Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will help address a growing problem in America--our ability to provide safe and affordable housing that meets the needs of older Americans. Currently there are 35 million Americans over 65 years old. That number will double within the next 30 years. By 2030, 20 percent of the U.S. population will be over 65 years old.

Nearly one third of all public housing units are occupied by senior citizens. This figure has been steadily growing in recent years and will undoubtedly continue to grow in the future. It is critically important that we remain committed to providing low-income seniors with safe and affordable housing.

The bill I am introducing will promote the development of assisted living programs to provide a wide range of services, including medical assistance, housekeeping services, hygiene and grooming, and meals preparation. Providing these services will in turn give older Americans greater opportunities to decide for themselves where they live and how they exercise their independence.

The Elderly Housing Plus Supportive Health Support Demonstration Act, will provide Federal grants to allow public housing authorities around the country to develop new strategies for providing better housing for senior citizens. The bill will give public housing authorities the tools they need to improve our public housing stock so our seniors will not be prematurely forced out of their homes. The bill authorizes competitive grants through the Department of Housing and Urban Development to upgrade and reconfigure elderly buildings, and buildings with elderly and non-elderly disabled residents. The bill will also provide funding for service coordinators and/or congregate services programs.

Unfortunately, as we examine the public housing stock across the country from the perspective of older Americans, we find a bleak situation. Over 66 percent of existing public housing units are more than 30 years old and most are not designed to meet the needs of older Americans. For example, too few of our housing units are equipped to facilitate mobility for those in wheelchairs. Even such simple things as having a kitchen counter top that can be reached from a wheelchair may make the difference between a senior being able to stay in his or her home or having to leave, often to be sent to an institution where seniors have less independence and control over their lives.

Because most public housing seniors are Medicaid-eligible, the bill will also open a path to reducing Medicaid costs, 42 percent of which goes to housing elders in costly nursing homes. The cost to the Medicaid program of a beneficiary living in public housing converted to assisted living has been shown to be as much as one-third that paid to a nursing home on a long-term per capita basis.

The scarceness of affordable assisted living units has other social costs that we must consider as we set national housing policies for the future. Often, the cost of taking care of an aging family member can be devastating to American families. Too often, working men and women are torn between the need to maintain their jobs and the desire to provide the best possible care to their aging family members.

Advances in medicine are allowing us to live longer, healthier lives. Longevity is a great blessing, but it also poses significant challenges for individuals, families, and society as whole. One of the greatest challenges we will face in the decades ahead is the challenge of developing new kinds of housing that respond to the needs of our growing elderly population.

It is my hope that this bill will generate earnest discussion on these important matters and will ultimately lead to action to ensure that every American senior can live in security and dignity.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Elderly Housing Plus Health Support Demonstration Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, later today, or at some point, I gather that the Defense Production Act reauthorization bill will be before the body. It expires today, so there is a sense of urgency, I gather, in getting this bill done.

When the bill comes up, my intention is to offer an amendment to the Defense Production Act, the reauthorization bill, for the consideration of my colleagues. I gather from conversation my staff and others have had that there will be possibly some objections to this amendment over jurisdictional grounds.

My hope is something can be worked out on this amendment, so that we can avoid that particular situation. Let me tell you why I say that. This bill, if reauthorized, would reauthorize the Defense Production Act for 5 years.

Presently there is a system in place which allows defense contracts to go to prime contractors, where, as a result of a provision that existed since World War II, offset agreements are permitted in such a way that despite the amount of money we will allocate for these defense contracts, these offset agreements basically wipe out the dollar amounts that would go to subcontractors and others. The net result is that each year we are losing about 10,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector because of these offset agreements, which were written primarily--I am almost quoting--to provide assistance to war-torn Europe at the end of World War II. It made a lot of sense to try to get resources into those struggling countries so they could get on their feet after the devastation that occurred during World War II.

So these offset agreements were principally designed to assist struggling nations to get back on their feet. There are a lot of ways you might want to describe the European Community today but ``war- torn'' is hardly one we would use to describe it. These provisions have existed for almost 50 years, and their usefulness is long over.

This really hurts smaller contractors in the U.S. I want to lay out what this amendment will do, if I get a chance to offer it today. I would have offered it in committee but I was told to wait until we got to the floor to have an opportunity to offer it here. Now I am being told I cannot offer it here because we must get the bill done, it expires today, and we don't have time to deal with it.

If I have to wait 5 more years to bring this up, and if we are losing 10,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector each and every year as a result of that, not to mention the dollar loss, and losing subcontractors on a manufacturing base, then I am hard pressed to understand why we would not find a way to accommodate that which is rather modest language here in this proposal. I will explain why.

The amendment is about one thing--saving jobs. Since the Banking Committee began consideration of this important legislation, I have been discussing an issue of great importance to manufacturers in my State of Connecticut and around the country.

I am referring to the issue of foreign offset contracts. Under these arrangements, a foreign nation will agree to buy products from U.S. defense companies only if our manufacturers outsource a considerable amount of work to that country's labor force. This goes back to the end of World War II, as I mentioned. On the face of it, these arrangements might seem relatively benign, promoting a prosperous defense trade among the U.S. and its military allies.

However, as I have learned over the last number of months, these arrangements may, in fact, be weakening the U.S. defense industrial base and producing considerable job losses throughout our Nation. These arrangements are a relic of World War II, when our Nation decided that offset arrangements were one aspect of rebuilding war-torn Europe. I do not think anybody could call me bold or rash if I were to say that the economic infrastructure of Europe as a whole is no longer war-torn in the beginning of the 21st century. On the contrary, it is highly developed and very advanced.

Yet some of our allies on that continent continue to insist that offset arrangements remain a condition of contracting with American firms, particularly defense firms. This is not an issue of trade or protectionist policies. As most colleagues are aware, I have long supported both bilateral and multilateral trade agreements, such as the ratification of GATT and the establishment of fast-track authority for the American President. I am a believer in international trade. That is not what this amendment is about.

This amendment is about outdated practices that, by and large, have caused needless transfer of a countless number of U.S. jobs to our trading partners and our allies, particularly in Europe.

I must confess that when I first began to look at this issue, I was a skeptic. I thought this migration of American jobs abroad was simply the painful but unavoidable byproduct of international trade, and I thought these losses were outweighed by the benefits of trade. But upon further study, I have come to the conclusion that these offset agreements are resulting in the needless loss of American jobs with little or no compensating benefits. Let me explain why.

What impact do these agreements have on our country, on our businesses, and on our workers? The answer is, by and large, a highly negative one. This is not just the opinion of this Senator. It is the well-considered conclusion of nonpartisan, highly informed sources at the General Accounting Office and the Department of Commerce under this administration, I might add. It is also the opinion of business leaders, many of whom think offset agreements are little more than a form of coercion. Business leaders in my own State have told me they see offsets as no better than a necessary evil, a tax on their ability to export their goods and services.

The Commerce Department recently reported that in the year 2000--I hope my colleagues will listen to this--the Commerce Department reported in the year 2000, out of $5.6 billion exported by the U.S. aerospace and defense industries, $5.1 billion was offset by these arrangements. In other words, offset arrangements imposed on contracts with American firms amounted to nearly 90 percent of their export value.

In the year 2002, 2 years later, and 2003, this year, the total value of offsets is projected to be close to 100 percent by the Department of Commerce on the value of these contracts, virtually eliminating any gains from U.S. exports of these goods.

Moreover, the Commerce Department says offsets are displacing between 9,000 and 10,000 American workers annually, and that is a conservative estimate, I might add. With these kinds of figures, it is difficult to see how the United States could benefit at all from these offset contracts.

Let me repeat the numbers. According to the Department of Commerce, of the $5.6 billion exported by the U.S. aerospace and defense industries, $5.1 billion was offset by arrangements to these countries. Lately, in 2002 and 2003, the Department of Commerce estimates that close to 100 percent of the value of these contracts will be eliminated, the gains will be eliminated from the export of these goods, and losing almost 10,000 jobs a year is something that ought to concern each and every Member.

What makes this issue even more distressing is that as a result of these arrangements, we are not only losing these jobs unnecessarily, in my view, given the long outdated necessity for offset agreements with the European Community, but we are losing our Nation's military industrial capacity, and that ought to be a serious matter to all of us here. We need to be vigilant in maintaining an industrial base when we can in these critical industries.

Essentially, U.S. contractors are helping other nations build up their strategic industries at the expense of the United States's defense manufacturing base, and the U.S. Government is doing nothing, unfortunately, to stop this from happening. Our prime contractors admit this is an unfortunate trend and insist they are being forced to follow these arrangements to stay competitive in their foreign contract bids.

As I see it, these offsets amount to unfair trade practices, plain and simple. While U.S. prime contractors may be selling their defense system abroad, they are being coerced--against their wishes--into laying off U.S. workers and domestic suppliers in favor of foreign workers and suppliers. In turn, as the U.S. Defense Department decides to buy these same weapons systems, we are now even more frequently turning to these newly established foreign suppliers.

In several recent reports, the General Accounting Office and the Commerce Department have repeatedly tried to alert Congress to the disastrous effects these arrangements are having on America's economic and defense security, but their warnings have gone unheeded. In fact, the two major governmental bodies established by the Defense Procurement Agency to monitor and coordinate U.S. policy on foreign offsets have been effectively dissolved. The most important of these bodies is the interagency team on foreign offsets whose job it was--is or was--to engage with foreign countries in an effort to mitigate the effects of these offsets.

My colleagues should be alarmed to know that this interagency team, headed by the Department of Defense, has reported no activity since the year 2000. In fact, this team has been stripped of resources and staff. They don't exist.

Certainly, we all understand that the Defense Department has been preoccupied with other priorities--I understand that--over the last couple of years; namely, the effort to wage and win wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. No one can seriously claim the Department of Defense should have any higher priorities than those. That is not my point. That is why I think this amendment is critically important to shift to the Department of Commerce the principal responsibility of monitoring and mitigating these offset arrangements.

It is an economic issue fundamentally, and the fact the Defense Department has not financed or staffed this interagency team says to me we ought to shift that responsibility, considering the economic implications of not trying to reduce these archaic and outdated offset arrangements with the European nations and others.

