Floor Statements

Mr. President, yesterday the House passed H. Con. Res.85, a resolution paying respect to the victims of the tragic nightclub fire on February 20, 2003 in West Warwick, RI, and expressing the sense of Congress regarding the need for improved fire safety in buildings used by the public. I thank my colleagues for expediting consideration of this important resolution in the Senate today.

The West Warwick fire is a devastating loss that has affected the lives of thousands of Rhode Islanders. Mr. President, 99 people have died, and nearly 190 people were injured, many of whom are still in hospitals in critical condition.

In the first minutes and hours of this tragedy, our firefighters, police, and emergency medical personnel performed heroically under horrific circumstances, as did many of the patrons who were at the scene and helped to save others.

I want to express my heartfelt condolences to the many families of those who perished in the West Warwick fire, and to let them know that our thoughts and prayers are with them and with the survivors who will struggle with the physical and mental toll of this horrible event for the rest of their lives.

This was a catastrophe brought on by a series of bad decisions. Fault will be sorted out in time, but there are already lessons learned.

State and local officials across the country are, and should be, reexamining their fire and building codes and stepping up enforcement of safety practices in public buildings to make sure that a tragedy like this does not happen again. Congress should do everything it can to support this effort and to encourage both state and local governments and federal agencies to adopt and strictly enforce the most current fire and building consensus codes.

In addition, as our nation continues to fight the war on terror, the response to the West Warwick fire provides a good illustration of how far we've come--and how far we have to go--in improving our emergency management capabilities. Local first responders were on the scene within minutes to help rescue victims, treat the injured, and fight the tremendous blaze that consumed the Station nightclub. As casualties continued to mount, the Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency coordinated the massive rescue and recovery efforts by state and local agencies from Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. Several hospitals in Rhode Island and Massachusetts received scores of victims suffering from severe burns and smoke inhalation, many of whom remain in critical condition today.

There is no question that the response to the West Warwick fire was better than it would have been before September 11, 2001, thanks to our state's efforts over the past 18 months to strengthen emergency preparedness. Federal assistance in this regard has helped, including equipment and training grants from the Department of Justice's Office of Domestic Preparedness, FIRE Grants from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and bioterror preparedness grants from the Department of Health and Human Services, which included funding to create regional hospital plans to respond to terrorism.

But we can do better. As tragic as the West Warwick fire was, it was a localized event involving deaths and injuries in the hundreds rather than thousands, yet it overwhelmed our state's emergency response systems and hospital emergency room capacity. Assistance from surrounding states and Federal agencies was required to manage the immense tasks of emergency response, medical care, and identifying scores of bodies.

Rhode Island and other states, with the support of the Federal Government, will continue our efforts to strengthen the security of our homeland, and we will apply the hard lessons learned in West Warwick about safety in public buildings.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for supporting this important resolution to urge state and local officials and owners of entertainment facilities to examine their safety practices, fire codes, and enforcement capabilities to ensure that such a tragedy never befalls any community again.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Personnel Excellence for Children with Disabilities Act of 2003 to ensure high quality personnel to serve students with disabilities.

I have long worked to improve the quality of teaching in America's classrooms for the simple reason that well-trained and well-prepared teachers, faculty, principals and administrators are critical to improving the educational performance and achievement of students.

As Congress turns to the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, the focus shifts to increasing support for both new and veteran special education teachers, school principals, and the higher education faculty who train prospective special education teachers.

There are currently an estimated 6 million children who receive special education services. Yet, there are about 70,000 special education teaching vacancies in schools nationwide. The President's 2002 Commission on Excellence in Special Education report stated that ``the growing shortage of special education teachers alarms this Commission.'' Moreover, an estimated 600,000 IDEA students are taught by unqualified or underqualified teachers nationwide. In some urban and rural areas, close to half of special education teachers are unqualified.

I am joined by Senator Kennedy, a leader in improving education for all children, in introducing legislation today which would address and improve current conditions by enhancing personnel preparation, recruitment and retention, support and training for beginning special educators, as well as professional development for special educators, general educators, principals, paraprofessionals, and related services personnel.

The Personnel Excellence for Children with Disabilities Act modifies and strengthens the current State Improvement Grant program to focus solely on personnel and professional development, including support to school districts to meet the personnel requirements under IDEA.

