Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues Senator Kennedy, Senator Inouye, Senator Akaka, Senator Corzine, Senator Murray, and Senator Mikulski, to introduce the Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act. Today marks the 10th anniversary of the enactment of the Family and Medical Leave Act. This landmark legislation was nearly a decade in the making, but today, a decade after enactment, more than 35 million Americans have taken leave under

Mr. President, today I join the Nation in grieving the tragic loss of the crew of the Space Shuttle Columbia, which went down during its return to Earth after 16 days in space.

My heart especially goes out to the families of the seven astronauts on board the Columbia; Rick Husband, the mission commander, William McCool, the shuttle pilot, and the five crew-members, David Brown, Michael Anderson, Laurel Clark, Kalpana Chawla, and Ilan Ramon.

Ever since President Kennedy announced, on May 25, 1961, that the United States land an American safely on the Moon by the end of the 1960s, our Nation has been committed to reaching for the stars.

President Kennedy said, ``We choose to go to the moon . . . not because [it is] easy, but because [it is] hard.''

Thus begun America's space program, a program which has compelled some our Nation's brightest and bravest souls to risk their lives in the name of progress; to travel into the frontiers of space in order to advance human life here on Earth.

The space program has seen its share of tragedy. In the prespace travel days of 1950s, daredevil pilots, such as form Senator John Glenn, risked it all to help us develop jet engine and rocket propulsion technologies, and to learn about the outer-reachers of our stratosphere. Dozens died in the process. They sacrificed their lives to make the space program possible.

Many of us are old enough to remember January 27, 1967, the day Apollo 1 exploded during a launch-pad test, killing all three astronauts on board, Virgil Grissom, Edward White, and Roger Chaffee. I personally remember the numbness I felt when hearing the news, and later watching the tragedy replayed on television.

But the space program went forward; 18 months later, on July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin took man's first steps on the Moon.

All of a sudden, our boundaries seemed limitless.

In 1982, the space shuttle program became operational, and trips to space began seeming commonplace.

But once again, on January 28, 1986, our Nation mourned the loss of shuttle astronauts Michael Smith, Dick Scobee, Judith Resnik, Ronald McNair, Ellison Onizuka, Gregory Jarvis, and Christa McAuliffe, who were lost the Challenger shuttle exploded during take-off.

President Reagan's words spoke for an entire Nation when he said: ``We've grown used to the idea space, and perhaps we forget that we've only just begun. We are still pioneers.''

With those words, the space shuttle program went forward, and there have been dozens of shuttle launches over the past 15 years, reaping untold rewards for humanity in terms of increasing our understanding of physics, biology, and of the physical universe in which we live.

Now we are in the shadow of another tragedy. Some are questioning whether or not manned space flights ought to continue. Some say risks to the lives of the astronauts outweigh the gains we can make in terms of scientific progress.

I say we listen to the families of those lost on Space Shuttle Columbia. They are united in their feelings that their loved ones died doing what they loved most, that these heroes understood the risks, but were undeterred because they also understood the potential for gain.

These families are united in their belief that the space program must go on.

I believe that if it does not, than the lives of these seven astronauts would have been lost in vain.

Tragedies like these are a direct result of America's restless desire for progress, to go further, fly faster, learn more, and advance.

Robert Kennedy once said: ``It is from acts of courage that human history is shaped.''

These seven brave astronauts knew the risks. They were not deterred. They were emboldened. They gave their lives that humanity could take yet another leap forward into the vast unknown of future knowledge.

They are, and always will be, national heroes.

Reading through articles from Sunday's New York Times, I could not help but be struck by the diversity of the crew. Once upon a time, all NASA astronauts were white men from the military. But over the past few decades, NASA has been recruiting astronauts based on their skills, their excellence, and of course, their courage and commitment. That has meant a more diverse astronaut pool.

The crew of the Columbia were a wonderful example of this diversity, men and women, black and white, immigrant and native-born, as well as a crew-member from Israel, Ilan Ramon.

The crew of the Columbia offer us a reminder that there are not boundaries in space, and that humans are one race.

Together, we will overcome this tragedy. And together, we will continue to look toward the stars and beyond.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record seven articles from Sunday's New York Times, each of which offers insights into the lives and personal accomplishments of each of the astronauts lost in Saturday's tragedy.

Madam President, I thank our colleagues from Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island who are here to talk about this issue. In just a few short hours from now we are going to hear the President address the Nation on the State of the Union. If you were to ask the question, what is the state of the union, to the average person, if the question were to be asked, I suppose, of the average family, you may get this sort of analysis: How secure is my family economically? Personally? What does our future look like? That is not a bad question, when you ask how are you doing.

When it comes to the issue of education, I think the answer has to be: Worried about how I see the future for my family and our children. I am relying on the Federal Government to be a supporter of basic needs in education.

You have to be able to listen to the rhetoric. You will hear a speech tonight. I presume it will be a good one. Presidents normally give pretty good speeches on the State of the Union. But I also think, as my colleagues pointed out, matching up the rhetoric, the language, with the action is critically important. It is the same as we would ask of anyone else. It is nice to hear words about diversity of higher education, nice to hear about making college more affordable, and leaving no child behind. But then you quickly have to ask, Now, what have you done to increase the diversity of our populations in higher education? What have you done or what are you doing to make higher education more affordable? And what, in fact, are you doing to see to it that no child is left behind in our elementary and secondary public school education system?

If you look at those three issues alone--as our colleagues already pointed out here, but it deserves being repeated--in the area of diversity, of course, we find the President attacking the affirmative action programs in the country.