For this reason, my amendment would transfer the authority over the interagency team--this is what the amendment does; it is not a radical amendment at all. The amendment would transfer the authority over the interagency team to the Commerce Secretary and would require the Secretary to negotiate with foreign countries toward the reduction and eventual elimination of all foreign offsets.

In addition, it would expand the Commerce Department's data collection system to include the effects of offset on America's second- and third-tier subcontractors. I believe these provisions would greatly enhance America's response to the growing specter of foreign offset arrangements and provide a clear picture of the total impact these arrangements are having on our economy. But I think we ought to do something more.

As I said before, offset arrangements have essentially allowed foreign governments to coerce U.S. contractors into laying off American workers and shifting their jobs to foreign employees. This is an unfair trade practice, in my view, and must be addressed as such. For this reason, this amendment further directs the U.S. Trade Representative to designate offsets that exceed the total value of the underlying contract as unjustifiable and burdensome on U.S. commerce, subjecting the country to U.S. sanctions accompanying such a designation.

Already various important policy and trade organizations and associations have expressed their support for the proposal I wish to offer to the Defense Production Act, including the International Association of Machinists and Auto Workers, the American Shipbuilding Association, the AFL-CIO, the Manufacturing Alliance, as well as the Aerospace Components Manufacturers. This is a unique combination of industries, business, and labor saying this World War II proposal is no longer justified.

Let me explain how it works. These offset agreements they insist on-- Holland is the biggest offender, by the way. They say to a corporation in the United States: You want to sell your products. Fine. But you have to provide a certain amount of workers here. So instead of looking around for the best subcontractor to provide, say, ball bearings by a firm in Ohio or Connecticut, they then have to hire the firm in Holland or some other European country. This was designed, as I say, to help Europe at the end of World War II. It made a lot of sense. But 70 years later, the idea that I have to say to a manufacturer in the United States you cannot get this bid because I have to do it to win the contract in Holland--if it was 5 percent or 10 percent, I might think that is unfair. But they are getting 300 percent in Holland--300 percent.

According to the Department of Commerce, the average is now between 90 and 100 percent in every European country. If I thought this bill was going to be authorized for 3 months, I would wait and try to build support. This bill is a 5-year authorization bill. Almost 10,000 jobs a year are going to be lost, not to mention small manufacturing firms that go out of business.

Then when we need those ball bearings, to use that example, we no longer have a firm in Ohio or Connecticut, and I have to deal with a firm in Holland or Sweden or some other place. It is dangerous to lose that industrial base in critical technologies.

This provision of offset contracts has no relevancy in today's world, particularly with the European community. It did maybe 50, 60, or 70 years ago, but not today. I am being told I cannot offer the amendment because I am dealing with a proposal on trade, but if I do not do it here, where do I do it? I have to wait until some trade bill comes along?

Normally, a Senator cannot offer amendments on trade bills. So when do I do it and where do I do it, if I want to make a point? Maybe the proposal will get defeated, but at least I would like to raise the awareness of my colleagues. If there are provisions that do not make sense, let somebody bring up a better idea, but I think it is wrong to continue a situation where 10,000 American jobs get lost because we are sitting around with an archaic idea that has no value and no relevancy.

The manufacturers will tell us that and labor tells us that. They do not like doing it. It is like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act where we were told over and over we have no choice, but our firms in the United States do not like having to do this. They are being forced to do it in order to win these contracts.

We need to have some ability to negotiate the elimination of these deals, and when they cannot get rid of them, at least to consider it as an unfair trade practice so we can try to work it out so we do not have to rely on them any longer. That is really what the amendment would do.

Again, this whole Defense Production Act goes out of existence tonight, I am told. As I said earlier, I wanted to offer

this amendment in the committee, but I was told not to do it there, to wait until we go to the floor. Now I am on the floor and I am being told do not do it here. So I am sort of stuck in a way. I do not want to tie up a bill. I think defense production is important, but to have to wait 5 more years to come back with this idea is something I do not want to do, either. So I am using this time to encourage people who may have a better idea on how we can resolve this to make some suggestions so we can avoid holding up this legislation.

I do not need to remind my colleagues, I would just say at the end of all of this, that since 2001 we have lost 2.7 million manufacturing jobs in the United States. In Connecticut, we have lost more than 14 out of every 100 manufacturing jobs in the past 3 years. I have 5,400 small manufacturers in my State of over 240,000 people. A lot of them are what we call mom and pop, with 5, 6, 8, 10 people. Some of them are second and third generation.

I see my colleague from New Hampshire, as well as my colleague from Ohio. They have similar situations with small firms in their own States. Many of them provide critical technologies to our major defense contractors. If I thought the offset agreements had some great relevancy today, I would be the first to say we have to live with this; it is an unfortunate reality. But taking an idea we used at the end of World War II to help our allies get on their feet and to still perpetuate it in the year 2003 I think is wrong.

We better say something about it soon and try to do something about it before we just continue the way we are going and seeing a further loss of jobs and a loss of a manufacturing base in critical technologies which I think we will regret deeply in the years to come.

When this bill comes up, if it does come up, I would like to offer the amendment or have someone work out something so we might address this issue in some way that would not delay the enactment of the Defense Production Act but would give me some sense of hope that we could resolve this kind of problem.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee for all his efforts to bring the reauthorization of the Defense Production Act to the floor. It is excellent legislation, and I support it wholeheartedly. I particularly want to express my appreciation for the agreement that was reached to reconsider this piece of legislation in 1 year. That will allow the Defense Production Act to continue uninterrupted, while also providing us with the opportunity to address the very grave concerns that are shared by many Senators about the issue of foreign offset arrangements over the next year.

According to the General Accounting Office and Department of Commerce, these arrangements serve no positive purpose. And yet, offsets are displacing 9,500 American workers annually. In 2000, the Commerce Department reports that out of $5.6 billion exported by the U.S. aerospace and defense industries, $5.1 billion was ``offset'' by these arrangements. In other words, offset arrangements imposed on contracts with American firms amounted to nearly 90 percent of their export value. And in the years 2002 and 2003, the total value of offsets are projected to be close to 100 percent of the value of those contracts--virtually eliminating any gains from U.S. exports of these goods.

Once again, I appreciate the willingness of the chairman and ranking member of the Banking Committee for agreeing to work with me on this issue as we assess additional reauthorization legislation for the Defense Production Act in the coming months.

Mr. President, I am confident my colleague from North Dakota will probably want to use 5 minutes of that 6 minutes. He probably has not exhausted every thought on the subject matter. I will be happy to yield back some of my time to him.

I wish to add my voice and thanks to the managers of this proposal and to commend the other body for their efforts in acting as quickly as they have on the subject matter. I am familiar enough with it because I introduced legislation about 2 years ago in this area. Connecticut was one of the early States--I know there have been a number of States that have adopted a do not call list--to adopt a do not call list in the year 2000. In December 2001, I introduced a bill very similar to the one Connecticut has produced. Either since then or before then, other States--including Alabama, Alaska, the home of the distinguished Senator Murkowski, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, and others--have also enacted legislation.

This is a very positive outcome. Clearly, what has happened is, as we are talking about the use of the telephone, the telemarketing idea, America has phoned in and said to please give them some relief. We just would like a few minutes of privacy and quiet. It is hard enough to get a family together with all the pressures on them today. When you might just be able to get them to sit down for a meal, that phone starts ringing. What they are saying is: Give me the choice of saying I don't want to be bothered and buy this. They ought to have that right.

The obvious problem with this bill--I say it is a problem, but I am confident we can correct it; it is the difference between the bill I introduced several years ago and the one before us today--is the loophole that allows any prior business relationship to be an exception to the otherwise clear prohibition supported by this legislation.

As was pointed out in one news account in the last day or so, there has been a tremendous surge of telemarketing in the last number of weeks by businesses trying to establish a ``prior business relationship'' with a customer base in this country which would then allow them to become part of the exception even under this legislation.

The point I am making is, even though we will pass this bill--and I am very glad we are doing so; again, I commend the authors for moving as rapidly as they are on this legislation--we have not heard the end of this issue. There are going to be people coming back, once they discover that any prior business relationship pretty much will allow the exception to occur, which means you will have that phone continue to ring. And I presume they are going to be asking us to come back and even close the loophole down further.

Much as we have in Connecticut and as other States are doing this. As I've

said, Connecticut has enacted legislation and the bill I introduced mirrors my State's efforts in that regard.

Justice Brandeis said it so eloquently years and years ago, as he always could, this wonderful, brilliant mind of a Supreme Court Justice. He always had the ability of taking a difficult concept and simplifying it in terms that were so understandable by everyone. He said: Privacy is nothing more than the simple right to be left alone. That is what we are really talking about. He couldn't have imagined, when he said that, the technology that would make it possible for telemarketing to occur. But the right to be left alone is really at the heart of what we are talking about--the right to say to someone: You don't have the right to call me anytime you want. I should have some ability to control that intrusive invasion in the privacy of my family's life.

I am glad the Federal Trade Commission acted. It certainly made a difference. But clearly we need to respond to the court's decision in this matter, and we are doing that by adopting this legislation.

I am pleased to add my name as a cosponsor. I implore my colleagues in their respective committees to take a look at the bill I have introduced. I know others have introduced legislation, but take a look at this bill. Let's monitor what happens over the coming months to see if we are achieving the desired results that this legislation is designed to achieve. If not, we may have to go a bit further along the lines I have suggested. I am sure others have as well.

With that, I am pleased to be a part of this effort and congratulate the authors of it.

I yield back the remainder of the time.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent from the Senate earlier this week and missed rollcall votes Nos. 358 through 363. There were two reasons for my absence. First, I hosted a ceremony at the University of Connecticut honoring Bertie Ahern, Taoiseach of Ireland, and Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Great Britain. Second, I attended memorial services yesterday and today for Jack Bailey, the former Connecticut Chief State's Attorney and a close friend to both me and my family. Had I been present, I would have cast my votes as follows: on rollcall vote 358: aye; on rollcall vote 359: nay; on rollcall vote 360: nay; on rollcall vote 361: aye; on rollcall vote 362: aye; and on rollcall vote 363: aye.

