farm bill, which I supported. The labeling of seafood already started but meat labeling, at the behest of a few powerful lobbyists and a few Members of Congress, continues to be delayed. Hundreds of organizations around the country, including farmers, producers, consumer groups, and individuals overwhelmingly support country-of-origin labeling, COOL. The fiscal year 2006 House appropriations bill effectively delayed meat labeling by refusing to allow any funds to be used to implement COOL, while the Senate bill did not change the requirement. During conference on this bill, the House, with no consultation with the Senate and with no vote, unilaterally extended the COOL delay until 2008, beyond what even the House language did. Labeling would increase consumer confidence and assist agricultural producers.

So, while there are many laudable provisions in the agricultural appropriations bill, several provisions caused me to cast a vote against this bill.

Mr President, I join with my colleagues in strong opposition to opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR, to oil drilling. I believe including it in a reconciliation package is a backdoor attempt to achieve a shortsighted, environmentally irresponsible outcome. It is little more than a scheme to raise $2.5 billion that will ultimately be used to cover a portion of the cost of tax cuts for the wealthy. Further, it will have a great and lasting cost to the environment with few benefits in terms of affordable energy.

Let me lay out a few reasons why I oppose drilling in ANWR.

The area we are talking about is home to nearly 200 species of wildlife, including polar, grizzly, and black bears, rare musk oxen, and millions of migratory birds. Each year, thousands of caribou travel to the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge to give birth to their calves. It has been protected for decades, during Republican and Democratic administrations. It is not as if we have said no to oil and gas exploration in the entire North Slope. It is only the remaining 5 percent--the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge--that we want placed off limits. If we open this pristine land now, we can never turn the clock back. Setting the process in motion will entail a web of oil platforms, pipelines, production facilities, power facilities, support structures, and roads across the entire area. The administration contention that development would be confined to a 2,000-acre footprint is simply false because the recoverable oil is spread out in small deposits across the entire Coastal Plain.

I firmly believe we need to ensure our country's economic security, but drilling in ANWR will do nothing to reduce our energy price and supply problems in the near term and very little to reduce our dependence on foreign supplies of oil. With transportation accounting for nearly 70 percent of oil use in this country, the Bush administration and many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have refused to tackle the issue of automobile fuel efficiency. According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, if the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, CAFE, standards are raised by just 5 percent annually until 2012, and by just 3 percent thereafter, more than 1.5 million barrels of oil per day could be saved by 2010, and 67 billion barrels of oil over the next 40 years--more than 10 times what could be recovered in ANWR. In 1998, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that there is no more than 5.2 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil in ANWR, a number that is equivalent to what the United States consumes in about 6 months.

Any recoverable oil that might be below the Refuge would not begin flowing for at least 10 years and would never meet more than a small percentage of our oil needs at any given time. So, therefore, it would have no impact on my constituents and your constituents for at least a decade. Further, the Energy Information Administration, EIA, has said that because the price of oil is set by the world market, ANWR would have a negligible impact on gasoline prices.

The United States dependence on foreign oil is growing, with current imports at 58 percent. We currently have about 3 percent of the world's oil reserves but consume more than a quarter of the world's oil supply. We simply cannot drill our way out of our problems. Last year, EIA stated that at peak production, oil from ANWR would account for just a fraction of our consumption--no more than 4 percent. Further, there is no guarantee that any oil produced domestically from ANWR would make it to the rest of the country. There is no assurance that it will not all be exported to foreign countries. It is simply too big a risk to take when there are other, less intrusive ways to truly alleviate our dependence on oil--fuel efficiency, renewable and alternative sources of energy, and, dare I say it, conservation, something the Bush administration would have you now believe it wholly endorses.

ANWR drilling proponents are always quick to contend that 735,000 jobs would be created by opening this area to oil extraction. Those estimates are based on figures from 15 years ago that the forecasters have since acknowledged were based on flawed assumptions. In October 2005, the Congressional Research Service reported that full development of the Arctic Refuge would result in 60,000 jobs. Even the three oil companies that stand to reap the most profits by expanding their presence in Alaska--ExxonMobil, BP, and Conoco-Phillips--have been relatively silent this year about their interest in ANWR.

