Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I rise to join Senators Gregg, Kennedy, Frist, and others in introducing the Museum and Library Services Act.

This legislation, which extends the authorization of museum and library services through fiscal year 2009 and makes several important improvements to current law, is a compromise based on S. 238, bipartisan legislation I introduced with Senators Kennedy, Cochran, Collins, Snowe, and others in January.

Like S. 238, this bill ensures that library activities are coordinated with the school library program I authored, which is now part of the No child Left Behind Act of 2001. It also doubles the minimum State allotment under the Library Program, which will enable smaller States such as Rhode Island to benefit and implement the valuable services and programs that larger States have been able to put in place. It includes an increase in the indemnity limits under the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act to ensure continued support for American museums as they facilitate international cultural exchanges through touring exhibitions here in the U.S. and loans of American art around the world.

The bill also updates the uses of funds for library and museum programs and increases the authorization under the Library services and Technology Act, LSTA, from $150 million to $250 million and the Museum Services Act from $28.7 million to $41.5 million. We should meet these funding levels in the appropriations process due to the strong bipartisan nature of the bill we are introducing today. I personally believe that our libraries and museums should be more robustly funded, particularly as these institutions play increasingly important roles in our lives. Indeed, the bipartisan bill that Senator Kennedy and I put forward earlier this year included even higher funding levels. But, in an effort to move this bill forward, I have agreed to support this compromise.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation and work for its swift passage.

Mr. President, today I rise to join Senators Gregg, Kennedy, Frist, and others in introducing the Museum and Library Services Act.

This legislation, which extends the authorization of museum and library services through fiscal year 2009 and makes several important improvements to current law, is a compromise based on S. 238, bipartisan legislation I introduced with Senators Kennedy, Cochran, Collins, Snowe, and others in January.

Like S. 238, this bill ensures that library activities are coordinated with the school library program I authored, which is now part of the No child Left Behind Act of 2001. It also doubles the minimum State allotment under the Library Program, which will enable smaller States such as Rhode Island to benefit and implement the valuable services and programs that larger States have been able to put in place. It includes an increase in the indemnity limits under the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act to ensure continued support for American museums as they facilitate international cultural exchanges through touring exhibitions here in the U.S. and loans of American art around the world.

The bill also updates the uses of funds for library and museum programs and increases the authorization under the Library services and Technology Act, LSTA, from $150 million to $250 million and the Museum Services Act from $28.7 million to $41.5 million. We should meet these funding levels in the appropriations process due to the strong bipartisan nature of the bill we are introducing today. I personally believe that our libraries and museums should be more robustly funded, particularly as these institutions play increasingly important roles in our lives. Indeed, the bipartisan bill that Senator Kennedy and I put forward earlier this year included even higher funding levels. But, in an effort to move this bill forward, I have agreed to support this compromise.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation and work for its swift passage.

Mr. President, I commend Senators Grassley and Baucus for bringing this important legislation to the floor, but I particularly commend and thank Senators Santorum and Lieberman for their principled and tireless efforts to bring this legislation to the floor and for recognizing that original versions of this legislation contained elements that were, to say the least, controversial.

Senator Santorum particularly recognized the need to provide additional resources to faith-based organizations and other charitable organizations through new incentives in the tax code to encourage people to contribute to charities. All of these issues compelled him to make a very difficult choice, a very important choice, and I think a very statesmanlike choice to send to the floor today a version of the bill that I assume will get the unanimous approval of this Senate.

It recognizes our shared belief that the more resources we can direct to organizations that are committed to helping people, the better off we will be. The increase in the social service block grant is a tremendous step forward and is something I know I am proud of, but certainly the Senator from Pennsylvania has to be very proud of because he is the principal architect of this effort, and the new tax advantages also are very important.

Indeed, Senator Santorum and Senator Lieberman worked very hard to improve legislation that in the other body was submitted as the Community Solutions Act of 2001, known as H.R. 7 in the 107th Congress. That legislation contained a number of controversial and potentially unconstitutional provisions, but they worked very diligently, very carefully, very thoughtfully to eliminate those provisions from their bill and ultimately today to bring this legislation to the floor, which I think and believe will get, as I said, unanimous approval by this body. Certainly I approve of it.

The CARE Act is going to provide increased resources for needed social services, and it is going to do so without including at this juncture troubling provisions that were in the original House bill. I know the Senator from Pennsylvania reserves his right to engage again on this issue--in fact, I believe he will exercise his right in all forums, and that is the glory of this body, and we shall engage in more extended debate, I think, in the future. But this afternoon is an opportunity to commend him, thank him, and recognize his wise and statesmanlike conduct. I again thank Senator Santorum.