Under the circumstances the Senator from Utah has described, this will not detract from the time?

Mr. President, how much time remains?

I yield myself 2 minutes.

I wish to quickly respond to my colleagues and friends on the other side. I supported the President's request for authority in Iraq. I believed at the time that was the right vote to cast.

But it is important to focus on the war issue and what is going on in Iraq in the construction period, the economic and political efforts there. There is growing concern, both here and abroad, that this is not going well. We can spend all day debating about what our colleagues said or didn't say, what their motives or intentions were, but that diverts attention from what the debate ought to be; that is, we have a request before us for $87 billion. We will have to vote on that in the coming days. The American people want to know where we stand on that. How is the money going to be spent? Where is it going?

Why are we losing a soldier a day it seems, or 10 are being wounded every day? Why isn't the rest of the world joining us? What efforts are being made? The President may be giving a speech right now at the United Nations. Spending our time in this great deliberative body arguing over what one of our colleagues said over the weekend in an interview detracts from what ought to be the real debate, and that is whether we are on the right track or the wrong track when it comes to rebuilding Iraq, getting the government turned over to the Iraqi people, getting international support for the efforts and how the taxpayer money is going to be used.

Spending our time talking about what Senator Kennedy said--I think his spirit reflects where many Americans are. You may not agree with every word. That is not the point. We rarely agree around here on speeches we give, but we ought to be debating how we get it right in Iraq instead of spending time this morning arguing about whether or not we agree or disagree with what our colleague said in an interview in his home State. The American public wants to know what is happening in Iraq, not what is happening in Massachusetts--not what one said but what is the policy of this Government and what is the Senate saying about it. That ought to be the debate.

Mr. President, I don't know if any of my colleagues want to be yielded some time.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, the Democratic leader and the Democratic whip, Senator Reid, for their comments, and Senator Leahy for his comments as well.

As I said a few minutes ago, I voted to give the President the authority to use force. Others didn't. I respected that decision but reached a different conclusion. I am just concerned when I hear the debate shift, as it has this morning, from what we need to be doing in Iraq to get this right, to those who take a different position or question the motivations that led us to this particular point. By the way, going back looking historically, the comments Senator Kennedy made--whether you agree or disagree with them, and I don't think they ought to be the subject of the debate; the debate ought to be about Iraq--go back to January 19, 2002, and Karl Rove, Chief of Staff of the White House addressing the Republican National Committee. I quote him while speaking to that group. According to the Washington Post story, his top political advisor said this:

. . . Republicans will make the President's handling of the

war on terrorism the centerpiece of their strategy to win

back the Senate and keep control of the House in this year's

midterm elections.

We can go to the country on this issue because they trust

the Republican Party to do a better job of protecting and

strengthening America's military might and thereby protecting

America.

He goes on to say:

The second place we should go to the country is on

protecting the homeland. We can go to the country confidently

on this issue because Americans trust the Republican party to

do a better job of keeping our communities and families safe.

That is the top political advisor to the President in January of 2002 suggesting that in fact we can make this a partisan issue. You may not like the statements of Senator Kennedy, but there is a genesis here that could draw a conclusion that there have been political motivations.

My view is simply, look, to spend this morning debating what one of our colleagues said on an interview someplace detracts from what ought to be the subject of debate: how do we get it right in Iraq? That ought to be the common challenge. We have a major request of $87 billion in front of us and there are legitimate questions being raised about how to do this, how to get this right. We ought to be spending our energy and time and that of our staffs on organizing and debating and discussing how we can get this right as a coequal branch of Government, constitutionally charged with the conduct of foreign policy. This body deserves--in fact, its history and the country demand that we do a much better job of focusing on the foreign policy matter before the Nation and the world, getting about the reconstruction, and getting the political and economic questions right in Iraq, and taking our time to debate what one Senator says seems to be, quite transparently, an effort to divert the attention of the country and the media to one of our colleagues rather than the far larger issue, and that is whether we are going to go further into debt without paying for these additional moneys that are deserved for our military, certainly, and questionably on the reconstruction effort.

My hope is we can move away from the debate of what one colleague says and start talking about what needs to be done to get this situation in Iraq on the right track.

Certainly, if you go back and look at the history, as I said earlier, the suspicions that the administration was motivated in part by politics are rooted in the fact that the top political advisers of this administration have made the case to their own party faithful that in fact part of their motivations are to look at gaining political favor. It was a great disappointment then because there was a sense of unity in the country about fighting terrorism together, getting homeland security right together, and certainly getting Iraq right together is what we ought to talk about. There are legitimate issues. Why are we not getting the international support? Where will the money come from? Are we going to get ourselves further into debt? How are our needs at home going to be addressed? How are we going to get the Iraqis back in control of their country?

These are the questions we ought to be working on--not whether some colleague made a statement you disagree with and that we organize ourselves in a structured response to that, rather than take the time we ought to in order to get a situation that the American public wanted to know more about, which is a deep problem that is getting worse. The longer we fail to address it and try to divert attention to other matters, it does a great disservice to our men and women in uniform and to the American taxpayers.

Mr. President, I hope any further debate about what one colleague says would be confined to how we can get the Iraq situation on the right track and how we are going to spend the bulk or a good part of the $87 billion on the reconstruction phase of Iraq.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I express my cooperation, sense of solidarity with my colleague from California, Mrs. Boxer, and others under very unusual procedural circumstances. In my almost 24 years in the Senate, I cannot recall ever rising to speak on a motion to disagree with a House amendment on a Senate bill and request a conference. As all of my colleagues know, these motions are rarely if ever debated. They are routinely adopted. And

while this particular motion may well be adopted today or tomorrow there is nothing routine about it, because what we're discussing is one of the most divisive issues this country has ever faced--the issue of abortion, and specifically, the issue of whether or not the decision reached in Roe v. Wade should be the prevailing law of the land.

When this legislation was initially before the Senate, Senators Harkin and Boxer introduced a simple sense of the Senate amendment that stated Roe v. Wade was a fair and balanced affirmation of a woman's constitutional right to privacy and self-determination. Of course, as Senator Boxer has pointed out, a woman's right to choose is not unlimited. As Roe v. Wade held, once a fetus becomes viable from a medical point of view, abortions may be regulated, although States must allow abortions when necessary to preserve a woman's life or health. Perhaps that's why a majority of Americans continue to support Roe v. Wade. Most Americans believe that this most difficult of decisions is, as an initial matter, best made in private by a woman and those with whom she chooses to share in the making of her decision--her doctor, her family, and her loved ones.

Most Americans believe that politicians are ill-equipped to understand the unique, complex, and often wrenching factors that so often bear on whether or not a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy. And most Americans believe that abortion should be as it has consistently been for the past 30 years--safe, legal, and rare.

There are those among my colleagues in the House and Senate who do not support the Harkin-Boxer language because they do not support Roe v. Wade. That is certainly their right, and they are entitled to the views they hold. In this Senator's view, however, eroding Roe v. Wade or repealing it outright would be a mistake of historic proportions, with devastating consequences for American women.

The history of our Nation is one of securing and protecting freedoms and inalienable rights that we are all entitled to as American citizens. Eviscerating the rights annunciated by Roe v. Wade would run counter to this historic trend in our Nation's life. I look back on history and think about other times when attempts were made to repeal civil and privacy rights our citizens possessed. Obviously, prohibition comes to mind. We all know it was a social failure that resulted in the unregulated production of distilled spirits and other alcoholic substances that jeopardized the health of countless Americans. I think of the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, when tens of thousands of citizens were taken forcibly from their homes and livelihoods, and stripped of nearly all their possessions simply because of their ethnicity. And, of course, I think of our country in the aftermath of the Civil War, when the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments to the Constitution--promising the full blessings of equality to all Americans regardless of race--were followed by a century of Jim Crow laws designed to deny those blessings to tens of millions of Americans.

Surely, eroding or repealing Roe v. Wade would be considered a step of equal gravity and error because it would deprive half our population of a right that, while not unlimited, is fundamental to being an American.

What would the implications of denying this right be? One need not look further than when abortions were deemed illegal in this country-- before Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. Women were forced to seek abortions in back alleys and basements. Women were forced to seek abortion by many people wholly unqualified to perform the procedure. And we all know the results were disastrous to women in this country-- untold numbers of whom suffered sickness, permanent disability, and death.

Surely, this not the kind of America we want for the women of our country, nor is it the kind of America we want for men who have wives, daughters, sisters, and nieces. Therefore, as this bill moves forward, I hope a majority of our colleagues will continue to support the constitutional protections given to women under Roe v. Wade.

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

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, I would like to share with my colleagues a few thoughts on the subject of Iraq, if I may. I begin by thanking the President for speaking to the Nation on September 7. President Bush, my colleagues will recall, addressed the American people about the subject of Iraq. He happens to be one of the very few members of his own administration to begin to tell the American people the facts of life about our involvement in Iraq: That it is going to be very difficult for our troops and civilian personnel to be successful in standing up a democratic government out of the ashes of a crushed and totally discredited dictatorship, and it is going to be very expensive as well, the President pointed out--very expensive. In the President's own words, this undertaking is going to be ``difficult and costly.''

President Bush also explained in simple terms U.S. policy objectives. He said in that speech that our objectives are to destroy terrorists, enlist the support of other nations for a free Iraq, and help Iraqis assume responsibility.

He was far less clear on how he intends to achieve those objectives or to mitigate the cost to the American public--the cost in dollar terms and also in terms of human lives.

Our military has, I think all of us would agree, done an exemplary job in

winning the military conflict in Iraq. All of us extend our highest commendations to the men and women in uniform for the job they have achieved. But they also need help winning the peace, and I think all of us understand that as well.

Our forces are stretched thin. Our troops are very tired. There are questions as to whether they have been adequately equipped for the circumstances that they now confront. I believe they are involved in a guerrilla war. There is no other way to describe it. Their lives, as we all know, painfully, are in great danger from hostile irregular forces, if you want to call them that, and from a very hostile environment growing worse every day by growing civil dissent in the country.

Tragically, more than 280 American soldiers have now died in Iraq, and more than 1,200 are wounded; 159 of those deaths have occurred since the President declared the end of major military action on May 1 of this year. Every single day since then almost 10 Americans have been officially declared wounded in action.