Little oil industry interest, less job creation than anticipated, minimal recoverable oil deposits, no impact on current energy prices and negligible impact on future prices, no reduction in foreign oil dependence, and a web of infrastructure across the Coastal Plain--does that justify pillaging the Arctic Refuge? I think it is irresponsible to do so.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the Cantwell amendment and work with us to enact policies that provide economic relief for residential and business consumers and set our country on a path to energy security.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to the spending reconciliation bill, which has been misleadingly titled the ``Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005.'' As some of my colleagues have mentioned, the spending bill before us today is only one-third of the budget reconciliation picture--the other two pieces are a tax cut bill and a bill to increase the debt limit. Taken together, this package of reconciliation legislation would increase the budget deficit and impose greater costs on some of the most vulnerable members of our society. It would also allow for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which would be environmentally damaging and do nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The bill fails to reflect the priorities of the people of our nation and it fails to seriously address the major challenges we face as a Nation.

We are living today in an increasingly global society, one that presents tremendous opportunities. But with those opportunities come challenges. Today, countries like China and India are becoming increasingly desirable for venture capitalists interested in investment, for students interested in higher education, and for companies interested in labor that is not only inexpensive but well- educated and well-trained, too. With economic development and expansion have come greater competitive pressures.

Our labor market is under strain--real wages are stagnating, health care is becoming increasingly unaffordable, and pension benefits are being eroded and cut. The science and math scores of our high school seniors are at the bottom of the pack of industrialized nations. And we are the only nation in the developed world where literacy levels of older adults are higher than those of young adults.

Our Nation faces a choice. Are the administration and Congress going to respond to new challenges in a sensible and progressive way or will they continue to ignore the facts and adhere to policies that have brought Americans higher deficits, higher unemployment, and lower incomes? Will they continue to hold to the primitive philosophy that lower taxes on the most affluent, higher taxes on everyone else, and less investment in education, research, and business growth will somehow magically restore us to our place of economic preeminence in the world?

This view is naive and betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of our history. Our economic success has not been achieved despite investments we made in our people, but because of them. The not-so-benign neglect that characterizes much of our current national economic policy is not a strategy for success. It's an excuse for complacency, and ultimately a recipe for mediocrity.

Regrettably, this reconciliation package continues failed policies that will only continue to erode our Nation's place in the world.

First and foremost, the budget reconciliation package takes the worst fiscal record of any president in history and makes it worse. It takes procedural rules specifically designed to reduce the deficit and uses them to increase the deficit by $30 to 35 billion over the next 5 years. Part one of this reconciliation legislation may be cutting spending by $35 billion, but part two will provide tax breaks costing even more--$70 billon.

This fiscal irresponsibility is not an isolated case. Under President Bush, the Federal budget has gone from a surplus of $236 billion in 2000 to a deficit of $319 billion in 2005. The national debt has risen by nearly two and a half trillion dollars since 2000, totaling roughly $8 trillion as of this morning. That amounts to $27,041.81 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. Every minute in 2005, Republican budget policies have added $1,048,952 to the national debt.

As we have borrowed more, we have been forced to rely increasingly heavily on foreign lenders--particularly the central banks of countries like China and Japan--to fund our profligate ways. Foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury debt have more than doubled under the Bush administration from $1.01 trillion in January 2001 to $2.06 trillion in August 2005. Japan now holds $684 billion of that debt and China now holds $248 billion. We are playing a dangerous game here by relying so heavily on borrowing from abroad.

Some in this administration have reportedly argued that deficits don't matter. I strongly disagree. By blowing a massive hole in our budget, this administration and the Republican majority in Congress have seriously jeopardized our ability to meet the needs of our nation's other critical priorities.

The cost of the Bush administration's deficits is reflected right here in this spending reconciliation bill. In order to pay for just a small piece of the Bush tax cuts for the most affluent, this legislation would impose harmful cuts that would fall disproportionately on working Americans and the most vulnerable in our society.