The debate about church and state in this land precedes, indeed, the Constitution of the United States. It has been ongoing since the early days of the American experience. Religion has been an important part of our national life throughout our history. Indeed, European immigration in large part was motivated by the search for an environment conducive to freedom of conscience and religious exercise unhampered by State involvement.

Today, in the year 2003, religion remains a vital force in our national life and religiously affiliated institutions play a critical role in the provision of social services. For example, in 1996, Federal, State, and local governments granted $1.3 billion to Catholic Charities USA, comprising 64 percent of its budget. In 1999, 53 percent of Catholic Charities' budget came from State and local governments, and an additional 9 percent came from the Federal Government.

In 2001, United Jewish Communities received a Federal grant of $59.8 million. If indirect payments were included--for example, Medicaid, Medicare, vouchers, or food stamps--the amount flowing through religious organizations would be significantly higher.

Both of these mission-driven, faith-based groups are independently or separately incorporated as nonprofits and both are able to distinguish their religious activities from their secular social services activities.

So an initial point we must recognize in the debate about faith-based initiatives is that it is not whether religious groups will or should play a role in the spiritual and temporal lives of Americans--they do, and they will continue to do so--nor is the question about whether the government discriminates against faith-based charitable groups. The question is how the important roles faith-based organizations play can continue to meet the constitutional requirement of separation between church and state, both as a matter of law and as wise public policy.

This constitutional standard has strengthened religion in America compared to other countries around the world. We can see on the nightly newscasts the effects of intolerance across the globe, of established religions battling other beliefs. In America, we have been spared much of that. I believe it is directly attributable to the wise condition included in the First Amendment.

My awareness and sensitivity to these issues might spring in large part from my roots growing up in Rhode Island. As a child, I learned the history of Roger Williams and the founding of the colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantation. Upon leaving the enforced orthodoxy of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, Roger Williams started a settlement that ultimately became Rhode Island. This settlement was founded on his belief, in his words: ``that no man should be molested for his conscience.''

The spirit of Roger Williams was captured by his contemporary, John Clarke, in the petition for a new royal charter by the people of Rhode Island in 1663. In his words, the people of Narragansett Bay:

have it much in their hearts, if they may be permitted, to

hold forth a lively experiment, that a flourishing and civil

state my stand, yea, and best be maintained. . . . with a

full liberty in religious commitments.

As a result of this religious liberty, Rhode Island became a refuge for people persecuted for their religious beliefs elsewhere. And Anabaptists, Quakers, and Jews settled in Rhode Island because of its commitment to religious liberty and tolerance.

This lively experiment became a model for the Founding Fathers and helped lead to the drafting of the First Amendment: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''

In explaining what the First Amendment meant to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote that the combined effect of the establishment and free exercise clauses of the Constitution was a ``wall of separation between church and state.''

Jefferson's comments were not unique to him. Senator Durbin has already made a reference to President

James Madison. President Madison what was meant by this separation of church and state extremely clear in several messages he delivered on Government funding of religious endeavors. In 1811, he vetoed a congressional bill granting the use of some Federal land to a church in the Mississippi territory. President Madison stated:

Because the bill in reserving a certain parcel of land in

the United States for the use of said Baptist Church

comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of

funds to the United States for the use and support of

religious societies, contrary to the article of the

Constitution which declares that ``Congress shall make no law

respecting a religious establishment''. . . Resolved. That

the said bill does not pass.

Indeed, I find it interesting that conservatives would so cavalierly dismiss so much of the history of this country and disregard so many of the fundamental principles of the Founding Fathers. President Bush and his conservative followers want to transform the relationship between church and state by directly funding pervasively sectarian organizations. He has done this by regulation and by Executive order, since he has largely been unsuccessful in accomplishing these tasks through the legislative process.

Just consider some of the changes that he has advanced thus far. In a June 2001 Department of Justice memorandum, the Department of Justice took the legal position that faith-based organizations that are given Federal taxpayer dollars to run governmental programs should be able to engage in employment discrimination on the basis of religion. Subsequent to this memorandum, the President by Executive order overrode a rule first enunciated by President Franklin Roosevelt that the Federal Government should not give contracts to employers who engage in discrimination on the basis of religion. Thus, it is now the position of the White House that government contractors can discriminate.

The President believes the government should fund faith-based organizations who use proselytization and prayer to cure drug addiction and other social programs. In his State of the Union Address, President Bush cited one such program in Louisiana that expressly combats drug abuse with faith. The head of another often-cited religious program, Teen Challenge, boasted to Congress that he was not only able to get kids to stop using drugs, he converted Jews into Christians in the process.

In newly proposed HUD regulations, the Administration says that Federal funds can be used to construct a religious building used for religious activities if the building also can be used for a public purpose such as counseling or a food pantry. At least that is the proposal.