Our troops are not the only ones at risk. Hanging in limbo is, of course, the future of the Iraqi people. Millions of innocent civilians suffered for decades under the brutal rule of Saddam Hussein. When our forces entered Iraq, we took on the mission of providing peace and security for all Iraqis. But during the past several weeks we have witnessed a surge of attacks with many Iraqis themselves victims, subject to the attacks of these hostile forces within Iraq.

Car bombings have claimed the lives of more than 120 people over the last number of weeks. The U.N.'s Iraqi headquarters were bombed and their top envoy, Sergio Vieira de Mello, was killed, as we all know. An attack at the mosque at Najaf killed more than 80 people, including a prominent moderate Shiite leader. Only a week ago, a track bomb killed an Iraqi police officer and wounded 27 others, including Baghdad's chief of police. On Monday, the chief of police of another community was gunned down in his automobile.

This goes on every single day. What does the situation tell us? I believe it tells us that the Iraqi people are far from secure. If they are not secure, it is a safe bet our forces will continue to remain in danger and our own security and the security we are trying to achieve as a result of a rise in terrorism is also at risk.

I listened last week as well to Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld, our Secretary of Defense, go over the old ground of defending the administration's justification for going to war in Iraq. And with all due respect to Secretary Powell, I do not believe his most recent remarks to the effect that the use of chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein in 1988 explains why this administration decided in the year 2003, some 15 years later, that Saddam Hussein had to go. Frankly, I believe the administration should spend far less time trying to justify past decisions or explain away errors of judgment and far more time should be spent figuring out what to do next about this difficult and costly challenge our troops are facing every day, day in and day out, in Iraq.

I hope the recent rhetoric is simply a diversion, because the administration doesn't have a plan, in my view, for restoring security--a comprehensive strategic plan for the eventual drawdown of U.S. forces, a comprehensive strategic plan for turning political control of the country of Iraq over to the Iraqi people where it belongs. We need a strong strategic plan, a concrete plan and a timetable for these events. We need a comprehensive strategic plan and timetable for establishment of an Iraqi government and for the preparation of a constitution for the holding of free elections. We need to stick to that plan so the Iraqi people can have a sense of confidence that the end goal remains an independent Iraq governed by Iraqis.

The Congress of the United States, of course, supported President Bush last year when he sought authority to use all necessary means to secure Iraq's compliance with United Nations resolutions. I was one who voted for Senate Resolution 1441 which empowered the President to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein from power. And I would do so again, because I believe Saddam Hussein posed a threat to our security and to the security of our allies in the region.

At the time I voted for that resolution, I expressed concern that the administration may not have adequately prepared for winning the peace once military options had deposed Saddam Hussein. I think the concern I expressed, as well as many others, clearly has been well placed. The time has come for our President and his top advisors to listen to the Congress and, more importantly, to the American people, when we say our current policy is off course. If they don't heed the concerns being expressed by Democrats and Republicans in both this body and in the other, then they risk an even more costly and far more difficult engagement in Iraq, and they risk the administration losing the support of the American people for this policy which is absolutely critical for the long-term success.

The $87 billion emergency appropriations request the President will soon transmit to the Congress of the United States presents a very important opportunity for us to consider a midcourse correction on our Iraqi policy. It will require all of us in this Chamber and the administration and others to work very hard to effectuate that kind of change.

I will say here and now I am prepared to support all of the funds the President has requested to equip and protect our military troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. So long as they are in harm's way, they need whatever military commanders deem necessary to get the job done as safely as possible. The resources ought not be the subject of our corrections.

However, I do not believe we can or should continue to give the administration a blank check with respect to the reconstruction money. This is a ripe opportunity now for us to work together in common purpose and common cause to offer some new ideas and new direction to get this policy on track. We simply cannot afford to continue the road we are following. Even before the administration's supplemental request, the Congressional Budget Office calculated the annual budget deficit would reach some $480 billion--the largest in our history. Over the past 3 years, 3.2 million Americans have lost their jobs--44,000 alone in the month of July.

I don't need to remind my colleagues of these statistics. They know them in their own States. We are facing a tremendous problem in our own country. Layoffs are continuing as Americans lose their jobs. And they are losing something equally important--the ability to provide for their families. Neither are the schools receiving the funds necessary to ensure our children receive the education they deserve. Many are cutting back on the school week and on critical services and programs.

Thus far, U.S. funds have been expended to open and equip Iraq's 12,000 primary and secondary schools, to return 240,000 telecommunications lines to operation, and to begin the process of vetting and training some 30,000 Iraqi police officers. The job is far from done. Baghdad's International Airport remains closed to commercial traffic. Many key bridges and roads are in desperate need of major repairs. That nation's rail system will need significant capital infusions to make it operational again.

The American people, in my view, are facing their own difficulties here at home, and those kind of pressures in the absence of a clear policy are going to create the kind of pressure-cooker environment which will place the policy in Iraq in jeopardy, our soldiers' lives in jeopardy, and the Iraqi people's security in jeopardy. The great effort that was undertaken to change a brutal dictatorship and bring peace and democracy to those people is clearly in further jeopardy. In the midst of all of this, we need to come together and change the course of directions.

I remember the administration's mantra some months ago that ``Iraq is a rich country'' and its oil revenues would be available to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. Just weeks ago, Ambassador Bremer amended that statement to say that ``tens of billions of dollars'' in additional financial assistance will be needed to accomplish that task.

It now appears that oil revenues once thought to be more than sufficient or

of sufficient magnitude that they could finance the rebuilding of the country of Iraq are now expected to barely cover the operating costs of Iraq's government ministries and the expenses of the Interim Council.

What more evidence do any of us need to be convinced that the time has come for other governments to be welcomed as participants in rebuilding Iraq and to reach out and to ask them to join in that effort?

I strongly believe it is time for the Congress to weigh in and to require the administration to address two basic questions: How do administration officials plan to minimize American death and casualties? How do they intend to minimize the expenditures of American tax dollars that will have to be diverted to this cause at the expense of other critically important programs in our own Nation, such as to assist first responders in keeping us secure at home, programs to provide for prescription drugs for our seniors, and programs to improve our schools so no child is truly left behind?

If history is any guide, the only way the administration will feel compelled to come up with answers is if we in the Congress--the coequal legislative branch of Government--place some conditions on the $20 billion in reconstruction moneys.

To me it seems pretty straightforward what needs to be done to lower the risks and costs of current participation in Iraq. It is called the United Nations. It is called the international community. We need to invite them to be a part of this effort. That is why I believe the Congress should link the provision of reconstruction moneys to the passage of a United Nations resolution that places responsibility for rebuilding Iraq where it belongs--on us and the international community as a whole. To get such a resolution, obviously the administration must approach other member states with a credible proposal, one that gives the United Nations some measure of authority over the civilian administration of the country while also charging it with mobilizing more resources from member states. Clearly, the United States should retain command of any ongoing military operations in Iraq. But on political, economic, and civic reconstruction, we better involve other nations fairly quickly. We cannot do this alone. The American people will not support this over the long term. If we don't invite them to participate and to help us, we are going to find it very difficult with each passing day to find anyone who will join us in this effort.

I don't understand the reluctance on the part of the administration to turn over the civilian administration of the country to an international body. There is certainly ample precedent for doing so. Not only would it lower the profile of our presence in that country, but it would also likely unleash additional resources and cooperation both regionally and internationally, bring Iraq around to the kind of nation we would like to see, and truly deal with the problems of terrorism globally.

The Congress has to do it unless the administration decides on its own to change course. If we don't speak up in these coming days, if we just provide a blank check and a vote for $87 billion with nothing further to be said, we will not have anyone to blame but ourselves in the coming days if this present policy continues to collapse. And I believe it will.

It is time for us to stop sitting on the sidelines. Under the able leadership of Senator Lugar, the Foreign Relations Committee has been carrying out careful oversight in Iraq. The Foreign Relations Committee now has the responsibility to develop some legislative proposals-- perhaps along the lines I have outlined for people to bring to the table--in order to influence the contents of the legislative package we will be asked to vote on in the coming days. I look forward to working with my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans--because I know very deeply the concerns I am expressing publicly are shared by many in this Chamber regardless of party, regardless of ideology, and regardless of which States we represent.

There is a growing concern that we have this wrong and that we have to get it right soon. Here is an opportunity that may not come again to us for many months to try to set this on a different course.

We are at a very special and historic moment. We cannot and must not sit idly by when we know multilateralizing the reconstruction and democratization of Iraq is the right thing to do. It is the right thing for Iraq. It is the right thing for the United States of America. But it is time we in the legislative branch, the coequal branch, step up and act in the interests of our people and other like-minded people around the globe.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in memory of C. Francis Driscoll, of New London, CT, who passed away on August 8 at the age of 68.

Although Frank Driscoll was born in New York, he would become one of New London's most influential and devoted public servants, committing his time and energy, for over 30 years, to making life better for the people of that city.

Frank Driscoll's first work on behalf of New London came from 1961 to 1967, when he was the executive director of the Redevelopment Agency, and a driving force in New London's urban renewal. But after 2 years working in Washington at the Department of Housing and Urban Development he returned to New London to take the job that he would hold for the next 23 years, the position of city manager--the top executive post in the city.

As city manager, Frank Driscoll became known as a man who was very careful with how he spent city funds. A child of the Great Depression, he understood that these were the hard-earned tax dollars of working men and women, and he was always careful to spend those dollars wisely. At the same time, he was also tireless in his efforts to obtain Federal funds to improve the quality of life in New London. In fact, during the 1970s, New London won more money in Federal aid than it raised in local property taxes. These critical funds helped New London improve and renovate its schools, revitalize its business district, and ensure the integrity of its water supply.

Frank Driscoll was a skilled, dedicated, and effective leader. But those who knew him or worked with him will probably remember him even more as a deeply caring and compassionate individual. He treated every city employee as part of an extended family. And when it came to his own family, Frank Driscoll's devotion was second to none.

He was also a man of faith who was a vital member of his community. At St. Joseph's Parish in New London, he was a member of the parish council as well as the church choir. Frank was a man whose faith helped shape every aspect of his life, both public and private.