For example, this bill cuts funding for Medicare and Medicaid, which provide health care to poor children, working men and women, the disabled, and the elderly. It cuts funding to rehabilitate FHA-insured multi-family housing. It dramatically increases the premiums paid by pension plans to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, the Federal pension insurer, making it more expensive for companies to offer defined benefit pension plans for their employees.

While many of the health care cuts in the Senate's reconciliation bill are less severe than what is contained in parallel House reconciliation proposal, I remain concerned that even under the Senate plan Medicare beneficiaries will have to pay more for critically needed services and access to Medicaid services could be limited for some beneficiaries.

As bad as the cuts are in the bill before this body, the companion legislation in the House of Representatives is much, much worse. It contains food stamp cuts for roughly 300,000 people, most of them in working families. It contains Medicaid cuts that would reduce health care benefits and increase health care costs for roughly 6 million children, as well as many low-income parents, the elderly, and people with disabilities. And it contains cuts in child support enforcement, child care assistance, and Federal foster care assistance.

So let us not be under any illusions: any conference agreement with the other body is likely to be even more harmful to the well-being of Americans.

The reason for these cuts is to pay for a small portion of President Bush's tax breaks for those who need them least. More than 70 percent of the benefits of the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax break packages have gone to the 20 percent of taxpayers with the highest incomes, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. More than 25 percent of the tax-cut benefits have gone to the top one percent. I believe these priorities are seriously out of step with the values of this Nation.

In addition to cutting assistance for the poor to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, this legislation would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. Not only would such drilling be incredibly damaging to the region's fragile ecosystem, it would do nothing to reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil. Reasonable estimates project that drilling in the Refuge would provide only enough oil to satisfy U.S. demand for 6 months. Moreover, this supply would not even come on-line for 10 years. The belief that our country can drill our way out of dependence on foreign energy sources is misguided.

As a nation, we face significant challenges in both the short and long term. Americans are concerned about finding and keeping good jobs, paying for soaring energy prices, and whether they will have good health care when they need it. They are concerned about hurricane disaster relief and rebuilding assistance, and preparedness for the threat of an avian flu crisis. They are concerned about the war in Iraq and protecting the homeland from terrorist attacks. They are concerned about our education system and our competitiveness in the global economy.

The budget resolution--and the reconciliation legislation that carries out its instructions--is a statement of priorities. Unfortunately, the bill before this body today fails to seriously address the concerns of American families and businesses.

We can do better than this legislation. We can do better than harmful cuts for the poor and for children and for seniors. We can do better than using these cuts to pay for tax breaks for the most well-off in our society--who are, by the way, hardly clamoring for the kind of tax largesse that this Administration and its allies in the Congress insist on heaping upon them.

We should be investing in our society--in our education system and our knowledge base. We should be investing in science and technology and research and development. This legislation is not about investing in America. It is about fiscal irresponsibility in the name of tax breaks for those who need them least. Therefore, Mr. President, I cannot support this bill.

While I am unhappy with this reconciliation package overall, I am pleased that this bill does contain lifesaving legislation that I have introduced the past two Congresses that will provide Medicare coverage for screening for a dangerous condition known as abdominal aortic aneurysm--or AAA--a silent killer that claims the lives of 15,000 Americans each year. AAAs occur when there is a weakening of the walls of the aorta, the body's largest blood vessel. This artery begins to bulge, most often very slowly and without symptoms, and can lead to rupture and severe internal bleeding. AAA is a devastating condition that is often fatal without detection, with less than 15 percent of those afflicted with a ruptured aorta surviving. Estimates indicate that 2.7 million Americans suffer from AAA. Further, research indicates that when detected before rupturing, AAAs are treatable and curable in 95 percent of the cases. And while most AAAs are never diagnosed, nearly all can be detected through an inexpensive and painless screening.

I want to thank my colleague Senator Jim Bunning for joining me in supporting this important and lifesaving legislation. When we first introduced this legislation in the last Congress, we were joined by patients who had suffered a ruptured aorta as result of an AAA and their families. At this event these patients shared with us their harrowing and personal stories of battling this deadly condition. It is because of struggles like theirs that we are here today at the outset of an effort to prevent abdominal aortic aneurysms from advancing to the point of rupture by providing coverage for a simple yet lifesaving screening. Simply put this legislation is about saving lives and I am pleased that it is contained in the bill passed today.