With these and other initiatives, the President is attempting to breach the wall the Founding Fathers set up between church and state. These initiatives are clearly designed to fund proselytization and to promote certain types of religion.

There are legal challenges being raised to many of these proposals. But the long and short of it is, we have an opportunity to debate and to decide these issues through the legislative process, and we have an obligation to do so. And when there is a more robust, more extensive attempt to legislatively condone or sanction these faith-based initiatives, I believe there are going to be three major areas we will need to address.

One area is effective restraints on proselytization with taxpayer funds. The second is compliance with local regulatory standards in the delivery of public programs. And the third is prohibiting the use of public funds in employment discrimination.

First, with respect to proselytization. If the separation of church and state means anything, then in my mind, it must mean that no American should be compelled to pass a sectarian test or participate in sectarian exercises to receive a public benefit. This principle should be included in legislation and not left to the more shifting sands of regulatory pronouncements.

Second, many advocates of faith-based initiatives argue that they simply want a level playing field. Let's take them at their word. If State licensing arrangements are appropriate and necessary to protect children in publicly funded programs, why should religious providers be exempt from such licensing requirements? If we consider this issue, we will need to look for the even application of local and state laws, particularly laws with respect to the protection of children and public health. This is what we will need to do in order to truly create an even playing field.

Finally, we must address the issue of employment discrimination. Title VII provides an exemption for religious groups in certain situations. In the Amos case, the Supreme Court held that a religious group using its own funds may claim the Title VII exemption. In the words of the Court, the purpose of the exemption was to alleviate ``significant governmental interference with the ability of religious organizations to define and carry out their religious missions.''

Today, with respect to the Administration's proposal, we must recognize that rather than seeking autonomy from governmental interference, religious groups are seeking taxpayer funds to carry out governmental responsibilities. Indeed, in the one unreported case that has ruled on the use of public funds in this way, the court, in this labor case, concluded that the title VII exception does not apply.

As James Madison said in 1785, in his ``Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments,'' in opposition to a proposal by Patrick Henry that all Virginians be taxed to support teachers of the Christian religion:

If ``all men are by nature equally free and independent,''

. . . above all are they to be considered as retaining an

``equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to

the dictates of conscience.'' Whilst we assert for ourselves

a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion

which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an

equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to

the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be

abused, it is an offense against God, not against man: To

God, therefore, not to man, must an account be rendered.

All of this leads me to my final point. In the words of the New England poet, Robert Frost, ``Good fences make good neighbors.'' What might be permissible under the law does not always guarantee the wisest policy.

We need to remember that as we debate the President's faith-based initiative, religion has thrived in America because few people confuse religion with government. Religion has been a citadel of conscience and a check on government because it draws its strength and its support from its adherents, not from bureaucratic patrons.

The religious communities of America that have been unequivocally supporting the President's attempts to allow discrimination with Federal dollars might be mindful of the old saying: Be careful of what you pray for.

As the House of Representatives has made clear, we are going to be discussing this issue in the upcoming months on welfare, SAMSHA, National Service, and other programs. It is my hope the Senate will undertake a more careful look at how the charitable choice provisions in these bills inhibit the free exercise of religion, rather than encourage it.

Again, I thank the sponsors and the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee for bringing this bill to the floor. This is something we will all support, and we will do so with the notion and the idea and the commitment to provide resources for people who want to help other people, and do so consistent with the spirit and the letter of the Constitution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Breaux Federal homeland security responsibilities amendment. This amendment addresses a number of important homeland security needs that the administration has failed to adequately fund, and it deserves the support of this Senate.

I particularly want to thank the author of this amendment for including specific resources to help protect our Nation's transit systems and the 14 million Americans who depend on them to get to work or elsewhere safely and securely every workday.

In the 107th Congress, as the chairman of the Housing and Transportation Subcommittee, I chaired two hearings on the topic of transit security in the wake of September 11. At these hearings, we heard from transit operators and others that public transportation is regrettably a target for terrorists. Indeed, roughly one-third of terrorist attacks worldwide have occurred against transportation systems. One only needs to watch international news to see pictures of the devastation of suicide bombers on buses.

Senator Sarbanes and I also requested a General Accounting Office report on transit security entitled ``Mass Transit: Federal Action Could Help Transit Agencies Address Security Challenges.'' The GAO found that the Federal Transit Administration and the Transportation Safety Administration were providing technical assistance and some training to transit systems, but that there are still many unmet needs. For example, when the GAO asked just eight transit systems how much they needed to address their security needs, the answer was over $700 million. Transit systems also expressed concern that there is often insufficient planning, communication and coordination with local, State and Federal law enforcement entities.