I know that everyone who has lived in New London since the 1960s feels fortunate that they had Frank Driscoll working on their behalf. And I feel privileged to have had him as a friend.

I offer my most heartfelt condolences to Frank's wife Caroline, to their eight children, nine grandchildren, and to everyone else who knew Frank Driscoll. He will be deeply missed.

Mr. President, I send a modification of an amendment of mine to the desk. I believe I have a right to do that.

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 1572.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that in addition to the listed cosponsors, Senator John Warner be added as a cosponsor as well.

Madam President, I will now turn to my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Pryor, for up to 5 minutes for him to discuss the subject of the professional education amendment that is before us.

Madam President, I thank my colleague from Arkansas for his eloquent comments and his support in this effort. He brings a special knowledge and awareness to this issue, as we heard, as a result of his experience as attorney general in Arkansas.

Like his colleagues, attorneys general around the country have grappled with this issue. As he points out, almost 30 years ago, when I first arrived as a new Member of Congress with my colleague from Vermont--President Gerald Ford initiated the idea of the Education of All Children Act--which included, of course, special education. He did this to see to it that far more than 20 percent of special needs children receiving services at the time would have an opportunity to receive an education. Less than 20 percent of special needs children were being educated 30 years ago.

As a result of the efforts of people such as Senator Pryor as attorney general in his State, and now as a Member of this body, and others over the years, we have increased the funding for special education, and almost 6 million children across the country today who are special needs children are getting help. Several hundred thousand infants are getting help, and several hundred thousand preschoolers are getting help, giving them a chance to maximize their potential.

Just this past Monday, I was at the Buttonball School in Glastonbury,

Madam President, the Dodd-Hagel-Jeffords amendment and the money in the bill--$2.2 billion--raises considerably the amount of money that will be available in each of the States as a result of our efforts. I thank them for their efforts, and each Senator ought to know there are going to be a lot more children, families, and communities who are going to get needed help.

My hope is, of course, that we will keep this language in conference. We tried over the years to do that. We now need Members of the other body to stand up and say to their mayors, Governors, county supervisors, and others: You have our support, and we are going to try and do it each and every year between now and the year 2009 to complete the obligation we made some three decades ago.

Madam President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time. I see my colleague from New Hampshire who may want to address this issue. I don't know if he does. If he does, maybe we can vote on this and move on to other matters.

Madam President, I did not intend to have this become a partisan discussion at all. Going back, as a member of the Budget Committee, I offered I think the first such amendment in the Budget Committee, along with Senator Lott. We lost on a tie vote back in the Budget Committee in the early 1980s on special education, trying to get the dollars up.

I am very grateful. The only reason we are getting this support now is that obviously we have some key Republicans who are willing to help us on this--Senator Hagel, principally, who has been a champion on this issue for a number of years. Senator Collins, Senator Coleman, and Senator Warner have been very helpful.

Let there be no illusions. We tried to get this. We can argue about offsets and so forth, but the fact is, had I not been able to get some Republican support, this amendment would have gone down. I do not make that case because I think it takes both of us working together here. But the reason we are back at this is that, back in the beginning of 2001, Senator Harkin, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Hagel offered language to increase dollars for special education--in fact, they ended up getting 100 votes here. The other body, led by the Republican leadership, just wouldn't allow a vote to occur on this issue and the President never had anything to say about it.

If we took the increases in the underlying bill, we would never get near the 40 percent figure at which special education would become fully funded.

The fact is, we have fought this battle especially hard over the last 2 years. We have gotten zero help from the White House and zero help from the leadership in the other body. As a result, we are back again this year making our case again.

I am very grateful for the bipartisan support we have on this. That is the way we get these things done. We are prepared to vote on this, accept a voice vote.

They don't want a rollcall vote. They only want a voice vote. I was born at night, Madam President, but not last night. I know what that usually means--it is so no one has to be on record here. We are just going to have a vote and go along with this. It makes it a little easier for the other body to reject it because we have not had a recorded vote on it.

I accept that because I think if you can get something done, get it done, whether it is by voice vote or recorded vote. If we are going to get this done, let's get it done. Let's hope it stays in conference so the real winners of this will be the children and the families and the communities that need the help--not one party over another but people who desperately need our help and support, children who are, unfortunately, suffering from special education needs who will get some help from their Federal Government.

Most of special education funding comes from local property tax payers. We are just fulfilling an obligation we promised we would meet 30 years ago and we are coming only halfway there as a result of this amendment.

I am grateful, again, for the support we have received. It is unfortunate it has taken us this long. Senator Mark Dayton of Minnesota offered a full funding amendment, which I supported, that would get us there right away. Obviously, that did not make it. This is a partial step in that direction. But Senator Dayton deserves a great deal of credit for telling us all how important this issue is and how quickly we ought to meet that obligation.

With that, I yield the remainder of my time. If we are going to have a voice vote on it, let's have that voice vote and move on to other business.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I thank the distinguished Democrat leader for his comments and others for their comments. I was going to ask him a question myself, but I think our leader has already been standing on the floor for about an hour, so I will spare him that. I commend him for his eloquence on this issue and for his passion about it.

This is an issue that is befuddling, to put it mildly, to many of us. I have several amendments pending on the education bill. I would very much like to raise them on Head Start and on special education. We can't get there apparently because we can't get a vote on this simple proposition.

Not only are we not going to be able to vote on overtime this afternoon, but we can't even vote on whether or not we ought to do more on special education. We can't do something more on Head Start, title I, Pell grants. Here we are, coming in the midst of September, the waning days of the Session, with huge issues before us, and it is now the midpart of Tuesday--this started last week some time--and it would take, I suspect--and the Senator from Iowa is here, our leader; he can correct me--maybe another 15 minutes of debate and we could have a rollcall vote on this and move on.

I will take a few minutes to express my views, which are very similar to those expressed by the distinguished minority leader, as well as Senator Kennedy, Senator Durbin, Senator Harkin, Senator Boxer, and others, on this matter. But I think it is a great tragedy.

I thank the leader for taking the time to express to the American public his great concern about this issue and the wonderment he expresses about why we can't even have a vote on this proposal. I thank him and I know he has a busy afternoon.

I want to share with my colleagues my own thoughts on this issue as well. I think it is remarkable. This is yet one additional bad decision after another when it comes to the economy.

We have seen what has happened regarding tax cut policy. I note an article written by Mike Allen and Jonathan Weisman in the Washington Post appearing this past Saturday, page A6, titled ``Tax Cut Claims Gain Criticism As Employers Shed More Jobs.'' I won't read the whole article, but let me quote from it, if I may:

Before the latest tax cut plan passed, White House

economists had predicted it would add 1.4 million new jobs

through the year 2004, on top of 4.1 million jobs that a

growing economy would have generated anyway, a rate of

344,000 jobs created a month. By its own accounting, the Bush

administration has fallen 437,000 jobs short of its own

projections in August, a shortfall not lost on the

President's critics.

We have seen already tremendous job losses in this country. The minority leader mentioned a job loss of 3.2 million jobs; 2.5 million of those job losses have occurred in the manufacturing sector of our economy; 93,000 jobs lost in America in the month of August, up sharply from the 43,000 jobs lost in July. For the seventh consecutive month, companies have slashed payrolls.

So the economy, when it comes to joblessness, is cratering. The tax cuts that the administration jammed through the Congress only a few short months ago are already demonstrating what a hardship they pose to the recovery and to putting Americans back to work.

As I mentioned, 93,000 jobs were lost in the month of August; 44,000 of those jobs in the manufacturing sector. Just over 2.5 million manufacturing jobs have been lost in the last 32 months.

African Americans and Hispanics bear the brunt of the economic downturn. The unemployment rate among African Americans is now hovering around 11 percent, almost twice the national average.

The unemployment rate among Hispanics is almost 8 percent. Long-term unemployment is on the rise. In August, almost 2 million people had been unemployed for over 6 months, triple the number at the beginning of the Bush administration.

A surge in discouraged workers masks the true impact of the economic downturn. Currently, 1.7 million people are marginally attached to the labor force. About 503,000 of these workers have stopped looking for work altogether because they believe that no work is available for them. That is an increase of 125,000 over the past year.

A new study suggests that job losses since 2001 are gone for good. A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has concluded that the vast majority of job losses since the beginning of the 2001 recession were the result of permanent changes in the U.S. economy and are not coming back. This means the labor market will not regain strength until new positions are created in new economic sectors. Manufacturing is the area that is suffering the largest brunt of this decision.

An additional 1.3 million people are in poverty nationwide. The number of Americans living below the poverty line has increased by more than 1.3 million in the last year, even though the economy technically edged out of a recession during the same period. The number of families living in poverty went up by more than 300,000 in 2002, and the number of children in poverty rose by more than 600,000 in the same period.

We are heading in the wrong direction. On top of all that, we now have a decision being made by the administration to eliminate overtime pay. People in more than 250 white-collar occupations will lose their right to overtime. I won't list them all, but they include the critical areas of nursing, firefighting, police forces, emergency medical services, health technicians, clerical workers, surveyors, chefs, TV technicians, and reporters. Overtime pay will be eliminated.

I don't understand--in light of the news we are getting about the unemployment picture in this country and the hardships being faced, the rising level of poverty, the more difficult time families are having to make ends meet--why the administration persists in pursuing a policy of denying overtime pay. There was a very close vote in the House of Representatives. At least they voted. I am told the vote was 210 to 213 against blocking the President's proposed rule, so it was narrowly defeated by the Republican majority in the House of Representatives.

I want to know whether or not this body wants to confirm what the House and the President said they want to do. And should not the American public have the right to know what the answer of this body would be?

In 250 occupations, they want to know whether or not they are going to be able to get overtime pay. Overtime pay makes a huge difference for them economically. It can amount to as much as 25 percent of a worker's annual income. Denying 25 percent of someone's income at a time of already economic uncertainty is wrongheaded. It is dangerous for us to be pursuing that path.

I regret deeply that we will not have a chance to vote this afternoon on the administration's overtime proposal. We are faced with one more bad economic idea after another. We have the largest annual deficits in the Nation's history, one of the largest percentages of the gross domestic product, because they include, obviously, Social Security moneys in their calculations. We have lost more than 3 million jobs in the last 32 months.