My friend from Rhode Island is maybe in a unique position to talk about the United States military, the United States military academies, and what a remarkable job they have done. He is a graduate of West Point and was a distinguished officer in the United States Army for many years, as a professor at West Point. Certainly our military academies have demonstrated how having affirmative action perhaps has contributed significantly to the strength and well-being and diversity of our officer corps in the United States.

In fact, I would argue that the affirmative action programs in our military academies are exactly the affirmative action programs the President has attacked at the University of Michigan and elsewhere.

Second, I ask my colleagues from Rhode Island, New York, or Massachusetts, what has happened to make college more affordable? We have asked that Pell grants be supported. Yet the administration has said already--maybe they will change their mind tonight; I hope they do. Nothing would please me more than to have the President announce in the State of the Union tonight that he is supporting the full funding of the Pell grant program. I hope this evening he will talk about that.

Third, of course, our colleagues have already spoken out about the Leave No Child Behind legislation, with special education, where we are abysmally short. The White House did not stand up last year in support of special education and still continues to oppose the $4.6 billion necessary to meet the goals.

But my colleague may want to comment on the diversity issue, since he is a graduate of the West Point Academy and knows how important those programs have been to strengthening the United States military. I ask him whether or not that is the case.

If my colleague will yield, I asked someone once to define or describe affirmative action. They said: Senator, affirmative action is when someone tells you they can't find somebody, try again. If they still can't, try again.

What my colleague from Rhode Island is saying, when we talk about the success and the wisdom of affirmative action, it has been because of places such as West Point Academy and other of our military academies, where they have tried again to identify and find qualified students and consider them as enrollees to these universities where, in fact, they may have looked into a lot of issues other than just the simple criteria that you might apply to everyone else. As a result of that, they have been able to bring people into our academies. It is not a determining factor, but a factor, in considering the admissions to these academies. Is that not true?

I thank the Senator.

Will my colleague yield on that point?

Who are the Buccaneers?

I want to address a question to our colleague from New York and also my colleague from Vermont. What I am about to say is also something he has talked about in the past. We are often told we are now in a period of international crisis and that resources cannot really be allocated as much as we would like for education given these other demands.

Certainly my colleagues are aware, historically, some of the most significant investments we have made as a nation in terms of education have occurred right in the midst of some of our most significant crises as a country.

In 1787, shortly after the American Revolution, at a time when there was great demand for resources, we insisted that land be set aside in new territories, specifically the Federal Government did, for institutions of higher learning. Right in the middle of the Civil War, there was the Morrill Act, authored by a Senator from Vermont, that created the land grant colleges. Here we were in the greatest crisis in the history of the United States, and yet the Congress and the President in the midst of all of that believed we ought to be doing everything we could to establish land grant colleges.

Then, of course, prior to the end of World War II, the GI bill is another example. Here is a nation at war and demand for resources are great; our Nation is in peril, although it was toward the end of the war. Yet the Congress and the President thought it was so critically important that we allocated resources for furthering the advancement of higher education.

I don't know if my colleagues would like to briefly respond to that point.

I thank my colleague for her answer. She is absolutely correct. It would be a unique and historic tragedy if we were the first generation to not fulfill its obligations to the coming generation.

I said the Homestead Act. It was the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 that was an example of a country in crisis that still found time to invest in its educational needs. I don't know if my colleague from Vermont wanted to comment on that as well. It was Senator Morrill from Vermont who created the land grant colleges. The University of Connecticut was one of the beneficiaries of that idea. Right in the middle of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln and the Congress said: We ought to be investing in the educational needs of the Nation, and authored that legislation. I know my colleague from Vermont has spoken eloquently for and fought for higher education. I thought he might want to comment on those decisions.

I thank my colleague for adding me as a cosponsor. I commend my colleague from Illinois for taking the leadership on this effort. I also commend our colleagues on both sides of the aisle for endorsing and supporting this proposal.

Over the last number of days, there have been rare occasions when we have found some common ground. At this late hour on Wednesday night, it is refreshing to know that on this matter, and I think eventually on the matter raised by Senator Nelson of Florida earlier, the issue of starvation and hunger, we will eventually find some common ground as well.

The leadership of Senator Durbin is something that ought to make all of us proud as Members of this body that the United States can step up to the forefront and try to do everything we possibly can to alleviate the hardships

caused by this scourge. I commend him for his efforts. I thank others who have joined Senator Durbin as a cosponsor and thank Senator Stevens for his willingness to accept this amendment and to endorse it.

I believe the unanimous consent request needs to be made to withdraw both the Dodd and the Gregg amendments and then I will offer what will be a substitute for those two amendments. I think it needs to proceed in that order, if I am not mistaken.

I believe so.

Amendments Nos. 71 And 78 Withdrawn

I think we ought to do that first.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, may I inquire, if I may have 1 minute.

I would like 3 or 4 minutes to explain what the amendment will achieve.

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

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

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, and Senator Gregg, and, of course, my colleagues Senator Mikulski and others who spoke eloquently on this subject matter a few days ago regarding special education funding. I say to my colleague from Alaska that he has been a great help.

This $1.5 billion for special education is going to make a huge difference for schools and communities during the 2003-2004 school year. This is 1-year funding--it is not fully funding special education as we have promised, but it is a great step. As I look at the Presiding Officer, a former mayor, I know that Governors all across this country, as well as mayors, consistently put special education funding at or near the top of their list of priorities. And, it is especially important to note that unlike some other amendments that the Senate has adopted the past few days, this funding will not come through across the board cuts that include such critical programs as Head Start, WIC, and others that I have talked about. This is the way for us to address our priorities.