Finally, I would also like to say a brief word about the amendment being offered by Senator Byrd that deals with the issue of H-1B and L-1 visas. His amendment would strike the text in the underlying bill dealing with immigrant worker visas and replace it with a $1,500 fee for employers who file a petition to hire a foreign worker under the L- 1 visa program.

Immigration reform is a critical issue that this body must address. It is a matter of national security, of overall economic well being, and of protecting American workers. Simply put,

the underlying bill is not the appropriate place to address such critical and complicated immigration issues as the H-1B visa. So I thank Senator Byrd for offering his amendment. I strongly support it and I hope that my colleagues will as well when it comes to a vote.

Will the Senator yield for a further request?

Is it possible in some order here after the Senator from Oregon, could I be heard for 10 minutes on the bill itself on another amendment?

Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment introduced by Senator Enzi. This amendment is designed to do two things: provide additional savings to postsecondary students by lowering origination fees on student loans and provide immediate relief to K-12 students affected by Hurricane Katrina. The K-12 portion of the amendment is based, in part, on the Hurricane Katrina Elementary and Secondary Education Recovery Act introduced by Senators Enzi, Kennedy, Alexander, and myself just weeks ago. Like the bill, the amendment is designed to provide much needed relief to the children, families and schools devastated and affected by Hurricane Katrina.

Two months ago, hundreds of thousands of children were displaced by Katrina. Schools in the Gulf States were damaged and in many cases, destroyed. But schools in the Gulf States were not the only ones affected.

In response to this unprecedented crisis, schools across the country took Gulf State students in, offering them a safe haven, a place to learn and some sense of normalcy and routine. The willingness of these schools to take students in without hesitation point to the education system as an integral part of our communities. The amendment before us assists these schools and the schools directly impacted in a number of ways.

First, it provides immediate aid to restart school operations in the districts devastated by Katrina. In the wake of the hurricane, the HELP Committee held a hearing on the devastating affects of the storm. At this hearing, the superintendent of Jefferson Parish Schools in Louisiana said that if ``you rebuild the schools, they will come.'' Through these comments, she helped us understand that rebuilding schools will have a major impact on the economic viability of the communities directly impacted by the storm. She reminded us of something that we already knew, that schools are the heart and soul of communities.

The amendment also provides financial assistance for displaced students wherever they are currently enrolled in school. Through these provisions, public and nonpublic schools will receive assistance for specified purposes as long as materials purchased and services provided are secular and neutral in nature and are not used for religious instruction, indoctrination or worship. This provision recognizes that in taking students in, schools around the country may need a little extra support in getting these students the services that they need and the education that they deserve.

Additionally, the amendment also allows the Secretary of Education to delay for up to 1 year the highly qualified provisions within the No Child Left Behind Act for teachers affected by Katrina. This provision recognizes that like students, teachers and paraprofessionals have been displaced and should not be professionally penalized because of this.

Mr. President, collectively these provisions provide temporary, emergency impact aid for displaced students. It is temporary in that it sunsets at the end of the current school year, emergency in that it is necessary because of the extraordinary circumstances that we have been presented with, and impact aid as it is assistance for those schools that have been impacted as thousands of children and their families have left the devastated areas.

Most importantly, by attaching this legislation to reconciliation we are providing students with assistance now. It has already been 2 months since the hurricane devastated the Gulf region. These children cannot and should not have to wait another day for the assistance that we promised in the wake of the storm 2 months ago.

Today, we are reaching out to all students because it makes sense, because it gets kids back on their feet as quickly as possible. As I have said before, we are not changing the generic laws. The level of assistance we are providing to nonpublic schools is being authorized solely because of the unprecedented nature of the crisis, the massive dislocation of students, and the short duration of the assistance. I cannot underscore this enough--The provisions in this bill are a departure from Federal law but they are a temporary departure in light of extraordinary events.