The administration, which has embraced the Senate's efforts to improve aviation security, has unfortunately not shown the same level of commitment to our transit systems. It failed to request specific funding for transit security in either its fiscal year 2004 budget or its fiscal year 2003 supplemental request.

The Breaux amendment would address this shortcoming by providing a down-payment for transit security improvements and send a strong signal to the millions of working men and women who ride our subways, buses, and commuter rail lines that their government is aggressively working to improve transit security.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, reserving my right to object.

If the majority leader would respond, we had the opportunity to talk about this particular piece of legislation. Senator Santorum has taken out elements of the legislation that do not apply to the tax rules. And we discussed, and I think reached an understanding, that those charitable choice items that would pose significant issues with respect to church and state have been eliminated from the underlying bill.

The bill we will consider is from the Finance Committee with simple tax provisions. And I know that Senator Santorum has indicated he would use his efforts, and your efforts presumably, in the conference to prevent the addition of those elements to which we have objected.

And I would assume that despite your best efforts, if such elements were included within the bill when it came back in the form of a conference report, this Senate would not take up such a conference report. Is that a fair understanding?

Further reserving my right to object, I notice that in the managers' amendment there is language with respect to the Compassionate Capital Fund, which is not a tax-financed provision. It essentially is authorizing a program that was begun in the appropriations bill a few years ago.

Questions have been raised with the use of these funds, et cetera. I wonder, in order to expedite this, if that particular provision of the managers' amendment could be either deleted or it could be placed in a position where a possible amendment could be raised.

Mr. President, again, I am also operating on some knowledge, but not complete knowledge, of why this provision is in the managers' amendment. I am prepared to accept the underlying agreement; I just have this one question which I find, at this point, important with respect to this Compassionate Capital Fund.

But as far as your assertions, which I appreciate, and the underlying legislation, I have no problem with this consent; it is just that one point about the managers' amendment.

I don't know what you would like to do to try to resolve that, though.

The understanding I had with the Senator from Pennsylvania, to be fair and accurate, did not reach the contents of the managers' amendment. It was my impression that the managers' amendment would simply be tax amendments with respect to the Internal Revenue Code and the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee.

I am a bit surprised, frankly, coming this evening and seeing something that is not within the traditional scope of the Finance Committee. Perhaps I might be wrong. This is something I didn't expect, but I must be very fair and accurate that this was not an issue we even discussed.

My presumption was that all the amendments would be strictly related to tax provisions and not to this Compassionate Capital Fund. I must say, I understand that the funds have been appropriated under the context of this Compassionate Capital Fund. This is an attempt to provide legislative language. I have not had a chance to look at the language. It is included within a managers' amendment without any opportunity to amend the managers' amendment. I am in an awkward position.

Mr. President, once again, reserving my right to object, I think both the majority leader and the Senator from Pennsylvania have been operating completely in good faith, have made sincere efforts to respond to our concerns. At this juncture, I would hope we could work out, through an amendment to the consent, a provision at least to give us the opportunity to look at it. I, frankly, having just seen this, this evening, I don't know if this simply codifies what is already operating and is, in a sense, innocuous or something more. It is not my intention to try at this point to upset the agreement because I think it was reached after much effort on both sides. It is a good-faith agreement.

I wonder if there is some way we can maintain the opportunity to look at this, agree to the consent this evening, look at it, and if it is something highly objectionable, at least have the opportunity to strike.

I think the suggestion by the Senator from Nevada is a good one. Frankly, I must say I am not prepared at this moment to offer a conclusion as to whether this should be here or not. I am just surprised that a nontax item is included in the managers' amendment along with others that are relatively noncontroversial.

If I may reclaim my time, again, both the leader and the Senator have been extremely cooperative and helpful in trying to reach this point. I understand that once this legislation is passed by the Senate, it will be placed on the desk, and there are procedural opportunities there, I believe, to try to address this at least to somehow get an opportunity to look at this measure. Also with the opportunity to look at this over the course of the next few days, my apprehensions might be misplaced and we can proceed forward. But I think, again, the intention and the understanding we had have been met. I am just surprised about the inclusion of this particular position in something like a technical managers' amendment. Given the commitment the majority leader has made, certainly, about the overall status of this legislation, should it return from the other body,

then I would not object to the consent at this time.

Hopefully, over the next few days we will learn a little bit more about this compassionate fund and perhaps even deal with it if it is a problem on Monday.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 182nd anniversary of Greek Independence that will be celebrated on Tuesday, March 25. It was on this day, March 25, 1821, that Greek patriots rose up against their Ottoman subjugators and began an 8-year struggle that culminated in a new Greek Republic in 1829.