I am very grateful to my colleagues for supporting this. I will not take a lot of time this evening to go into it. Obviously, it makes a huge difference to our States, our communities, and, of course, families and children who will be the direct beneficiaries of these efforts.

Our colleague from Alabama spoke the other day about the importance of reform in this area. I agree that we need to review these programs to make sure the dollars are reaching the families who need them. And we will be reauthorizing IDEA in this Congress as we have in the past. But in the midst of a lot of pressure, I say to the Senator from Alaska, the chairman of the committee, that this is a special moment.

While it is late evening, and there will be no other recorded votes tonight, I want to thank him immensely for working out a solution to this. This may not be perfect. I know that some are a little bit disgruntled over how we managed to get this done. But this will truly make a difference in the lives of children and families. It is a special moment as we begin this 108th Congress. So, again, I thank the Senator from Alaska, and his staff, for working this out with us.

And, I thank my colleagues who have been stalwart. Senators Harkin, Jeffords, and Hagel, among others, who have done, and I know will continue to do, a tremendous amount of work in this area.

Finally, I hope and expect that this amendment, which includes not only myself and the many other Democrats I listed as co-sponsors, but also Senator Stevens, the chair of the Appropriations Committee, and Senator Gregg, the chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, will be maintained in conference. I urge the conferees to oppose any effort to strip this provision that is so critical to our children and families.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senators Kennedy, Mikulski, Jeffords, Murray, Edwards, Dayton, Corzine, and Kerry, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, for the benefit of my colleagues, this amendment will add $1.5 billion to the appropriations omnibus bill for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, commonly known as IDEA. This is a matter with which all of my colleagues are very familiar. We have debated this matter on numerous occasions over the years. A brief history about the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act may be in order.

It has been almost 30 years--28 years--since Congress passed this legislation in 1975. The promise made in 1975 was that we would provide the States with 40 percent of the funding to educate children with special education needs. We started out with a far lower commitment, and over the years the States have assumed the lion's share of this responsibility. But over the years, we have failed to meet the commitment we made to the States almost 30 years ago.

As a result of efforts by this body in the previous Congress, we came very close to achieving the full funding promise that was made many years ago. In fact, our distinguished colleagues and friends, Senator Jeffords, Senator Hagel, and Senator Harkin, offered an amendment in the previous Congress, which enjoyed unanimous support, to increase the funding over a series of years, that would reach the full funding level as required by the agreement reached in 1975.

Unfortunately, the President and the Republican leadership of the other body refused to agree to the Senate unanimous vote on full funding for special education. As a result of that opposition by the President and by the leadership of the other body, the bipartisan efforts of the Senate and the good work of Senator Hagel, Senator Jeffords, Senator Harkin, and many of us who have worked on this issue over the years failed. In fact, I recall some 15 years ago when I was a member of the Budget Committee and offered in the committee the language which required full funding of special education needs. My friend and colleague from Mississippi, Senator Lott, was on that committee that year. I remember because he cast a vote with me in the Budget Committee, but we failed on a tie vote in the Budget Committee to get the increased funding.

Over the years, we have had good bipartisan support to do everything we could to fully fund IDEA, and every year, for one reason or another, Congress finds a way to avoid its responsibility.

I do not lay that on the shoulders of the Senate because recently we have met the promise we made. My colleagues here understand and know well how strongly the Governors, mayors, and county executives across this country feel about this issue. This is one of their major issues. When we ask them what are the important areas in which we can assist them, inevitably over the years they have listed special education as one of the most important areas in which we can assist them by meeting our obligations we made some 30 years ago.

When Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1975, it promised to help States meet their constitutional obligation to provide

children with disabilities a free appropriate education by paying for 40 percent of those costs.

The States came to us in 1975 and said: We need your help on this issue. As I said, some 30 years ago, we said we would step in and help, just as we have done with title I for children who have different kinds of needs. Those needs are economic because of the levels of poverty across the country. We said this also is an area where we think the Federal Government ought to step up and provide help to the States.

The cost of special education--and again, I am preaching to the choir when I talk to my colleagues about this issue because they know these issues as well as, if not better than, I do. Talk to any mayor, county executive, Governor, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, and they will tell you that the cost of special education is very high. In fact, in some small towns--I know in my State and I am confident in the State of the Presiding Officer and the States of my good friends from Vermont or Rhode Island--two or three children with special education needs can so distort a local budget with the tremendous increase in cost that it becomes almost prohibitive for those smaller communities to meet the obligations. That is why we have heard so many loud voices over so many years calling on us to step up and meet our obligation.

We made a promise. In 1975, we said: As representatives of the Federal Government, we will come up with 40 percent of the cost of this program. That is our obligation. We will do that. Here we are almost 30 years later, and we have reached a 15-percent level. We are still short by some 25 percent of the costs of special education.

We have made great strides in going from zero to 15 percent, particularly in the last 4 or 5 years, but we are still way short.

The amendment I offer this afternoon provides for an additional $1.5 billion in this omnibus appropriations bill for an additional 1 year. This is not a full-funding amendment. I am not asking in this amendment for full funding over the next several years. Since this bill only deals with 1 fiscal year, I am merely trying to add these additional dollars which will get us closer to the obligations.

Two years ago, a bipartisan group of 31 Members of this body introduced S. 466 to direct the appropriations of funds, to fully fund IDEA by 2007. That bill was the foundation of the Harkin-Hagel amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act. The amendment passed by the Senate on a unanimous vote would have increased Federal support for special education by $2.5 billion per year until we reach full funding. Unfortunately, as I mentioned a few moments ago, because of strong opposition from the President of the United States and the Republican House leadership, the provision adopted unanimously by this body was not included in the final No Child Left Behind Act. It made an oxymoron of the title of that bill, No Child Left Behind, when, in fact, we excluded the kids with special education needs from the legislation. So it was No Child Left Behind unless you have special education needs and disabilities.