Next school year, in terms of assistance to nonpublic schools, we will go back to the ways things are. For now, we will get students the assistance they need. They deserve as much.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a dedicated public servant and a dear friend, former Connecticut Governor, William O'Neill.

I had the honor of serving the people of Connecticut alongside Bill O'Neill for over 15 years, during which time we shared many of the same views and principles about the future of our great State. When I first took office in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1975, Bill O'Neill was the majority leader of the Connecticut House of Representatives. And, in December 1980, as I was preparing to take the oath of office as a newly elected U.S. Senator, Bill O'Neill became the new Governor of Connecticut, replacing the beloved Ella Grasso, who had resigned for health reasons.

Bill O'Neill had a remarkable ability to connect with the citizens of Connecticut. He was a pragmatic leader, but he also took pains to be forward-thinking. As a result, not only did Bill serve one of the longest gubernatorial tenures in Connecticut history, he also had one of the most influential.

Bill O'Neill understood the immense value of education to both the future of our State and the entire Nation. He fought to pass the Education Enhancement Act, which, among other things, improved the quality of Connecticut teachers and improved student performance. He oversaw the consolidation of the four ``State'' colleges--Eastern, Western, Southern, and Central Connecticut State University--into a stronger unified system. And he funded critical capital improvements on campuses throughout Connecticut.

He invested in a strong transportation infrastructure. In the aftermath of the tragic collapse of the Mianus River Bridge, soon after he became Governor, he responded not with a quick fix but by making long-term investments that have served Connecticut and the rest of the northeastern United States for decades and that will continue to do so for years to come. He made these commitments despite the devastating effects of the Reagan administration's budget cuts. He looked to impact Connecticut's long-term needs, and, as a consequence, he repaired Connecticut's roadways, overhauled the bus and train lines, and modernized Bradley International Airport.

Bill O'Neill worked hard to protect the environment. He strictly enforced the Clean Water Act, instituted reporting requirements for toxic substances used in manufacturing, and set aside large tracts of land to be used for the benefit of the general public.

Governor O'Neill was also dedicated to bringing the best public servants, regardless of background, into our State government. He nominated the individuals who would become the first woman chief justice and the first African-American justice on the Connecticut Supreme Court. And he appointed the first woman attorney general and treasurer in Connecticut history.

Bill O'Neill will be honored this week on the 15th anniversary of his retirement from public service at Central Connecticut State University, where there is a professorship in ``Public Policy and Practical Politics'' endowed in his name. The athletic center at Western Connecticut State University, where I recently had the honor of delivering remarks with former President Clinton, also bears the name of the former Governor.

It is fitting and appropriate that Bill O'Neill's name graces these fine institutions of higher learning and others throughout the State of Connecticut, and that he is being honored with this ceremony.

Bill O'Neill has served this country for over 50 years--as a fighter pilot during the Korean war, as a six-term member of the Connecticut House of Representatives, as Lieutenant Governor, and as the Governor of Connecticut for more than a decade.

At a critical time in our State's and our country's history, Connecticut was fortunate to have the leadership of this remarkable patriot. His wisdom, his vision, and his ability to accomplish concrete changes for the good of the people of our State set a standard for public service that inspired me and I know continues to inspire those of us who believe in the value public service.

Bill O'Neill is a true public servant and has been a long-time friend. I wish him, his wife Nikki, and his family my best wishes on this wonderful occasion.

Mr. President, I Support Senator Dayton's amendment to increase the funding for disability access grants mandated under the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA).

Senator Dayton's amendment to H.R. 3010, the fiscal year 06 Labor-HHS Appropriation bill, provides a $7 million dollar increase to the HHS provisions. Specifically, Senator Dayton's amendment would increase the HHS appropriations by $7 million for disability access grants and protection and advocacy services for voting purposes and ensuring full participation in the elections process by individuals with disabilities.