On this day, it is fitting that we reflect on the enormous contributions the Greek people have made to the modern world. The legacy of the ancient Greeks, in the fields of philosophy, literature, drama, sculpture, and architecture, continues to influence our beliefs, our values, and our concept of art. Our own democratic principles have their very foundation in the practices of the ancient Greece republic. Indeed, the ancient Greeks developed the concept of democracy, in which the supreme power to govern was vested in the people.

Greek ideology also had a profound effect on our Founding Fathers, who modeled the American Government upon the principles of Greek democracy. Thomas Jefferson studied the Greek classics in his youth and was inspired by their philosophy throughout his life, most dramatically when he crafted the Declaration of Independence. When formulating his vision for this country, Jefferson specifically referred to the integrated assertions, theories, and aims of the classic Greek world.

Our admiration for Greece continues into the modern day. Greece and the United States are at the forefront of the effort for freedom, democracy, peace, stability, and human rights, forging a close bond between the two Nations. We share a partnership with Greece in NATO, and our countries are linked forever by close family relationships between our peoples. Our Nation looks forward to working closely with Greece in the coming years as we examine ways to bring full peace, stability, and prosperity to all the nations of Europe and the world.

As we celebrate Greek independence, we remember the history of those who sacrificed their lives to preserve freedom and democracy. We value our friendship and continuing partnership with the Government and people of Greece, and we commit to work together to provide greater opportunity and more freedoms for the citizens of the world. And we join the world in anticipating the momentous 2004 Summer Olympic Games, which will be held in Athens, the birthplace of the Olympic tradition.

I am proud to join many of my colleagues as a cosponsor of Senate Resolution 214 which designates March 25, 2003 ``Greek Independence Day: A National Day of Celebration of Greek and American Democracy.'' I give Greek

Americans my best wishes as they celebrate Greece's independence.

Mr. President, once again, America has placed its fate and its future in the hands of young American fighting men and fighting women. Both our future and our faith could not be in stronger, more decent, and more qualified hands. We are here today, united in our support for these extraordinary soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and Coastguardsmen, all of them superbly trained, faithful to their uniforms, and also faithful to those who served before them--an unbroken legacy of courage and commitment to this Nation.

I take a moment to recognize particularly those many individuals from my State of Rhode Island. First, the thousands who are serving on active duty in units in all of our services, and then, also, our National Guard and Reserve forces, because in this conflict the National Guard and Reserve are playing a critical role. Rhode Island has 648 Guard men and women and Reserve members who are stationed throughout the globe.

Many members of the National Guard 143rd Airlift Wing Security Forces and Communications have been deployed to Southwest Asia. They have been joined by the Air National Guard's 281st Combat Communications Group, the Air National Guard's 282nd Combat Communications Squadron and the Air National Guard's 102nd Information Warfare Squadron. The Guard 143rd Airlift Wing Aerial Port Squadron is in Turkey and members of the Rhode Island Air National Guard headquarters are in Kyrgzstan and Turkey.

Rhode Islanders are also protecting the homefront while war is waged in the Middle East. The Army National Guard's 1207th Transportation Company is at Fort Dix, New Jersey. The Army National Guard's 118th Military Police Battalion, 119th Military Police Company, and 115th Military Police Company are at Fort Drum, New York. And the Marine Reserves, General Support Motor Transport Company and the Army National Guard's 1st Battalion, 103rd Field Artillery Brigade are providing security in Rhode Island.

All of these men and women have been called to the colors, have responded, and will serve magnificently.

The battle has begun. The battle will be pursued vigorously to a complete victory. I have every confidence in that. Part of my confidence stems from the privilege of having served with the leaders of our Army who, today, are commanding the forces that are sent against Iraq. Both as classmates and contemporaries at West Point, I had the privilege of knowing GEN Chuck Swannack who commands the 82nd; Dave Petraeus, the 101st Commander; and also General Hagenbeck, who commanded the 10th so well in Afghanistan.

I know because these men are superb professionals, because they are committed to getting the job done and making sure their soldiers come home. We will be successful.

Today, we are united in our support and our admiration for the forces who serve this country so well.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I want to voice my strong support for the Bond-Reid amendment to ensure that we invest in our transportation infrastructure.

Time and again, in our daily lives and in the news we hear and see that our Nation's roads and transit systems are crowded. On our way to work or on our way to visit family, we spend countless hours stuck in traffic or waiting for a bus.

But this congestion is more than just a personal inconvenience. Indeed, we know from studies by the Texas Transportation Institute and others that traffic congestion costs our economy $67.5 billion every year. That's billions in lost productivity.

Sadly, the budget resolution before us fails to provide the resources needed to meet these demands. It even fails to meet the level of funding that the administration's own Department of Transportation believes are necessary if one reads the DoT's report on the conditions and performance of our Nation's highways and transit systems.