Instead of working towards creating new jobs and helping working families and individuals, the administration has proposed a regulation to deny overtime protection to millions of people. These workers would have their jobs reclassified as professional, administrative or executive, even if their job duties do not change, thus losing the benefit of overtime pay. As I mentioned, more than 250 white-collar occupations could be impacted. Employees could be forced to work longer hours without the benefit of overtime pay.

I was speaking with a group of nurses in Connecticut. They were saying to me: We don't have the choice of not working additional hours in hospitals. If an emergency occurs, or there are problems with patients, you are always asked to stay on a few more hours and help out.

And they do it. The idea that we would be asking these people to continue to provide the valuable services they do to sick individuals in our Nation's hospitals and not provide them compensation for doing so is truly outrageous. The same goes for our firefighters and police officers.

Senator Boxer had it right when she said earlier: You can well imagine in the next 48 hours or so the kinds of images we are going to have, a replay of the tremendous outpouring of gratitude being expressed to the police officers and firefighters in New York and Connecticut, New Jersey, and others who gathered to fight for the lives at the World Trade Center almost 2 years ago. Yet what expression of gratitude do we provide them 2 years later? We tell them: Sorry, but your overtime pay no longer exists. What kind of a message is that to these people?

Asking employees to work longer hours and not providing overtime pay is significant because overtime pay can provide as much as 25 percent of a person's annual income. This is not the type of balance between work and family that the distinguished Democratic leader pointed out when we adopted unanimously a resolution offered last week. I was pleased to cosponsor S. Res. 210, a bipartisan resolution supporting striking a balance between work and personal lives as being in the best interest of worker productivity.

I find it terribly disheartening that at a time when this body is asking the President to designate October as National Work and Family Month, the administration is working to finalize a regulation to strip overtime pay for millions of people.

The 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act has been the backbone of worker protection. Never in its 65-year history have such sweeping overtime changes been proposed.

Hard-working individuals are deeply concerned about these changes and many of us here stand shoulder to shoulder with them in expressing our outrage. It is unfortunate that we are not going to be able to have a vote today in this body on whether or not we can overturn that decision.

I also find it ironic that the President suggested he would veto the underlying appropriations bill on education and health services if this amendment is accepted. In fact, an August poll of nearly 900 adults found that 74 percent--cutting across all regional and political lines--oppose the Bush administration's proposal to eliminate overtime protection. Almost 75 percent of those polled said don't do it.

Further, in 2001, the Department of Labor commissioned its own study that concluded that the current narrow overtime exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act are still relevant today.

Why then did the Bush administration unveil these proposals last March? One can only conclude that whatever the reasons, they do not include supporting the ability of working people to earn a decent pay for a day's work.

I will be happy to yield.

Mr. President, very simply, as my colleague pointed out, I would be delighted if the administration was going to change its policy. I wish they would do it across the board, just back this up all together.

The fact is, if you do a simple recategorization of what these people do as either being professional, administrative, or executive, then you are covered under this rule. I don't know what the various heads of these organizations are saying, but that is what the regulation that has been proposed by the administration says. Within the 250 employment categories, police and firefighters are included, if they are recategorized. If you do not recategorize them, they are going to be fine. But you leave that up to the whim of whether you want to move them to those different levels of pay. That is how they get covered.

I will be happy to yield.

Mr. President, let me respond to my friend. The National Association of Police Officers and the International Union of Police Associations oppose the regulations. We have correspondence from them. There is obviously some disagreement.

Mr. President, let me regain my time and respond. I appreciate my colleague raising these questions. I ask unanimous consent that letters from the International Union of Police Associations and the National Association of Police Organizations, expressing their opposition to the regulation, be printed in the Record.

International Union of

Police Associations, AFL-CIO

Alexandria, VA July 25, 2003.

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator: In the very near future, either an amendment,

or a stand-alone bill, will be brought forward in the Senate

which will seek to restrict the Department of Labor (DOL)

from implementing any regulatory rules changes in the Fair

Labor Standards Act that would remove workers' overtime

rights. It would not interfere with the Secretary's ability

to expand overtime protections for low income workers. On

behalf of the International Union of Police Associations

(IUPA), representing more than 100,000 active duty, rank and

file law enforcement officers from across the country, I urge

you to support this effort.

On March 31, 2003, the DOL's proposed rule changes were

first published under the guise of expanding overtime rights

to lower paid employees. These rule changes, if implemented,

would dramatically alter the classification of workers who

could be exempted from the provisions of the FLSA and the 40-

hour work week. These changes would reduce the compensation

for our nation's police officers and EMS personnel, just as

we are routinely calling on them to do more and more in the

interest of national security. The alterations would also

provide a strong disincentive for agencies and municipalities

to hire additional first responders, as they seek ways to

operate under the growing constraints of historic financial

burdens. The implementation of these rules would mark a

critical step backwards for our public safety officers, just

when we need to be moving ahead.

IUPA has been closely following the events surrounding

these changes. We consider this legislation to be the most

important single issue we face. Its critical impact on rank-

and-file law enforcement officers throughout the country

makes it a true litmus test, when it is time for us to decide

who truly supports the men and women who form the thin blue

line. We intend to carefully note and announce to our

membership those who are willing to stand with our nation's

police and firefighters with their votes. Whatever form this

struggle takes, I hope we can count on your support. If you

or your staff desires any additional information from IUPA, I

hope you will feel free to call upon us.

Very Respectfully,

Dennis Slocumb,

International Executive Vice President.

Mr. President, I will address both points my colleague has raised. If my colleagues on the other side are so concerned about first responders, why not just oppose the regulation altogether because this is the major group about which we are talking. For example, let me point out what I am suggesting.

Police sergeants and lower-level police supervisors are likely to lose their overtime through the executive exemption. Let me explain why.

The fact that a sergeant performs nonmanual work such as walking the beat during 90 percent of his work hours does not matter if he also has a primary duty of supervising two officers or performing nonexempt administrative work.

Highly compensated police officers will not even have to have a primary duty of performing exempt work. If they perform any ``office or nonmanual work'' and perform any one exempt duty of an executive, administrative, or professional duty--no matter how little of their time is spent doing it--they lose the right to overtime.

How much imagination does it take to move people into those categories to be exempt from overtime compensation?

Police departments have been prevented from exempting police officers who teach in police academies because the instructors did not exercise sufficient independent judgment and discretion in how they taught their courses. The proposed rule eliminates the requirement for independent judgment and discretion.

Under the current law, an exempt executive is an employee ``who customarily and regularly exercises discretionary powers; and who does not devote more than 20 percent . . . of his hours of work in the workweek to activities which are not directly and closely related to the performance of [exempt] work. . . .

Under the proposal by the President, those current law requirements are eliminated.

Let me address the nurse issue. Nurses, skilled health technicians, and technologists could lose their overtime protection under the proposed regulations because of the changes to the educational requirement.

Registered nurses who do not hold a bachelor's degree are currently eligible for overtime protections, unless they hold administrative or managerial positions.

Under the Bush proposal, these RNs would lose their overtime protection if they have a few years of work experience.

Nonmanagerial licensed practical nurses--LPNs--have a right to overtime protection under current law. Under the administration's proposal, LPNs with a few years of work experience would also lose their right to overtime compensation.

Let me read current law and then read the regulation proposed by President Bush.

The current law:

Employees are exempt if they do ``work requiring knowledge

of an advance type in a field of science or learning

customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized

intellectual instruction and study, as distinguished from a

general academic education and from an apprenticeship, and

from training in the performance of routine mental, manual,

or physical processes.''

Under the President's proposal:

Employees qualify for exemption as a learned professional

if they have a primary duty of performing office or nonmanual

work requiring advanced knowledge in a field of science or

learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of

intellectual instruction, but which may also be acquired by

an equivalent combination of intellectual instruction and

work experience.

That is very broad, very general language. Obviously, one can drive a Mack truck through it. That is why the nurses of this country, the RNs and LPNs, are vehemently opposed to this proposed regulation, because they know exactly what is going to happen, just as police officers do. That is why so many of us feel so strongly about this and why we would like to vote on it.

If a majority wants to uphold the President and vote for this stuff, then so be it; the Administration can go forward and it will become the law of the land. But I would like to know where 100 Senators stand. America would, too. As I mentioned, nearly seventy-five percent of the people polled in a recent survey said they are opposed to the administration's proposed rule. Let's find out where this body is. I think the proposed rule to eliminate overtime pay is wrong and I support the Harkin amendment. I hope that we will have a vote soon and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I was just informed of a different proposal than I was operating under when I had the discussion with the distinguished minority whip and the ranking member of the chair of the committee. If you will give me 2 minutes to resolve the conflict, which of these matters should be dealt with tonight or tomorrow, we could come right back to this. I am sure we will get an agreement. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I hope so, yes.

Something like that.

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

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

Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and a number of my colleagues. I will not recite the entire list of all of those who have joined with me on this Head Start amendment.

This amendment would increase the appropriation by $350 million above the increase recommended by the Appropriations Committee over the coming fiscal year. Very briefly, what this means, in the absence of this amendment being adopted, we will have to cut the number of children who are presently in Head Start programs. With the adoption of this amendment of $350 million, we can increase the enrollment by 36,000 children in Head Start programs across the country.

There are 19,000 centers and 50,000 classrooms. This is a program that has worked remarkably well over the past almost 40 years. It serves children by helping them get ready to learn. It has been remarkably successful. We are still underserving a very needy population, as the Presiding Officer knows. If we do not get them started right, these are the children who drop out of school, who become teen parents, who end up in the juvenile justice system, and become people who abuse substances.

Head Start works. We are going to be reauthorizing the program in the coming year, to do a variety of things to improve the program even further. In the absence of this kind of a start, when we now know the poor population of children has been increased by 600,000 just in the last 2 fiscal years, to be reducing the number of children presently in the program would be a huge mistake. These are poor children. They come from single-parent families. They are struggling to make ends meet. Head Start gives them an opportunity to get on the right track early on before they begin a formal education.