Today's amendment will enable us once again as a bipartisan Senate to take the first step that we recommitted ourselves to in 2001 by increasing the funding for special education by $2.5 billion for fiscal year 2002 to 2003. We are calling upon our colleagues to do just that.

In my State of Connecticut, in spite of spending hundreds of millions of dollars to fund special education programs, our school districts--as is true in almost every other State in the country--are struggling to meet the needs of their students with disabilities.

The costs borne by local communities and school districts are rising dramatically. From 1992 through 1997, for example, special education costs in Connecticut rose half again as much as did regular education costs. Our schools need our help, and this amendment is an opportunity, as we begin this 108th Congress, to do just that.

Of course, no one in my State--or any other State, for that matter, in our great Nation--questions the value of making sure the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which is both a landmark education law and a landmark civil rights law, be fully implemented. The only question is how best to do that, and a large part of the answer lies in this amendment.

This amendment will demonstrate that we intend to match our commitment to universal access to education with a commitment to do everything we can to help our States and schools provide that access. This amendment, further, will help not only our children in schools, but it will also help entire communities by easing their tax burden.

Our failure to fully fund IDEA does not make the issue go away. When we do not meet our obligation, then a mayor or county executive at the local level has no alternative; they have to, under their constitutions, meet these responsibilities. So when we duck our responsibility, we only increase the burdens locally. They can slash their budgets locally in other vitally needed areas or they can increase taxes.

As all of us know, there are not many options left at the local level. At the local level, that is where the rubber hits the road, where people need and require that certain obligations be met. Unfortunately, when we do not step to the plate and fulfill our promises on the national level, then we only increase tremendously the burden on our Governors, mayors, and county executives all across this great country.

Homeowners and businesspeople end up paying higher taxes or watch services they depend upon be slashed, not only in my own State, but all around this country, because so much of education is paid for through local property taxes.

Again, I do not need to recite to my colleagues the tremendous burdens that are being felt by local and State budgets all across this country. The estimates are now that deficits running at the State level may hover around $100 billion this year and only get worse next year and the year after. In my State alone, it is about half a billion this year. My Governor tells me it is going to be about $1.3 billion next year. I do not know what it is in the State of Alabama, but I presume it might be like what Connecticut is. I think California is around $34 billion.

I heard some of my colleagues say the other day, in Michigan it is $4 billion or $5 billion. I think someone said in Minnesota it was like $4 billion or $5 billion.

We have these mounting deficits at the State and local level. There is a need in special education. There was a promise made some 30 years ago by the Federal Government. What I am asking for in this amendment on the omnibus bill is that we take out the $1.5 billion, if we could, and see if we cannot step in and provide some real relief for our States and localities in their hour of need and the need of families who have a child with special needs.

The President recently proposed another plan to cut taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars for some of the wealthiest Americans. I represent one of the most affluent States in the country. I probably have a higher percentage of my population who would benefit very directly as a result of the President's tax proposals. Without equivocation or hesitation, the overwhelming majority of the people in my State, including the most affluent, honestly believe the best use of resources is things such as special education. While they, as everyone else, would love to have a tax cut--there is nothing new about that-- when asked to balance the priorities and needs of a nation, they understand providing tax relief for people in the top 1, 2 or 3 percent of income earners in the country at a moment such as this is not a wise or prudent use of the resources of this Nation when there are so many other demands that must be met.

I understand the Federal Government faces the same budget challenges in today's slumping economy as do our States and towns, but we cannot accept the argument that because our economy is faltering we cannot provide our children and their families with critical educational resources and otherwise help average Americans. We would and should not accept that argument if our homeland security or national defense were at stake, and we certainly cannot afford to do it here, either.

Investment in education is no less important now than it was when our economy was more healthy. It is essential to our long-term national economic security. So I ask my colleagues

to seize this opportunity and choose to help our schools but, more importantly, our families and young children who need these resources in order to maximize their potential.

I do not know of anyone, regardless of to which party they belong, Conservative, Liberal or moderate, whatever label one wants to put on themselves politically, that when they look in the eyes of a child who has special needs, can say, I am sorry right now but we cannot provide the resources to their town, county, local, or our State government because we have these other priorities that are making too many demands on us. That is not my America.

My America says, when there is a child with disabilities in need we step to the plate and provide them the kind of help they ought to have so they have a chance to become independent and maximize their potential to see to it that they can be productive citizens and add to the great strength and wealth of our Nation.

I can go down the list of the various States and what they will lose or gain. At the end of my statement, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter written on January 16, 2003, to the majority leader, Senator Frist, and the minority leader, Senator Daschle, in which they specifically go down and list the importance of this amendment and the funding I am asking for, the $1.5 billion, as one of their top priorities. In fact, they list it as the top priority.

There are a whole list of organizations that support full funding for IDEA. I ask unanimous consent to have that list printed in the Record at the end of my statement.

I am not asking for full funding with this amendment. I am asking for the $1.5 billion in this omnibus appropriations bill. I am confident every one of these organizations would support this amendment, even though it is not full funding, but rather the additional amounts this year when we consider the pressures on our States.