Fortunately, the bipartisan amendment offered by the Senate's leaders on transportation policy would ensure that we have the resources to maintain and modernize our roads, bridges, and transit systems.

By providing a total of $255 billion for highways and $56.5 billion for transit, this amendment makes sure we have the resources to repair aging bridges and improve transit service.

Last year, as the chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over our Nation's transit programs, we heard repeatedly from witnesses who represented transit systems of all sizes from all over the country about the success of TEA-21. When I asked why TEA-21 was successful, every witness had the same answer: resources. It was the resources that brought fast, environmentally sound transit to growing cities like Denver and helped transit attain the highest growth rate of any mode of transportation. This amendment will ensure that we continue this success.

In addition, during a time of economic uncertainty, this amendment means jobs and a great stimulus to our economy. Indeed, an estimated 47,000 well-paying jobs are created for each $1 billion we invest in transportation.

I want to thank my colleagues, Senators Bond, Reid, Shelby, and Sarbanes, for their leadership on this amendment. I look forward to its passage and preservation in conference with the House.

Mr. President, the choice before us is very clear: Are we going to devote $8.9 billion to tax cuts, most of them favoring the very rich, or are we going to devote $8.9 billion to the children and the schools of America? The choice is much more clear since the No Child Left Behind Act was passed because we made significant commitments to improve the quality of education in the United States while imposing significant responsibilities on the schools. The schools are expecting this money. The suggestion that there is a lot of money in the pipeline is interesting, but I would be shocked because that suggests the Department of Education is inept in getting money that is there to the schools that desperately need it.

There are 10,000 identified failing schools in this country. There are scores of children being taught by teachers without a college degree in their primary field of instruction. All of that needs remediation, help, and resources, but instead the budget before us provides billions in tax cuts when our schools desperately need that money.

It is not a question of what we did last year, it is a question of what we will do this year. It is a question of whether we will meet the needs of the American students and whether we will keep the promises of the No Child Left Behind Act. We are not keeping those promises in the budget that is presented to us by the Budget Committee. We should keep those promises, and by doing so, we will do something I believe every American wants more than tax cuts that favor very wealthy Americans. We want to see every child in this country have a decent education, succeed, contribute, and be part of this great country. That is what the Murray amendment does.

The choice before us is clear, compelling, emphatic: Put the money with the schools and the children, and our economy will be better, and our schools and students will be better. We can afford it because if we do not commit the funding to the children, it will go to tax cuts primarily to upper income Americans.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child Care Quality Incentive Act of 2003.

This legislation seeks to address low child care payment or reimbursement rates. Payment rates determine the level at which States will reimburse child care providers who care for those low-income children who receive a subsidy.

Low payment rates directly affect the kind of care children get and whether families can find quality child care in their communities. Low payment rates mean limited parental access to quality child care.

Child care providers are also affected when rates are set below the market rate. Low payment rates force child care providers serving low- income children to cut corners in ways that lower the quality of child care such as reducing staff or decreasing salaries and benefits, eliminating professional development opportunities, and forgoing books and other literacy materials. Providers who avoid this route may simply not accept low-income children with subsidies or may even go out of business.

These dilemmas can be avoided if we help states set payment rates that keep pace with the marketplace.

Currently, the Child Care and Development Block Grant, CCDBG, requires States to ensure that their rates are sufficient to ``ensure equal access'' for eligible families to child care services comparable to those available to non-eligible families in the private market. CCDBG regulations require states to conduct market rate surveys every

other year, but there is no requirement for states to actually use the market rate surveys to set payment rates.

Unfortunately, more than half of the States do not make payment rates based on the 75th percentile, by which families could access care from 75 out of 100 local providers, of a current market survey.

The need for quality child care has never been greater, as our welfare reform policy directs more of our low-income families to find work and our educational policy demands more of our students and schools. Yet, States, due to severe budget crunches, are cutting back on rates and other quality initiatives and restricting eligibility for subsidies.

I am pleased to be joined by Senators Dodd, Kennedy, and Murray in once again introducing the Child Care Quality Incentive Act, which seeks to redouble our child care efforts and renew the child care partnership with the States by providing incentive funding to increase payment rates.

Our legislation establishes a new, mandatory pool of funding under the Child Care and Development Block Grant, CCDBG. This new funding, coupled with mandatory, current market rate surveys, will form the foundation for significant increases in state payment rates for the provision of quality child care.

We have received overwhelming support for this bill from the child care community, including endorsements from USA Child Care, Children's Defense Fund, Catholic Charities of USA, YMCA of USA, the National Child Care Association, and a host of organizations and agencies across the country.