I support the outstanding work of Senator Dayton. Congress has failed to fully fund HAVA disability grants. To date, with respect to the disability access grants, Congress authorized a total of $100 million but has appropriated only $33 million, roughly a third of the funding required to ensure our Americans with disabilities have equal access to the franchise for voting purposes in the upcoming Federal elections in 2006, a few months away. With respect to the protection and Advocacy grants, Congress authorized a total of $40 million but has appropriated only $12 million, roughly a fourth of the funding required to ensure our Americans with disability have equal access to voter registration and polling places in the 2006 Federal elections. As a result, the disability grant programs have a combined total HAVA funding shortfall of $95 million in Federal funds for election administration requirements.

Senator Dayton's amendment for $7 million is offset by administrative expenses under ``other services'' which received a $599 million increase over the fiscal year 05 level.

January 1, 2006 is the effective date for two of the most important Federal requirements mandated by HAVA: The voluntary voting system standards and the state-wide computerized voter registration list. Both requirements are designed to ensure that individuals with disabilities can exercise their right to an accessible ballot.

In light of the above, it is essential that Congress does not fail to honor our commitment to the disability communities. If we fail to provide adequate funding, we may jeopardize the opportunity of States to implement the most historic election reforms in America and the opportunity to voters, including the disability communities, to fully exercise their franchise in the upcoming 2006 Federal elections. It is time to fulfill our promise to the disabilities communities.

I thank Senator Dayton for his leadership on this HAVA issue and I commend the Chairman, Senator Specter, and the ranking member, Senator Harkin, for accommodating this increase.

Mr. President, on Monday, this Nation lost a great American humanitarian, public servant, and true modern day civil rights hero, Mrs. Rosa Parks. The powerful and nonviolent act of defiance of this single, extraordinary lady changed the course of human history in this Nation, and around the world. By her respectful refusal to give up her seat to a white man and move to a seat in the back of a Montgomery, AL, city bus 50 years ago, Rosa Parks spoke to the fundamental truth of our democracy: that all men are created equal. None of us living today, nor the future generations of an eternity of tomorrows, will ever be the same because of the act of this brave woman. By her solitary action, Rosa Parks proved that one person can make a difference. And she did.

Rosa Parks is not just a national hero, she is the embodiment of our social and human conscience and the spark that lit the flame of liberty and equality for African Americans and minority groups in this country and around the globe. Nelson Mandela, the former President of South Africa, once called her ``the David who challenged Goliath'' and his inspiration during his long imprisonment prior to taking office.

It is altogether fitting and proper that this Nation honor the memory and gentle spirit of this great American and her legacy by providing an opportunity for the ordinary citizens of this Nation to pay their last respects to Mrs. Rosa Parks.

Therefore, I proposed to the Senate leadership that we adopt a resolution authorizing such, and I am grateful to them for sponsoring the resolution that I authored to authorize the use of the Capitol Rotunda for the remains of Mrs. Rosa Parks to lie in honor beginning on Sunday, October 30.

It has been the longstanding tradition of the Congress to authorize this honor for not just Members of Congress and Presidents, but ordinary citizens whose extraordinary efforts and service distinguished them in the history of this Nation. Other great Americans who have been similarly honored date back to 1909 when Pierre Charles L'Enfant, planner of the Capital City of Washington, lay in state in the Rotunda. Others include Admiral George Dewey in 1917; General John Joseph Pershing in 1948; General Douglas MacArthur in 1964; Director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover in 1972; and most recently, Capitol Police Officers Jacob Joseph Chestnut and John Michael Gibson in 1998.

Congress recognized the need for the Nation to pay its respects to these honorable men and Congress should permit the Nation to pay its last respects to this honorable woman, Mrs. Rosa Louise Parks, as well.

I thank my colleagues for their assistance and support and urge the House to adopt this measure expeditiously so that America may properly honor this courageous lady and great America.

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, we discussed this amendment sometime ago. In the past, I have offered amendments to fully fund Head Start. This amendment does not do that. This amendment adds $153 million specifically to deal with the inflation that will affect the cost of the 19,000 Head Start Programs across the country.

There are 900,000 children in Head Start. If this amendment is not adopted, the estimates are that 20,000 to 25,000 children will be dropped from the Head Start Program across our country.