Lastly, in looking at the differences in our States--the top State on the list is that of the Presiding Officer--the difference right away where there is a gap between what I am offering and the omnibus bill, it is a little less than $30 million in the State of Alabama, and this amendment would make up the difference. Going down further, in my own State of Connecticut, the difference would be about $18 million. In the State of Vermont, the difference would be about $3 million. In the State of Rhode Island, the difference would be about $5 million in this amendment. What a difference it would make.

I saw my colleague from Missouri in the Chamber recently. In the State of Missouri, the difference would be about $30 million.

I have all 50 States listed and the difference that this $1.5 billion could make. That may not sound like much when a State is facing billions of dollars in deficits, but the fact that we might step up to the plate in Nevada--I apologize to my friend of Nevada, who is sitting right in front of me, but I did not see him--it is about $10 million in his State.

I ask unanimous consent to have this list printed in the Record at the end of my statement. It is printed on both sides of one sheet of paper. Members can then have an idea of what the benefit of this small amendment could mean to them and their States.

There are other Members who want to be heard on this issue. As we begin this debate in this Congress, this is one area on which we ought to find common ground. We will have our differences on other issues but every one of our States, Governors, mayors, and families with children with disabilities are asking us to step up and do what we can for them. As we start out in the year 2003, this modest amendment could make such a difference to people across this country and is something we ought to be able to join forces together on and adopt.

Exhibit 1

National Governors Association,

Washington, DC, January 16, 2003.

Hon. Bill Frist,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, the Capitol, Washington, DC.

Hon. Tom Daschle,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, the Capitol, Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Frist and Senator Daschle: On behalf of the

nation's Governors, we are writing to express our support for

several key provisions of the (FY) 2003 omnibus

appropriations bill affecting state programs. First, we

appreciate that the bill would maintain the FY 2003 highway

program investment level at $31.8 billion. With a sluggish

economy and many states facing budgetary difficulties, now is

not the time to cut federal highway investment. In addition,

Governors strongly support the $1.5 billion provided in the

bill to implement the new election reform law. We also

appreciate that the bill includes an extension of the

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant

and related programs through September 30, 2003. It is

critical that states have reliability of funds in order to

continue operating their welfare reform programs while

Congress considers TANF reauthorization.

We would also like to express our support for the following

amendments:

Dodd Amendment. The Governors support Senator Dodd's

amendment calling for a $1.5 billion increase in state grants

for special education. We are committed to continuously

improving the academic performance of all students, including

students with disabilities. The nation's Governors support

this amendment and urge Congress to continue to work toward

enacting legislation that makes the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funding a mandatory

expenditure with incremental increases towards meeting the 40

percent federal requirement.

Murray amendment. The Governors support providing the

necessary funding for Amtrak to support the continuation of a

national passenger rail system as proposed by Senator Murray.

Amtrak must be provided a sufficient level of funding to

guarantee there will be no break or threat of a break in

service. We must be certain that Amtrak will not encounter

the rolling financial crises it experienced during the past

year.

Chafee-Rockefeller amendment. The nation's Governors urge

your support for quick action on a bipartisan compromise to

protect resources in the State Children's Health Insurance

Program (S-CHIP). Preserving the S-CHIP funds that have

reverted to the federal treasury would keep $1.2 billion of

the FY 1998 and FY 1999 allocations within the program until

2004.

Harkin amendment. The Governors urge support for restoring

current funding levels to the Edward Byrne block grant

program for state and local law enforcement activities.

Finally, while Governors appreciate the inclusion of $2

billion for first responder grants, we urge support for the

President's original request of providing $3.5 billion

coordinated through the states. Just as Congress and the

President have responded by acting on a far-reaching

reorganization and consolidation of federal agencies, so too

the President recognized the critical role of states--the

first line of defense and the first line of coordination of

response to any attack. Thus, this should be meaningful, new

resources that respect the diversity, responsibilities, and

capabilities of states and the immediate need for resources

for national defense. Therefore, we encourage you to add an

additional $1.5 billion in first responder grant funds to the

$2 billion, so that we meet the President's recognition of

the need to be prepared to respond to and recover from any

terrorist attacks.

We greatly appreciate your consideration of our views.

Sincerely,

Governor Paul E. Patton,

Chairman.

Governor Dirk Kempthorne,

Vice Chairman.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

If the minority whip will yield, my intention was to make a few additional comments, but I have spoken on the amendment. I would like some idea of when we might do this. I know the Senator from Rhode Island has an amendment.

That is fine. We have a couple of other Members, I have just been informed, who would like to speak on the special education amendment. They are not here yet because of the conditions outside. In order to accommodate our colleague from Rhode Island, who is here--and Senator Dayton from Minnesota is on his way--we could work up a proposal and come back later in the afternoon when the other Members are here and finish up the debate on that and allow these other amendments to be debated, since those Senators are here.

Mr. President, I am happy to yield whatever time the Senator from Maryland needs.

Mr. President, how much time remains under the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut?

Mr. President, I will take 10 minutes. Will the Senator notify me when that is up?

Mr. President, I want to express some thoughts. I thank my colleagues for, once again, reconfirming support for the special education program. That is heartening. As the Senator from Maryland pointed out, of course, if we follow the plan of the present occupant of the White House, we will be talking about three decades more--we will have to wait a longer time than we have waited to complete the 40- percent requirement that we have already endured.

So if you are a mayor or a county executive or a Governor, you can take real heart in the fact that for about the next three decades we will be at this debate on getting full funding--if we rely on the administration's plans.