Children are the hope of America, and they need the best of America. We cannot ask working families to choose between paying the rent, buying food, and being able to afford the quality care their children need. We've made a lot of progress in improving the health, safety, and well-being of children in this country. If we are serious about putting parents to work and protecting children, we must invest more in child care help for families.

This year, Congress is slated to reauthorize the Child Care and Development Block Grant. The time for action on rates is now. I urge my colleagues to join Senators Dodd, Kennedy, Murray, and me in this endeavor to improve the quality of child care by cosponsoring the Child Care Quality Incentive Act and working to include its provisions in the CCDBG reauthorization.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child Care Quality Incentive Act of 2003.

This legislation seeks to address low child care payment or reimbursement rates. Payment rates determine the level at which States will reimburse child care providers who care for those low-income children who receive a subsidy.

Low payment rates directly affect the kind of care children get and whether families can find quality child care in their communities. Low payment rates mean limited parental access to quality child care.

Child care providers are also affected when rates are set below the market rate. Low payment rates force child care providers serving low- income children to cut corners in ways that lower the quality of child care such as reducing staff or decreasing salaries and benefits, eliminating professional development opportunities, and forgoing books and other literacy materials. Providers who avoid this route may simply not accept low-income children with subsidies or may even go out of business.

These dilemmas can be avoided if we help states set payment rates that keep pace with the marketplace.

Currently, the Child Care and Development Block Grant, CCDBG, requires States to ensure that their rates are sufficient to ``ensure equal access'' for eligible families to child care services comparable to those available to non-eligible families in the private market. CCDBG regulations require states to conduct market rate surveys every

other year, but there is no requirement for states to actually use the market rate surveys to set payment rates.

Unfortunately, more than half of the States do not make payment rates based on the 75th percentile, by which families could access care from 75 out of 100 local providers, of a current market survey.

The need for quality child care has never been greater, as our welfare reform policy directs more of our low-income families to find work and our educational policy demands more of our students and schools. Yet, States, due to severe budget crunches, are cutting back on rates and other quality initiatives and restricting eligibility for subsidies.

I am pleased to be joined by Senators Dodd, Kennedy, and Murray in once again introducing the Child Care Quality Incentive Act, which seeks to redouble our child care efforts and renew the child care partnership with the States by providing incentive funding to increase payment rates.

Our legislation establishes a new, mandatory pool of funding under the Child Care and Development Block Grant, CCDBG. This new funding, coupled with mandatory, current market rate surveys, will form the foundation for significant increases in state payment rates for the provision of quality child care.

We have received overwhelming support for this bill from the child care community, including endorsements from USA Child Care, Children's Defense Fund, Catholic Charities of USA, YMCA of USA, the National Child Care Association, and a host of organizations and agencies across the country.

Children are the hope of America, and they need the best of America. We cannot ask working families to choose between paying the rent, buying food, and being able to afford the quality care their children need. We've made a lot of progress in improving the health, safety, and well-being of children in this country. If we are serious about putting parents to work and protecting children, we must invest more in child care help for families.

This year, Congress is slated to reauthorize the Child Care and Development Block Grant. The time for action on rates is now. I urge my colleagues to join Senators Dodd, Kennedy, Murray, and me in this endeavor to improve the quality of child care by cosponsoring the Child Care Quality Incentive Act and working to include its provisions in the CCDBG reauthorization.

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

I ask unanimous consent that a fellow in my office, Denis Borum, be granted the privilege of the floor for purposes of this debate.

Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce the Pharmacy Education Aid Act along with my colleagues, Senator Enzi, Senator Johnson and others. Last year, the Senate recognized and acted to address the growing, nationwide shortage of pharmacists, by creating a demonstration program under the National Health Service Corps whereby pharmacists agree to serve in rural and medically underserved areas in exchange for partial loan repayment. I commend my colleagues for responding in such a strong, bipartisan way to this critically important health care issue. The bill I am introducing today, the Pharmacy Education Aid Act seeks to build on that bipartisan step while taking a multi-faceted approach to the problem of workforce shortages in the pharmacy sector.

The December 2000 Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA, report, ``The Pharmacist Workforce: A Study of the Supply and Demand for Pharmacists'' concluded that due to the rapid increase in demand for pharmacists and our limited ability to expand the number pharmacy education programs to train more pharmacists, the shortage was unlikely to abate without significant changes to the current system.

Pharmacists represent the third largest and most trusted health professional group in the United States. In 2000, 190,000 pharmacists were in practice. While this figure is expected to grow to 224,500 by 2010, demand for pharmacists is expected to continue to outpace supply.

These shortages, while particularly acute in rural and medically underserved areas, are felt throughout of health care system. A November 2001 GAO report found that, on average, hospitals report 21 percent of their pharmacist positions are currently unfilled. Vacancy rates are even higher in federal health systems, such as the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense and the Indian Health Service.