Our legislation also establishes two grant programs. One would fund partnerships of school districts, institutions of higher education, and elementary and secondary schools that focus on meeting the needs of beginning special educators, through an additional 5th year clinical learning opportunity or the creation or support of professional development schools. Professional development schools seek to improve the professional status of teaching through a renewal of schools and preservice teacher education, in-service education of veteran teachers, and research to add to the knowledge base. The other grant program seeks to ensure that general educators, including principals and administrators, have the skills, knowledge, and leadership training to improve results for children with disabilities in their schools and classrooms. Currently, approximately half of students with disabilities spend 79 percent or more of their time in regular classes, according to the Department of Education's Annual Report to Congress for 2001. Only 20 percent are served outside of regular classes for 60 percent or more of the time.

Lastly, our legislation enhances the personnel preparation programs under the current IDEA Section 673. These programs provide grants to institutions of higher education to enhance the preparation of special educators.

In sum, the Personnel Excellence for Children with Disabilities Act seeks to enhance: the teaching skills of special educators, general educators, early intervention personnel, paraprofessionals and related services personnel; the leadership skills of principals; collaboration among special educators, general educators, and other personnel; mentoring and other induction support for beginning special educators; and training programs at institutions of higher education. The Act would also boost the ability of educators and personnel to: involve and work with parents, implement positive behavioral interventions; improve early intervention services for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers; and provide transition services and postsecondary opportunities. It would also improve their ability to: use classroom-based techniques to identify student potentially eligible for services; use technology to enhance learning of children with disabilities and communicate with parents; and ensure an effective IEP process.

The time for action is now because 98 percent of school districts report that meeting the growing demand for special education teachers is a top priority. Annual attrition rates for special education teachers are over 13 percent: 6 percent for those who leave the field entirely; and an additional 7.4 percent who transfer to general education.

More than 200,000 new special education teachers will be needed in the next five years, according to U.S. Department of Education estimates. Investing in personnel preparation is critical for addressing these needs which, in turn, will improve outcomes and results for children with disabilities.

I urge my colleagues to join us in this essential endeavor by cosponsoring this legislation and working for its inclusion in the reauthorization of the IDEA.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Personnel Excellence for Children with Disabilities Act of 2003 to ensure high quality personnel to serve students with disabilities.

I have long worked to improve the quality of teaching in America's classrooms for the simple reason that well-trained and well-prepared teachers, faculty, principals and administrators are critical to improving the educational performance and achievement of students.

As Congress turns to the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, the focus shifts to increasing support for both new and veteran special education teachers, school principals, and the higher education faculty who train prospective special education teachers.

There are currently an estimated 6 million children who receive special education services. Yet, there are about 70,000 special education teaching vacancies in schools nationwide. The President's 2002 Commission on Excellence in Special Education report stated that ``the growing shortage of special education teachers alarms this Commission.'' Moreover, an estimated 600,000 IDEA students are taught by unqualified or underqualified teachers nationwide. In some urban and rural areas, close to half of special education teachers are unqualified.

I am joined by Senator Kennedy, a leader in improving education for all children, in introducing legislation today which would address and improve current conditions by enhancing personnel preparation, recruitment and retention, support and training for beginning special educators, as well as professional development for special educators, general educators, principals, paraprofessionals, and related services personnel.

The Personnel Excellence for Children with Disabilities Act modifies and strengthens the current State Improvement Grant program to focus solely on personnel and professional development, including support to school districts to meet the personnel requirements under IDEA.

Our legislation also establishes two grant programs. One would fund partnerships of school districts, institutions of higher education, and elementary and secondary schools that focus on meeting the needs of beginning special educators, through an additional 5th year clinical learning opportunity or the creation or support of professional development schools. Professional development schools seek to improve the professional status of teaching through a renewal of schools and preservice teacher education, in-service education of veteran teachers, and research to add to the knowledge base. The other grant program seeks to ensure that general educators, including principals and administrators, have the skills, knowledge, and leadership training to improve results for children with disabilities in their schools and classrooms. Currently, approximately half of students with disabilities spend 79 percent or more of their time in regular classes, according to the Department of Education's Annual Report to Congress for 2001. Only 20 percent are served outside of regular classes for 60 percent or more of the time.

Lastly, our legislation enhances the personnel preparation programs under the current IDEA Section 673. These programs provide grants to institutions of higher education to enhance the preparation of special educators.

In sum, the Personnel Excellence for Children with Disabilities Act seeks to enhance: the teaching skills of special educators, general educators, early intervention personnel, paraprofessionals and related services personnel; the leadership skills of principals; collaboration among special educators, general educators, and other personnel; mentoring and other induction support for beginning special educators; and training programs at institutions of higher education. The Act would also boost the ability of educators and personnel to: involve and work with parents, implement positive behavioral interventions; improve early intervention services for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers; and provide transition services and postsecondary opportunities. It would also improve their ability to: use classroom-based techniques to identify student potentially eligible for services; use technology to enhance learning of children with disabilities and communicate with parents; and ensure an effective IEP process.