We all know that a Head Start child is more likely to finish school, less likely to end up in the juvenile justice system, less likely to be a substance abuser, less likely to become a teenage parent. We know it is not perfect, but after 40 years, Head Start works. This is not to expand the program, but let us not lose the children today who are part of that program.

I urge the adoption of this amendment.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to two fellows in my office, Elizabeth Hoffman and Regan Fitzgerald, during consideration of this legislation.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, over the past several weeks, Congress has taken great efforts to address the disruption that Hurricane Katrina, followed by Hurricane Rita, have inflicted on the good people of our gulf coast region. While Congress is acutely aware of the need for funding for food, clothing, shelter and medical care for the evacuees and residents of this region, we are only now becoming aware of some of the longer term needs of these devastated communities.

All of the States impacted by these hurricanes, including not just those directly hit by the storms but also the numerous States which have come to the aid of evacuees will be holding Federal elections in just a few short months. The displacement of nearly 1.5 million people raises a somewhat unique continuity of government issue for our democracy: how to ensure that the citizens of these States are able to participate in the upcoming Federal elections next year, as well as in numerous State and local elections between now and then. It is simply not acceptable that a loss of one's home may mean a loss of one's access to the ballot box. And yet, many of these States are facing unknown hurdles in ensuring that their displaced residents can vote in the next Federal election.

The Rules Committee, under the very capable leadership of the Chairman, Senator Lott, has already begun meeting with the election officials of these affected States to determine what they will need to ensure that all eligible citizens will be able to participate in the 2006 Federal elections, regardless of the condition of their community or the location of their evacuated citizens. Under the auspices of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, efforts are underway to identify Federal resources and assistance that is already available to the States to replace voting systems, polling places, and to assist in facilitating absentee voting.

However, at this point, many of these impacted States simply do not know the extent of the damage to election records or how to reach out to displaced citizens to ensure that they have access to absentee ballots or alternative polling facilities. While we are hopeful that the majority of the needs will be met through existing resources, I remain concerned that these States, and those who have stepped up to the plate to receive evacuees, will face additional expenses in ensuring the right to vote for the citizens of the gulf coast region.

The Election Assistance Commission, EAC, is charged with serving as a national clearinghouse and resource of information and procedures with respect to the administration of Federal elections and with distributing over $3 billion in Federal funds to the States to implement the requirements of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, HAVA, of which I was honored to be the primary Senate author. I applaud the efforts of the EAC to spearhead the efforts to identify and respond to the needs of these States in administering our Federal elections next year. However, I remain concerned that without additional resources, these States will face significant hurdles to ensuring that all eligible citizens have an equal opportunity to vote and have their vote counted.

While Congress has appropriated over $3 billion to date to implement the requirements of the Help America Vote Act, Congress has underfunded the authorization by over $800 million. At least one of the impacted States has already notified staff that they are short in funding to implement the HAVA requirements and face additional unmet need due to the impact of Hurricane Katrina.

While I am hopeful that sufficient other Federal resources will be identified and made available to these States for conducting the Federal elections next year, it will not be acceptable if citizens of the Gulf Coast States are disenfranchised because their States and localities simply do not have the resources to replace destroyed voting systems, provide alternative polling places, print absentee ballots or reconstruct lost voting registration records.

As the ranking member of the Senate Rules Committee which has oversight jurisdiction over Federal elections, I intend to ensure that these States, and these citizens, are able to fully participate in the Federal election next year. Our distinguished Chairman, Senator Lott, whose State was in the path of both hurricanes, is keenly aware of this situation and I commend him for his leadership and attention to this issue. I know he shares my concern that as we learn the full extent of this problem, the Committee will act to ensure these communities and citizens can exercise their fundamental right to vote.

I thank our Chairman, and my good friend, and commend him for his leadership on this issue. I look forward to working with him to ensure that, no matter the devastation of this natural disaster, all eligible citizens will be able to continue to participate in this democracy through the ballot box.

Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today with my colleague Senator Smith to introduce bipartisan legislation to improve important tax relief to volunteer firefighters and emergency first responders. Congressman John Larson of Connecticut has introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives.