I urge my colleagues on both sides to be able to find the resources to do this. Head Start has been remarkably successful. It deserves our bipartisan support, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield to my distinguished friend from Florida who would like to be heard on this issue as well.

Mr. President, I want to close by talking about the reauthorization of Head Start. We need these resources to keep trying to expand the number of children who can participate in this program. We all know the importance of literacy. We know the importance of getting these children ready to learn. If we end up reducing the number of children presently in the program, as we will if we accept just the language of the pending appropriations bill, it is a major setback in early education.

I yield the floor.

I move to waive the Budget Act and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in memory of a distinguished

public servant and a good friend, the Honorable Anthony ``Buddy'' Sbona, of Middletown, CT, who passed away on August 4, at the age of 73.

Buddy Sbona served three terms as the mayor of Middletown from 1970 to 1975, and to this day, he remains one of the most popular public figures that city has ever seen. During his term as mayor, Buddy Sbona established Middletown's largest industrial park in the Westfield area. He also established the first full-time attorney's office in the city. From 1958 to 1961, Buddy Sbona served three terms on Middletown's Common Council, and after he left the mayor's office, he spent the next 20 years as Middletown's Town Clerk.

Buddy Sbona was a Republican mayor in a mostly Democratic town. But his appeal transcended party lines. Throughout his career, he was respected and admired by Democrats and Republicans alike--not merely as an elected official, but as a good, honest, and decent human being. His warm and outgoing personality and his enduring friendship were legendary. Even if you didn't always agree with Buddy Sbona's views, it was virtually impossible not to like him.

At 5 foot 5, you might think that Buddy Sbona could walk through City Hall practically unnoticed. But his booming voice, and his tremendous enthusiasm, announced to anyone within earshot that Buddy was in the building, ready to work hard on behalf of the people of Middletown.

Those who worked with Buddy Sbona remember him as a man with real passion for his work, a man who would come to the office each day excited to serve his constituents. That infectious attitude was an inspiration to his staff members, some of whom went on to hold public office themselves. During his later years, and even after he left office, he was an invaluable mentor to newcomers to public service, sharing with them his immense wealth of knowledge about Middletown's history, its politics, and its government.

Outside of the office, Buddy Sbona was a devoted family man who could often be spotted at his son's high school football games at Palmer Field. He was also an active member of St. Sebastian's Church and was the chairman of the Feast of St. Sebastian Committee for a decade.

It is a testimony to how hard Buddy Sbona worked, and how many lives he touched, that on Friday, August 8, all nonemergency city workers in Middletown were given the morning off to attend his funeral. Nearly 30 years after he left the mayor's office, the city of Middletown shut itself down to pay its respects to Buddy Sbona.

I offer my deepest condolences to the people of Middletown, to Buddy's wife Connie, to their sons William and Mark, to the entire Sbona family, and to the countless others whose lives were enriched by Buddy Sbona.

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

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

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

Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and my colleagues, Senator Hagel of Nebraska, Senator Jeffords of Vermont, Senator Collins of Maine, Senator Murray, Senator Dorgan, Senator Bingaman, Senator Kerry, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Pryor. There may be others who will ask to be added as a cosponsor, but those are the ones I have at this particular time.

This is an amendment that all of my colleagues are familiar with. They have voted on this amendment on several occasions over the last decade. On at least one occasion, we voted unanimously in support of an effort to increase funding for the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, commonly known as IDEA.

This amendment deals with special education funding. There is not a Member here who has not met a Governor, a mayor, a county supervisor, or a teacher who has not talked about this issue and the importance of it and the implications to their communities and their States if the Federal Government does not live up to its commitment of 40% full funding. A commitment made almost three decades ago.

I offer today a modified version of full funding. We have already voted once, in the last, I think, 24 or 48 hours, on a special education proposal from my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Dayton. He proposed a far more aggressive program, one that would have added about $11 billion, if I am not mistaken, to this program. My amendment is $1.2 billion above the Labor-HHS appropriations for special education grants to states. The budget within the bill adds $1 billion for Part B Grants to States. This amendment would add and additional $1.2 billion to that, for a total $2.2 billion increase.

Let me explain what we are trying to do and why I hope my colleagues understand how critically important this issue is, regardless of whatever feelings they have had about other proposals. First, obviously, this amendment will help provide needed education for children with special needs. Second, it will provide financial relief for communities.

Most of the dollars spent on special education come from local property taxes. Some States are different, but the overwhelming majority of States in this country support educational efforts through local property taxes. If we do not continue to provide some additional support and live up to the commitments we made three decades ago to fund IDEA at 40%, you are going to see an increase in local property taxes to meet these obligations. I don't think anyone needs to spell out the kind of hardship that would pose for a lot of families across this country. Families that are already facing tremendous economic pressures, with high unemployment, and with huge deficits at the State and local levels.

You have heard over and over again of the tremendous pressures communities are facing today. You have heard about the added burden of having to watch property taxes go up to meet obligations we promised we would make at the Federal level in regards to special education. This amendment would ease that burden by picking up some of the cost.

As I said, almost 30 years ago Congress passed the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. This was designed to help States provide all children in this country with disabilities with a free, appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment possible.

When we passed this legislation, the Federal Government also made a commitment to our States and localities. We said we would cover 40 percent of the State cost of servicing these students with special needs over time.

Thirty years later--three decades later--we have yet to make good on that commitment. Today, our level of commitment hovers around 18 percent, not 40 percent. This means, of course, that States are bearing more than their share of responsibility for meeting a federally mandated requirement regarding disabled student's needs. States that, mind you, are facing astronomical deficits, as I mentioned a few moments ago. States that often have no choice but to pass costs on to municipalities, which then, of course, pass them on to every-day, average American taxpayers through local property tax increases.

The amendment I am offering with my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Hagel, Senator Jeffords, Senator Collins, and others, is designed specifically to provide some relief in this area. This legislation would add an additional $1.2 billion to the special education fund, bringing us up to a $2.2 billion in the total increase to grants to States. This is exactly what we promised to provide in the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution. This is exactly what we voted on. We said this is what we would provide, an additional $2.2 billion. So not only did we make a commitment 30 years ago to provide 40 percent of the funding, as recently as within the last year this body made a

commitment that we would fund an additional $2.2 billion in grants to States in the area of special education.

This amendment makes us live up to that commitment. This $1.2 billion added increase would raise the level of the Federal Government's IDEA commitment to 21 percent from 18 percent. That is just over half of the 40 percent we set as a goal almost 30 years ago. At this rate, $2.2 billion a year, the Federal Government would meet its goal of 40 percent full funding by the year 2012, some 9 years from now.

I know there are those who would suggest that we ought to fully fund this immediately. I wish we could do that. I would be supportive of that kind of an effort, but, obviously, given the tremendous fiscal problems we face at the national level, it is impossible. So rather than suggest we fully fund a remaining 21 percent or more, what we are suggesting here is a $2.2 billion increase for one year. If we maintained this increase over the next 9 years, up until the year 2012, we could fully fund the commitment that we made 30 years ago.

Currently the Labor-HHS appropriations bill adds roughly $1 billion in grants to states. According to the Congressional Research Service, this boost would fund IDEA at about 18.7 percent. More importantly, if this $1 billion increase were to become the standard rate of increase over the coming years, we would never fully fund the special education program. We would never be able to meet the goal that we promised 30 years ago of 40-percent funding, certainly not by the year 2012.

Again, the cost of special education is extremely high. We all know that. Talk to any superintendent of schools, any mayor, county supervisor, Governor, any teacher in any school, and they will tell you, whether they are Democrats or Republicans, anywhere in the United States, all 50 States, the cost of this program is extremely high. They understand the need for it as well. If you talk to them you begin to understand the tremendous fiscal pressures they feel in their communities. In fact, I am quite sure every one of us in this body, including in the other body, have had these types of conversations with our mayors and other local leaders, telling us how important it is that we try to meet our special education commitment of 40 percent.

Better yet, talk to any rural mayor or selectman in my State, Vermont, Nebraska, any one of the communities around this country, and you will begin to understand how as little as two or three special education students in a rural community can throw an entire district's budget off balance. These school districts need our help. They have been asking for it year in and year out.

To the credit of this institution, in years past we have risen to the challenge. This body has voted in support of special education funding. Keep in mind that the amendment I am offering on which Senators Hagel, Jeffords, and Collins worked closely, provides for an additional $1.2 billion for only 1 additional year. It is not full funding. In the context of this bill, we have not asked to fully fund IDEA over a set number of years. We are merely asking that we provide our States with some fiscal relief now and provide our taxpayers with some fiscal relief now by providing States and rural counties with the funds they need to carry out their obligations to children with special needs today. It is a modest proposal but a much needed one across the country.

In my State of Connecticut, in spite of spending hundreds of millions of dollars to fund special education programs in our school districts-- and it is true in almost every other State across the country--schools are struggling to meet the needs of students with disabilities. The costs borne by local communities and school districts are rising dramatically. The local burden is immense. This amendment is an opportunity not to alleviate it entirely but to alleviate some of that burden. Providing an additional $1.2 billion for special education not only demonstrates this body's commitment to universal access to education for all children, it helps entire communities by easing the tax burden of everyday taxpayers.

When we do not meet our Federal funding obligations then a mayor or county executive has to make up the difference. As you can imagine, there are only two ways to do this: Either you slash social services or you raise local taxes. I don't know about my colleagues, not all of them, but I can assure you that now is not the time to raise local taxes. I also do not want to see our students shortchanged in the quality and quantity of the programs that are offered from town to town and city to city all across the country. I don't understand how raising taxes or cutting services or quality of services are even options that ought to be considered.

Recently the President signed into law a tax cut of over a hundred billion dollars for some of the wealthiest of our fellow citizens. I represent, of course, one of the most affluent States in this country, Connecticut. Still I can say without equivocation that the vast majority of people in my State would support increasing expenditures for something as important as education. In fact, I know and am confident that even the wealthiest of my citizens, who are the beneficiaries of some of the tax cuts, would much rather see resources used to improve the quality of education for children in the 21st century than to provide a tax cut which most of them would tell you they don't need at all.