The time for action is now because 98 percent of school districts report that meeting the growing demand for special education teachers is a top priority. Annual attrition rates for special education teachers are over 13 percent: 6 percent for those who leave the field entirely; and an additional 7.4 percent who transfer to general education.

More than 200,000 new special education teachers will be needed in the next five years, according to U.S. Department of Education estimates. Investing in personnel preparation is critical for addressing these needs which, in turn, will improve outcomes and results for children with disabilities.

I urge my colleagues to join us in this essential endeavor by cosponsoring this legislation and working for its inclusion in the reauthorization of the IDEA.

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

Madam President, I rise to express my support for the Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty, otherwise known as the Moscow Treaty, which

was signed by President Bush and President Putin on May 24, 2002. This treaty is important because it signifies that Russia and the United States are committed to and cooperating on the reduction of nuclear weapons. It carries the weight of law and will remain in force for a decade. It is also important because it binds the United States and the Russian Federation to each reduce the number of operationally deployed strategic weapons to between 1,700 and 2,200 by the end of 2012.

Presently, the United States has approximately 6,000 nuclear weapons and the Russian Federation has almost 5,500 nuclear weapons. The Moscow Treaty is a step forward, reducing the danger of large numbers of operationally deployed nuclear weapons. This treaty is a good step, but it is only a small step. Much more must be done. Russia entered into negotiations seeking a legally binding document that would limit strategic nuclear warheads, and in their words ``provide transparency and predictability'' by containing definitions, and counting and elimination rules that resembled those in the START Treaties. Ultimately, Russia wanted to ensure that this process would be irreversible; in their words, that it would ensure the ``irreversibility of the reduction of nuclear forces.''

This administration, however, had different goals. Russia had to convince the United States to sign a legally binding document rather than a less formal exchange of letters. The United States rejected any limits and counting rules that would have required the elimination of delivery vehicles and warheads, stating that it wanted flexibility to reduce its forces at its own pace and to restore warheads to deployed forces if conditions warranted. So while this treaty changes the status of some operationally deployed warheads, it does not require the dismantling of a single weapon. Once this treaty is fully implemented, the United States will still have approximately 6,000 nuclear weapons. There will just be more weapons in storage. And similarly, the Russians could have approximately 5,500 nuclear weapons, but they would be nonoperational according to the lines of this treaty.

The treaty does not bind either party to any schedule for deactivation. It only requires that cuts be completed by December 31, 2012, the day the treaty expires. This means that either side can stop or even reverse the reduction process over the decade as long as both parties comply by the final date of the treaty.

The treaty does not specifically address the problems of tactical nuclear weapons or MIRV'd ICBMs. The number of Russian tactical nuclear weapons is believed to be between 8,000 and 15,000, while the United States has approximately 2,000. Russian tactical nuclear weapons are subject to fewer safeguards and are more prone to theft and proliferation. These are the proverbial suitcase weapons, often discussed in the press, which are the ones that are most mobile, most difficult to trace and detect. And the treaty does not deal with these weapons at all.

In addition, the Moscow Treaty effectively ends START II, which I will discuss in more detail later, which means that Russia will likely keep its weapons MIRV'd, meaning they will have multiple warheads on their weapons. Since MIRV'd weapons are fewer and more vulnerable, it increases the perceived need for a first strike.

Another shortcoming of the Moscow Treaty is that it includes no verification procedures. START I verification procedures will remain in place until 2009. But there was never agreement between the parties about which, if any, procedures could be used in the Moscow Treaty. Discussion of verification procedures is supposed to continue, but the administration recently stated: We have determined that specific additional transparency measures are not needed and will not be sought at this time.

I also believe the treaty withdrawal provisions are too lax. Parties can withdraw from the Moscow Treaty with 3-months notice without giving any reason. This means a party needs no compelling reason to stop complying with the terms of this treaty.

Finally, the terms of this treaty must be met by December 31, 2012, but that is the day the treaty expires. It is possible that it could be extended, but another agreement would have to be reached to do that. On the other hand, it could also lapse so the parties could raise the numbers of operationally deployed warheads above 2,200 on January 1, 2013. In effect, they could go through the term of the treaty without significant reductions, let the treaty lapse, and nothing would have been affected by the treaty. I hope certainly that doesn't happen.

I commend my colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar and Senator Biden. They have done a remarkable job of adding some detail to the treaty.