The Pharmacy Education Act seeks to address these chronic shortfalls in the supply and distribution of pharmacists by building upon Title VII of the Public Health Service Act, with particular emphasis on students with the greatest financial need.

In addition to enhancing students' opportunities to pursue an education in pharmacy, the bill also makes available much needed resources to Colleges of Pharmacy to upgrade and expand facilities and laboratory space as well as to recruit and retain talented faculty to educate future generations of pharmacists.

As Congress works to provide a Medicare prescription drug benefit, the need for more pharmacist involvement in health care decision making, including medication therapy management, formulary development and drug utilization review, will be essential to its long-term success. We must address the pharmacist shortage now. As such, I look forward to working with my colleagues towards expeditious consideration and passage of this timely and important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce the Pharmacy Education Aid Act along with my colleagues, Senator Enzi, Senator Johnson and others. Last year, the Senate recognized and acted to address the growing, nationwide shortage of pharmacists, by creating a demonstration program under the National Health Service Corps whereby pharmacists agree to serve in rural and medically underserved areas in exchange for partial loan repayment. I commend my colleagues for responding in such a strong, bipartisan way to this critically important health care issue. The bill I am introducing today, the Pharmacy Education Aid Act seeks to build on that bipartisan step while taking a multi-faceted approach to the problem of workforce shortages in the pharmacy sector.

The December 2000 Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA, report, ``The Pharmacist Workforce: A Study of the Supply and Demand for Pharmacists'' concluded that due to the rapid increase in demand for pharmacists and our limited ability to expand the number pharmacy education programs to train more pharmacists, the shortage was unlikely to abate without significant changes to the current system.

Pharmacists represent the third largest and most trusted health professional group in the United States. In 2000, 190,000 pharmacists were in practice. While this figure is expected to grow to 224,500 by 2010, demand for pharmacists is expected to continue to outpace supply.

These shortages, while particularly acute in rural and medically underserved areas, are felt throughout of health care system. A November 2001 GAO report found that, on average, hospitals report 21 percent of their pharmacist positions are currently unfilled. Vacancy rates are even higher in federal health systems, such as the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense and the Indian Health Service.

The Pharmacy Education Act seeks to address these chronic shortfalls in the supply and distribution of pharmacists by building upon Title VII of the Public Health Service Act, with particular emphasis on students with the greatest financial need.

In addition to enhancing students' opportunities to pursue an education in pharmacy, the bill also makes available much needed resources to Colleges of Pharmacy to upgrade and expand facilities and laboratory space as well as to recruit and retain talented faculty to educate future generations of pharmacists.

As Congress works to provide a Medicare prescription drug benefit, the need for more pharmacist involvement in health care decision making, including medication therapy management, formulary development and drug utilization review, will be essential to its long-term success. We must address the pharmacist shortage now. As such, I look forward to working with my colleagues towards expeditious consideration and passage of this timely and important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to an outstanding Rhode Islander, Jimmy McDonnell, who is celebrating his retirement from the Biltmore Hotel after 45 years of dedicated service.

Since his earnest beginnings in 1948 as a busboy in the Town Room Restaurant, Jimmy McDonnell has exemplified great professionalism, boundless enthusiasm, and is today an institution in Rhode Island's hospitality industry. Jimmy McDonnell is synonymous with the Biltmore Hotel, located in the heart of the capital city of Providence.

As a waiter, manager, and director of catering service at the Biltmore Hotel for over five decades, he has become a hallmark of one of Rhode Island's finest institutions. Over his long and industrious career Jimmy McDonnell has attended to the needs of people from all walks of life--from Presidents and foreign heads of state, to CEOs and politicians, to television and movie celebrities and even to rock stars. Jimmy has been in the center of the Rhode Island restaurant and hotel industry and is well known to our community's most distinguished residents and visitors. Synonymous with the finest in service, Jimmy has, through his professionalism, skills and graciousness, always put Rhode Island's best foot forward and illuminated the kindness and generosity of our great State.

In addition to celebrities, he has touched the lives of virtually hundreds of Rhode Islanders and their families. He oversaw countless social events and charitable endeavors and he was ``the person'' to whom you entrusted the details of your son's bar mitzvah or who made sure your daughter's wedding went according to plan. He helped make cherished memories for so many, and his good heart and hard work footnoted many special events in our State and in our lives. His exemplary legacy of service leaves many Rhode Islanders with fond memories and stories of the man they knew as ``Mr. Biltmore.'' His presence at the Biltmore will indeed be sorely missed.

I ask my colleagues to join me in commending Jimmy McDonnell for his many years of service at the Biltmore Hotel, and to the hospitality industry which makes Rhode Island such a special place to live, work, and visit.