I will remind my colleagues once again that this body and the previous Congress voted unanimously for a full funding program over the next 6 years for special education. It was the administration--the present administration--and the leadership of the other body--the Republican leadership--that killed the proposal the Senate unanimously supported. That is where we are. Those are the facts as we find them today. We can go back and revisit history if you want, but the fact is that the Governors and mayors out there may find a history lesson interesting, but they want to know what we are going to do. What is this administration going to do? What has this administration done? What is the Republican leadership in the Senate and House going to have to do if we are going to meet the obligations we talk about?

So what we have here--as the Senator from New Hampshire suggests he will support--is the $1.5 billion. He is going to do so by adding further to the across-the-board cuts in domestic spending--adding to the impact of the already 2.9 percent across-the-board cuts. I will share with my colleagues what this means.

Now, $1.5 billion is not a huge amount as a percentage--whatever it is, four-tenths of 1 percent. Add that, if you will, to the 2.9. The WIC Program will be cut by $137 million as a result of the 2.9-percent cut. The Food Safety Inspection Service will be cut by $22 million. The Food and Drug Administration will be cut by $40 million under these proposals. State-Justice-Commerce will be cut by $113 million in spending.

Go down to Head Start. This analysis shows what the 2.9-percent cut means in energy and water issues--there it is, a $239 million cut; environmental management, $203 million. There is a whole list of programs, including the Bureau of Reclamation and the Mississippi River Tributaries Program. If you look at Head Start, $63 million will be cut. Air traffic control--that ought to be good news for those who worry about domestic terrorism; transportation security, Coast Guard will be cut by $72 million. The VA-HUD--veterans take note--has $903 million in cuts; VA medical care, $692 million in cuts. So go ahead and add four-tenths of 1 percent to the already 2.9.

I don't hear anybody talking about a slight cut in the $670 billion tax cut in all we are proposing here. Then my colleagues say we will take your $1.5 billion, but we are going to give a ``haircut'' to every other domestic spending program except the tax cut, which goes to the top 1 or 2 percent of income earners. I represent a State that has probably a greater percentage of those income earners than almost any other State in the country. I can say with certainty that my constituents--those included, by the way--who would be the beneficiaries of this tax cut would tell you that at this particular juncture that kind of a tax cut, given the fiscal needs of this country, is unwise.

When my colleagues say we are going to make everybody pay a price, we are going to make that haircut of 2.9 percent, including the budget cuts I have suggested, and add this to it, just make sure you understand what we are talking about. We are not talking about a tax cut which taxes revenues over the table--I am not suggesting there isn't room for a tax cut. But how about including that in the proposal? Why is that particular area always left out and all we talk about are the domestic programs that affect families so strongly?

I guarantee you, by the way, as you start looking at Head Start, the WIC Program, food safety programs, while you are providing $1.5 billion in special education needs and simultaneously cutting back on these other programs, it is not uncommon for the same family and the same child to be the recipient on one hand of the 1.5, and simultaneously getting food in the WIC Program, food safety programs, and the Head Start programs.

Again, I don't know how you can sit here and look at a child who has autism or is suffering from juvenile diabetes, Down's Syndrome, or other special education needs and say: I am sorry we cannot touch the tax cuts, but you are going to have to take this cut in other areas. When my colleagues offer their side-by-side amendment and suggest yet further cuts, I think that is cruel. I think it is unnecessary. I think there are ways of doing this without going after some of these very issues that are so critically important to the well-being of our Nation. They have a lot to do with the economic security of our country as well.

We need to have a balanced approach. So, Mr. President, we will have a debate further along in this year on full funding again. I only hope the administration changes its view from the last Congress. I will reiterate what I said earlier. Governors and mayors list this as their top priority. Mr. Governor or Mr. Mayor, when the first amendment is voted on and we are telling you, by the way, we are going to help you out in special education, hold your breath because we are simultaneously reaching into your other pocket and causing you to raise taxes or cut other vital spending needs you may have because we are reaching in to rob you of the necessary resources you need as well to run your States and your communities. It is a cruel hoax, in a way, we are laying out before people.

I am not opposed to looking at reform efforts. We had a fine effort in 1997--some of my colleagues have forgotten this already--to look at the special education programs. Again, with the reauthorization, I presume we will look at them again. I certainly welcome that. Anytime we have a program such as IDEA, close examination of how well it is working, whether or not the intended beneficiaries are receiving the resources they need, is something we ought to do. It is the only responsible thing to do.

Let's not simultaneously suggest that we are going to have to wait for examination before we provide the resources to the States and communities. They do not have a chance of waiting. They have to provide for these children under existing law. Congress mandated it 28 years ago, and we have only gotten to 15, 16 percent of that 40-percent commitment.

The $1.5 billion in this amendment gets us a little closer to the 40- percent commitment. It raises and provides the resources to these communities for the fiscal year we are in already. We will come back again later in this Congress to see if we can get full funding set up in a way which we did a year and a half ago.

When the vote occurs on this amendment, there are two options: One, to provide the $1.5 billion while going after domestic spending programs, along the lines I mentioned already or, second, we can say we can do it and find the means of doing it, and one of the means is to reduce by a small amount the tax cut the President intends to provide for people in the country. The point being that most of the recipients of this tax cut are people who have incomes in excess of $250,000.

Tell that to a family with an autistic child. Tell that to a family with a child who has Down syndrome or serious learning disabilities: Sorry, we would like to provide that kind of help you need, but, you see, we have an obligation to provide a tax break to someone making $300,000, $400,000 a year. We cannot just quite meet the obligation

to you. I know we made a promise to do it. We said 28 years ago we would do it. We are up to 15 percent of that obligation. By the way, if you wait another 33 years, we will complete that obligation, 60 years after we made the promise. Then we will get you your resources because we cannot afford to give you the help you need without cutting everything else in the domestic area. Of course, we cannot touch the tax cut for the most affluent Americans.