Seventy-five percent of firefighters and emergency first responders in our country today are volunteers. Statistics show that the number of volunteer firefighters and emergency first responders has declined in past years. Since 1983, the number of volunteer firefighters and emergency first responders has declined anywhere between 5 and 10 percent. Meanwhile, the number of emergency calls made to these volunteer services has increased sharply.

Many municipalities across the country, including those within the State of Connecticut, offer stipends and property tax abatements to volunteer firefighters, search and rescue personnel, emergency medical technicians, paramedics and ambulance drivers. These incentives have helped local fire departments and emergency first responder services recruit and retain volunteers.

In 2002, the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, ruled that property tax abatements to volunteers should be treated as wages and income. This ruling significantly diminished the net value of tax abatements for volunteer firefighters and emergency first responders.

The legislation that Senator Smith and I are introducing amends the Internal Revenue Code to exclude property tax abatements and stipends for volunteer firefighters and emergency first responders from the definition of income and wages. This bill would allow State and municipal governments to continue providing these incentives to their volunteer fighters and emergency first responders without any adverse federal tax implications.

I have long believed that our country should do more to encourage Americans to volunteer in their communities. A modest tax break is not a large repayment for the great services that volunteer firefighters and emergency first responders provide to our communities. They literally risk their lives daily for others. The least we can do is allow States and municipalities to offer these modest incentives to serve.

The current IRS rule--while on one level understandable--nevertheless complicates the good intentions and creative efforts of many states and municipalities. If our State and municipal governments are willing to forgo their local tax revenues in order to ensure that they have enough volunteer firefighters and emergency first responders to protect their communities, then our country should in my view support those State and local efforts. In so doing, our country will be acting to encourage and award volunteers.

I hope that our colleagues will join us in supporting this bipartisan legislation so that our national government can join with State and local governments to design and implement recruiting and retention initiatives that benefit not only volunteer firefighters and emergency first responders, but also the communities they protect.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today with my colleague Senator Smith to introduce bipartisan legislation to improve important tax relief to volunteer firefighters and emergency first responders. Congressman John Larson of Connecticut has introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives.

Seventy-five percent of firefighters and emergency first responders in our country today are volunteers. Statistics show that the number of volunteer firefighters and emergency first responders has declined in past years. Since 1983, the number of volunteer firefighters and emergency first responders has declined anywhere between 5 and 10 percent. Meanwhile, the number of emergency calls made to these volunteer services has increased sharply.

Many municipalities across the country, including those within the State of Connecticut, offer stipends and property tax abatements to volunteer firefighters, search and rescue personnel, emergency medical technicians, paramedics and ambulance drivers. These incentives have helped local fire departments and emergency first responder services recruit and retain volunteers.

In 2002, the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, ruled that property tax abatements to volunteers should be treated as wages and income. This ruling significantly diminished the net value of tax abatements for volunteer firefighters and emergency first responders.

The legislation that Senator Smith and I are introducing amends the Internal Revenue Code to exclude property tax abatements and stipends for volunteer firefighters and emergency first responders from the definition of income and wages. This bill would allow State and municipal governments to continue providing these incentives to their volunteer fighters and emergency first responders without any adverse federal tax implications.

I have long believed that our country should do more to encourage Americans to volunteer in their communities. A modest tax break is not a large repayment for the great services that volunteer firefighters and emergency first responders provide to our communities. They literally risk their lives daily for others. The least we can do is allow States and municipalities to offer these modest incentives to serve.

The current IRS rule--while on one level understandable--nevertheless complicates the good intentions and creative efforts of many states and municipalities. If our State and municipal governments are willing to forgo their local tax revenues in order to ensure that they have enough volunteer firefighters and emergency first responders to protect their communities, then our country should in my view support those State and local efforts. In so doing, our country will be acting to encourage and award volunteers.

I hope that our colleagues will join us in supporting this bipartisan legislation so that our national government can join with State and local governments to design and implement recruiting and retention initiatives that benefit not only volunteer firefighters and emergency first responders, but also the communities they protect.

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