I am asking today that Congress, without equivocation, support the same thing that the overwhelming majority of our citizens say they support. I say this with the understanding that the Federal Government is facing its own budget challenge similar to that of the States. I understand that our economy is slumping and that the deficits at the State level are estimated to run at roughly $100 billion. Still, I cannot accept the argument that because our economy is faltering, we cannot provide our children and their families with the critical educational resources they need, and we need, as a nation. I cannot accept that we cannot increase the Federal commitment to special education and otherwise ease the burden of the average American taxpayer.

I do not find it acceptable, further, that we are yet again passing the overwhelming majority of costs of special education implementation on to our States. I do not find it acceptable that we are passing on the overwhelming majority of costs of special education implementation on to our local taxpayers.

Having said all of this, I stress again, education needs to be viewed as, and remain, a national priority. Investment in education is no less important in a weak economy. In fact, I could make a case it is more important. Education is the gateway to a better life, the key to a healthy democracy, and absolutely essential to our long-term national economic growth and security. For these reasons, I ask that my colleagues help our schools, our families, and our children by providing them with the resources they need to maximize their potential.

My colleagues understand that and know well how strongly the Governors, mayors, and county executives across this Nation feel about this issue. Inevitably, over the years they list special education as one of the most, if not the most, important areas in which the Federal Government can assist them by meeting the obligation that we proposed 30 years ago.

Thirty years ago, when we passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, we told States we would help them meet their constitutional obligation to provide children with disabilities a free, appropriate education by providing States with 40 percent of the cost. They would have to pick up 60 percent. The States accepted this ratio of 40 to 60 percent.

Tragically, for three decades the States have picked up 80 percent; in fact, only recently, 80. Up until a few years ago it was more.

The amendment I am offering only gets us about halfway to 40 percent, to about 21 percent. At a rate of $2.2 billion it would be another 9 years before we fully meet the 40 percent obligation. But we have to start. We have passed this legislation in the past, or at least similar legislation, and regrettably the other body has refused to accept it and rejected it. But that doesn't mean we ought not to keep on trying.

I hope the President will step up and support this effort. Every mayor and Governor I have ever talked to, Republican or Democrat, tells me they need help in this area and they want us to live up to our obligations.

I urge my colleagues to support the effort my colleagues from Nebraska, Maine, Vermont, and I, and others, are offering. This is a bipartisan amendment being offered by Democrats and Republicans. This is one area in which we ought to find common cause and common bond and say to our States and mayors: We hear you. You are under great pressure today, tremendous pressure and we can help. Here is a modest proposal to get us to a level of funding that can truly make a difference in our Nation.

I will remind my colleagues that just 2 years ago a bipartisan group of 31 Members of this Chamber introduced legislation to direct the Appropriations Committee funds to fully fund special education by the year 2007. That bill, S. 466, was the foundation of the Harkin-Hagel amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act. It was passed by this body on a unanimous vote. Every single Member of this body voted for it. It would have increased Federal support for special education by $2.5 billion a year until we reached full funding.

Unfortunately, because of strong opposition from the President of the United States and the Republican House leadership, this provision, adopted unanimously by this body, was not included in the final drafting of the No Child Left Behind Act. The administration seemed to be saying no child left behind--unless, of course, he or she is a special needs child.

Today's amendment builds on the step this body took in 2001, 2 years later, through the Harkin-Hagel amendment, to fully meet our special education obligation. Today's amendment enables us, once again, as a bipartisan body, to recommit ourselves to this cause.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment because it is good for students, families, for schools, municipalities, States, and for the average American taxpayer, because so much of education is paid for through local property taxes. Before 1975, only 20 percent of children with disabilities received a formal education. Eighty percent of kids with special needs were being left out of the educational process. Today, as a result of the Special Education Act, we serve 5.4 million school age children, as well as 200,000 infants and toddlers, and 600,000 preschoolers. That is something for which all of us can be deeply proud.

I remember working on this idea when, under President Gerald Ford, I was a new Member of Congress--30 years ago. I had a head of black hair in those days. And while it has turned white over 30 years of experience around here, I remember the great sense of pride in the country when President Ford initiated the effort to not leave behind 80 percent of special education students that were not getting services.

Let me recite the numbers again because every Member ought to be proud of the fact that this is a better and stronger country today because special education children are getting an opportunity to maximize their potential through our public schools, are getting an opportunity to be self-sufficient, independent, contributing citizens. 5.4 million school age children, 200,000 infants, and 600,000 preschoolers are all getting assistance as a result of IDEA. This assistance is being paid primarily with local property tax money.

We need to step up and meet our obligation. As a result of special education legislation, the number of children with disabilities who graduate from high school and go on to college has increased significantly over the last few years. These are things for which America can be proud.

Yet, while we are proud, we must also be concerned with the difficulty the cost of this program causes for cash-strapped States and localities in our Nation. We need to recognize that if we do our part-- if we provide States with additional special education funds--we are helping to relieve tax burdens.

I am going to be asked, I am sure, how do we pay for this. We do this by forward funding--an idea used here by others in the Chamber. By forward funding, we can pick up the cost without creating the kinds of hardships that are felt by slashing away at other programs that need continued support.

Let me just mention, if I can, what this amendment may mean to States in terms of additional assistance. I don't have every State here, but to give you an idea, this amendment would provide an additional $130 million for California; $14 million for my State of Connecticut; for Nebraska, $8 million; for New Hampshire, $5 million; for Pennsylvania, $49 million more for special needs kids; for Tennessee, $26 million more. Think of what that means to the States. I will provide these numbers for my colleagues so they know exactly how much more passing this amendment would mean to their States. What kind of relief it could provide for them as they struggle to meet fiscal burdens and challenges.

I see my colleague from Vermont is here, a cosponsor of the amendment. I don't know how my colleague from Pennsylvania wishes to proceed. I presume he wants to hear from all of us.

At this point, I yield the floor and I hope others may be heard on this issue. I think it is extremely important and it is my fervent hope that this is an amendment that deserves broad-based support.

I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Coleman, be added as a cosponsor as well.

We are getting to the point where we have almost as many Democrats as Republicans cosponsoring this amendment. My hope is that we can all join together on this. We have been divided on a lot of issues. Special needs kids deserve us joining forces. We ought to demonstrate that we can do things together on something such as this. We did it in 2001. It is 2003 now and the problems are so much more severe today in terms of the burdens on States and localities.

I hope I can add every Senator to this amendment. What a wonderful message that would be as we have come back from the August break. The school year has begun and parents are worried about whether resources will be there for their kids. Taxpayers wonder whether there will be additional costs to them. This amendment provides an opportunity for us to get together and send a resounding message across the country that we are willing to get this job done. It may take another 9 or 10 years, but we are on the road to getting it done.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Vermont for his leadership on this issue. Along with Senator Harkin, we were both freshmen Members of Congress in 1975. President Gerald Ford, along with the Congress, adopted the legislation which created the act to deal with students with disabilities. Senator Jeffords has been a champion on this issue for 30 years. I am so pleased to be joining with him in this effort once again. I regret it has taken us this long. We have had some great successes in the past.

As I mentioned earlier, less than 2 years ago we voted unanimously to send a message that we cared about this issue. In fact, we adopted a larger sum of money than what we are asking for today. The amendment Senator Jeffords offered, along with Senator Harkin and Senator Hagel, was for $2.5 billion. We are talking about $2.2 billion, when you add the $1.2 billion that is in the bill. It is less than what we asked for 2 years ago to get us on a road to meeting the full 40 percent funding commitment we made 30 years ago.

I thank the Senator from Vermont once again for his tireless efforts on behalf of America's children, their families, and taxpayers. I know others want to be heard on this matter.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a listing of all the increases, to print what this $1.2 billion will mean State by State. I know the Presiding Officer, my good friend, will be curious to know how Idaho would do. Idaho will get an additional $6 million under this program if we get these additional dollars for special education funds. I am quickly looking down the list because I do not want to leave out my colleague from Oregon. An additional $14 million will go to his communities to defray the cost of special needs children. I include what this amount means to each State so my colleagues can have some idea as to how they will benefit.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I thank my colleague from Vermont.

Will the distinguished Senator yield?

I wish to ask the distinguished Senator from New York; she has raised a tremendously important amendment here. I don't recall the numbers exactly. Maybe my colleague from New York does. What I have been told over the years is, back towards the turn of the 20th century, we were in this country building a new high school every week in order to provide for the challenges of the 20th century. We understood that creating places that were conducive to learning was critically important to take advantage of the technologies that were emerging at

that time. Obviously, we are now in a new century, but the technologies and ability to provide students with access to education are unprecedented historically.

I wonder, from a historical standpoint, if the Senator might share her own thoughts on what has been the history of our Nation regarding the commitment to education, going back to the Northwest Ordinance, the GI bill even before the end of World War II. At times of great national crises, Congress and Presidents always found time, in the midst of other issues, to commit themselves to education. I wonder if she might share some comments and thoughts on that point.

Mr. President, I thank our colleague for her observations. She is absolutely correct about Senator Morrill from Vermont, for whom it was named. The University of Connecticut is a land grant college established as a result of those efforts. Our colleague from New York is absolutely correct in pointing out, even prior--she mentioned during the Civil War--our predecessor body, in the midst of that conflict, found the resources to commit ourselves to higher education.

At the end of World War II, in the earliest days of 1945, the GI bill was adopted. There were a few weeks to go, months to go, but nonetheless that act was debated and discussed. It was debated because it was a lot of money in its day, to say to GIs coming back, we want to provide you with an educational opportunity.

You hear it over and over and over again, Mr. President, when you hear from our veterans, those who never, ever could have dreamed of getting a higher education but for the GI bill. Yet in the midst of the greatest conflict of the 20th century, the Congress of the United States and an American President said: We are going to be prepared for the tremendous opportunities that will come after this conflict. We have benefited a thousandfold, a millionfold for every dollar we spent, I believe. I think my colleagues would admit that for every dollar we spent, in 1945, investing, in the GI bill, the returns to this country and the world have been phenomenal.

So I am deeply grateful to my colleague from New York for her recollection of history and the importance this issue has been given throughout our Nation's seamless history, more than 200 years, of providing for the educational needs of our people. I thank her immensely for this amendment which she has offered to us. I join her in hoping our colleagues will support it.