I do not know of anyone outside the people in this town who believe in the logic of that argument. Nonetheless, watch and see what happens when we vote on this amendment. That is exactly what will happen. Go home and explain why we have to cut into these other areas to serve needy kids in this country.

Mr. President, I will take 1 additional minute. I repeat what I said earlier, this is not the America of which people think. We are blessed with great resources. We ought to have the common sense to find a balance, to see to it we meet our obligations when we make them; that we try to help those who are least able to help themselves and their families.

I underscore the point the Senator from Maryland made a few moments ago. Families of children with special needs face incredible pressures, especially those making $25,000, $30,000, $35,000, $40,000, $45,000, $60,000. There are incredible pressures within that family. Why is it we cannot find the resources to help our States, our Governors, our county executives to do more to help these children?

Reforming the process, I am all for that. But the only way we can help is to go after the WIC Program, the Head Start Program, food safety programs, and the like? That I do not understand, and I defy my colleagues to ask an average American to explain it as well. They do not understand it when they hear that argument or we are going to wait another 33 years to meet the obligations under this program.

I feel passionately about this issue; I care deeply about this issue because it is the role that Government ought to play. When I look at families in my State and across the country--and I know the pressures they are feeling and what a small amount it is to offer some relief-- just some relief--to the families feeling this heat and pressure, the anxiety it causes--I do not understand that we cannot step up and meet the obligation because we cannot touch a tax cut that goes to the most affluent citizens of this country. I do not understand that situation. I hope my colleagues do not either. When the vote occurs tomorrow, I hope we will support the amendment that provides assistance but does not do so off the backs of people who can least afford it in the country.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I rise, and am joined by my colleagues Senator Mikulski, Senator Jeffords, Senator Murray, Senator Landrieu and Senator Dayton, to introduce legislation to amend the Higher Education Act to improve access to higher education for low- and middle-income students by doubling the authorized maximum Pell Grant within six years. This bill has the strong support of the Student Aid Alliance, whose 60 organizations represent students, colleges, parents, and others who care about higher education.

Pell Grants were established in the early 1970s by our former colleague, Claiborne Pell, of Rhode Island. They are the largest source of federal grant aid for college students. For millions of low- and middle-income students they are the difference between attending or not attending college. But, unfortunately, they don't make as much of a difference as they used to.

In 1975, the maximum appropriated Pell Grant covered all of the average student's tuition, fees, room, and board at community colleges. It covered about 80 percent of those costs at public universities and about 40 percent at private universities. Today, Pell Grant's purchasing power has dropped by more than 30 percent at community colleges and been more than cut in half at universities. It covers only 38 percent of the costs at public universities and 15 percent at private universities. That's not just a drop, it's a free-fall.

For students from the lowest income families, college is getting farther and farther out of reach. Since 1975, as a percentage of the family income of the poorest 20 percent of families, the cost of public universities has increased by half and the cost of private universities has doubled. For middle-income families, the cost of college also has increased significantly as a percentage of income.

As a result of all this, low- and middle-income students who want to attend college are forced to finance their education with an ever- increasing percentage of loans as opposed to grants, which effectively increases their cost of attendance even more and in many cases, keeps them from going to college at all.

Of course, the President's budget would have frozen the maximum Pell Grant. So, on top of leaving millions of children behind by failing to meet the bipartisan promises of the No Child Left Behind Act, the President's budget would leave even more children behind who work hard and do well in school and want to go on to college.

We can't kid ourselves, if we're serious about leaving no child behind, if we're serious about having a society where equal opportunity for all is more than just rhetoric, then we need to reinvigorate the Pell program.

The Student Aid Alliance put it very well, in talking about students, when they said that ``investing in their future is investing in our nation's future.'' We can start investing in our Nation's future by supporting the amendment that will be offered to the Omnibus appropriations bill today to increase the maximum appropriated Pell Grant to $4,500.

That won't bring Pell Grant's purchasing power back to where it was in 1975, but it is a critical first step, and I intend to continue the effort through this bill and other measures as we reauthorize the Higher Education Act this Congress.

I hope that my colleagues will join me.

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

Mr. President, I rise, and am joined by my colleagues Senator Mikulski, Senator Jeffords, Senator Murray, Senator Landrieu and Senator Dayton, to introduce legislation to amend the Higher Education Act to improve access to higher education for low- and middle-income students by doubling the authorized maximum Pell Grant within six years. This bill has the strong support of the Student Aid Alliance, whose 60 organizations represent students, colleges, parents, and others who care about higher education.

Pell Grants were established in the early 1970s by our former colleague, Claiborne Pell, of Rhode Island. They are the largest source of federal grant aid for college students. For millions of low- and middle-income students they are the difference between attending or not attending college. But, unfortunately, they don't make as much of a difference as they used to.

In 1975, the maximum appropriated Pell Grant covered all of the average student's tuition, fees, room, and board at community colleges. It covered about 80 percent of those costs at public universities and about 40 percent at private universities. Today, Pell Grant's purchasing power has dropped by more than 30 percent at community colleges and been more than cut in half at universities. It covers only 38 percent of the costs at public universities and 15 percent at private universities. That's not just a drop, it's a free-fall.

For students from the lowest income families, college is getting farther and farther out of reach. Since 1975, as a percentage of the family income of the poorest 20 percent of families, the cost of public universities has increased by half and the cost of private universities has doubled. For middle-income families, the cost of college also has increased significantly as a percentage of income.

As a result of all this, low- and middle-income students who want to attend college are forced to finance their education with an ever- increasing percentage of loans as opposed to grants, which effectively increases their cost of attendance even more and in many cases, keeps them from going to college at all.

Of course, the President's budget would have frozen the maximum Pell Grant. So, on top of leaving millions of children behind by failing to meet the bipartisan promises of the No Child Left Behind Act, the President's budget would leave even more children behind who work hard and do well in school and want to go on to college.

We can't kid ourselves, if we're serious about leaving no child behind, if we're serious about having a society where equal opportunity for all is more than just rhetoric, then we need to reinvigorate the Pell program.

The Student Aid Alliance put it very well, in talking about students, when they said that ``investing in their future is investing in our nation's future.'' We can start investing in our Nation's future by supporting the amendment that will be offered to the Omnibus appropriations bill today to increase the maximum appropriated Pell Grant to $4,500.

That won't bring Pell Grant's purchasing power back to where it was in 1975, but it is a critical first step, and I intend to continue the effort through this bill and other measures as we reauthorize the Higher Education Act this Congress.

I hope that my colleagues will join me.

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

Mr. President, I note the presence of several of my colleagues. I will not take long.

I commend our friend and colleague from Massachusetts for offering this amendment. He mentioned at the close of his remarks how this body in the previous Congress had voted some $16 billion in authorization moneys for title I. That amendment was offered by myself and my colleague from the State of Maine, Senator Collins. We received 79 votes on that amendment, a recorded vote, supporting the $16 billion figure to authorize the title I funds.

What we are doing here today with this amendment is merely trying to confirm once again the Senate's commitment in the previous Congress to that dollar amount. My colleague from Massachusetts has laid out the substantive arguments--in fact, even gone back and reminded us of the history of our efforts to try and get additional funding for the critical area of elementary and secondary education. I rise to support this effort and hope once again for the same spirit that imbued this body only a Congress ago, when 79 of us thought this was so important we ought to support the authorization figure of $16 billion. You now have an opportunity, albeit a bit late, but nonetheless an opportunity to reconfirm the commitment made by most of us to that dollar amount.

We have all heard the language and the rhetoric over the last several years about leaving no child behind. Nothing could be more important to the well-being of this country than to see to it that we make the necessary investments our children will absolutely need if they are going to have the quality of education necessary to maximize their potential in the 21st century. I can't think of a better way to begin that effort than by providing the resources necessary.

We have already seen the budget cuts, some $4.6 billion short of the promise made when the President signed into law the $16 billion authorization level. Yet hardly before the ink was dry on that commitment we saw the cuts come in. How many of us remember the President traveling around the country, celebrating this major first initiative of his administration, proud of the fact he had built bipartisan support for dealing with the educational needs of America's children. What a great irony to find ourselves back here in this Congress arguing with the administration about restoring some funds to a program that was so highly celebrated by them.

This is an issue that should not divide Americans by ideology or party or partisanship. I do not know of a single citizen who believes we can continue to prosper and grow as a people while simultaneously depriving the youngest of our citizens the opportunity to acquire the skills necessary to do what will have to be done to make us a strong and prosperous Nation in the 21st century.

We all know how painfully difficult it is to provide that opportunity of education today at the local level, with property taxes being the major source of funding for educational needs, and in some areas State budgets also contribute. It is incredible to me that we contribute less than 2 percent of the entire Federal budget to the elementary and secondary educational needs of our students. About 6 cents on the education dollar comes from the national Government, and the overwhelming burden falls on local property taxpayers.

We have been debating the issue of affirmative action and the President's decision yesterday to oppose the plan at the University of Michigan. I will find another moment and time to address that issue head on. But let me suggest to the President and others, if you want to know why there is a need for affirmative action, you merely have

to look at how we spend money when it comes to elementary and secondary education and on title I. If you are wondering why a child entering college may need some further consideration when it comes to accepting them or rejecting them to a higher educational opportunity, consider what we do at the earliest stages of their educational development.

In most States in this country, if you go to the inner city urban schools, you will find that 35 or 36 percent of the teachers are not certified to teach the course the children are taking; whereas Statewide, in the more affluent communities, those numbers are dramatically lower.

We should be doing everything we can. If you want to eliminate affirmative action, then you better begin here with the amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts, to make it possible for every child to have an equal opportunity to learn. Today, given the disparities in our communities based on the wealth, the poverty, or affluence of those communities increases the likelihood of an educational opportunity. It should not be a question of where you were born as to whether you will have a right or an opportunity to succeed. We ought to be doing everything we can to see to it that every child, regardless of the circumstances of their birth, will have an opportunity to achieve to their maximum potential.

We bear no responsibility to guarantee success. We bear every responsibility to see to it that there is an opportunity to succeed or fail. That is all we are trying to do in this one area of title I and Pell grants which the Senator rightly has added to the amendment.

I can't recall a prouder day in the last Congress than when we stood here, 79 of us, and Senator Collins and I offered that amendment.

Many thought we could not pass it. But 79 of us here said we ought to do this on title I. I hope the Members who cast the vote that day, as they walk into this Chamber in the coming hour or 2, will recall how they felt when they actually voted to see to it that we maximize the dollars necessary to support this critically important program and cast a ballot again today in this Congress to see that we have full funding for title I and the necessary dollars to support the Pell Grant Program, which will make it possible for children of modest means to achieve a higher education which, in the absence of this amendment, would be difficult to do.

This is important to children at both the elementary and secondary school levels. It is important to the security of America. Our security is directly linked to the wellness and ability of our children to acquire the educational skills they will need. This is a national security issue, not just an education issue. I look forward to supporting this amendment when the vote occurs.

I yield the floor.