The resolution we are considering today contains two important conditions. The first condition requires a report and recommendation on how cooperative threat reduction assistance to the Russian Federation can best contribute to the efficient implementation of the treaty and maintain the security and accurate accounting of Russia's nuclear weapons and materiel. As I will discuss in detail later, the CTR program is the most effective tool to counter proliferation, and we must do all we can to maintain it.

Secondly, the resolution requires an annual implementation report which will include, among other items, a listing of strategic nuclear weapons force levels for both parties, a detailed description on strategic offensive reductions planned by each party for the current year, and how these reductions will be achieved, verification and transparency measures taken or proposed by each party, and actions taken or proposed to improve the implementation and effectiveness of the treaty.

There are also several nonbinding declarations, most of which request reports to Congress and encourage the President to continue to work to reduce nuclear weapons. These conditions and declarations make the treaty more substantial and, I believe, more effective.

I will support this treaty strengthened by this resolution. I want to say to the administration, however, that this is simply not enough. The rise of rogue nations and rogue nonstate actors, has made the threat of proliferation even more urgent. One of the legacies of the cold war is the abundance of nuclear weapons and fissionable material that is no longer under the clear control of the Russian Federation or other former states of the Soviet Union. Moreover, many of these nuclear weapons are housed in nations which are struggling economically and are susceptible to offers from rogue actors to acquire these materials.

As Graham Allison of Harvard, former dean at the Kennedy School, stated:

The single largest threat to American lives and liberties

going forward for the next decade is terrorism, particularly

terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. The one that I

have been most concerned about is loose nukes.

We must do everything possible to counter proliferation through protection, containment, and interdiction. In 1991, former Senator Sam Nunn and Chairman Richard Lugar recognized the risk presented by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. They created--history will record this--one of the most important initiatives that has been seen in this Senate, in this country in many years; that is, the counterproliferation program, the cooperative threat reduction program.

The programs they established in the Department of State, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Defense, have had significant success in preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Through these programs, the United States has secured tons of nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union; helped deactivate, dismantle, or destroy thousands of Russian nuclear weapons and delivery systems; and helped provide employment for hundreds of Russian scientists and engineers with expertise in building nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons, who otherwise might be tempted to sell their expertise to unfriendly nations or terrorist organizations. This is an extraordinary accomplishment, but so much needs to be done in addition.

Even though only about $1 billion of the $400 billion defense budget is annually allocated to support these programs, they have been among the most successful of all nonproliferation efforts undertaken by this country.

Given the success of the programs, it is difficult to understand why securing adequate funding has been a significant challenge in the Bush administration.

I also want to add my voice to those of my many colleagues who believe the United States and the international community are capable of doing, and must do, much more in this regard. Let me quote once again from the expert, Senator Lugar, who in his article in the December 2002 issue of Arms Control Today, said:

It is critical that the United States lead in establishing

a global coalition capable of exerting pressure on states to

cooperate with the safeguarding, accounting, and (where

possible) destruction of weapons and materials of mass

destruction. Given that a war is being contemplated with Iraq

over the question of their weapons programs, it is reasonable

to ask why more is not being done on a global scale to

control other proliferation risks.

I agree with the chairman. I also agree with his statement:

We must not only accelerate dismantlement efforts in

Russia, we must broaden our capability to address

proliferation risks elsewhere and build a global coalition to

support such efforts.

Clearly, undeniably, there is a lot of work to be done in these programs, not the least of which is to make up for time lost to these programs over the past 2 years.

The Bush administration put most of the nonproliferation programs on hold during fiscal year 2001, in order to conduct a review to determine the validity of the programs. Luckily, most of the programs survived the review, and some were even strengthened; but little progress was made as very little work was done during this yearlong review.

Then, at the completion of the review, the fiscal year 2002, and all previous years, funds for the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program were frozen for over a year because the Bush administration failed to make the required certification to spend the money.

Just recently, these funds have been released as a result of waiver authority included in the fiscal year 2003 Defense Authorization Act. This is waiver authority that the Republicans in the other body wanted to severely restrict and limit to 1 year, but luckily, in the end, the Senate was able to prevail and provide an unrestricted waiver for 3 years.

These two events, the program review and the inability to certify, effectively stopped the Nunn-Lugar programs for approximately 2 years. The effectiveness of some of these programs has clearly been inhibited, if not damaged. The challenge now is to work to regain and then increase their effectiveness.

The sheer magnitude of the problem of proliferation dictates that we must find an international consensus and work through multilateral arrangements.

Despite the bureaucracy and delay that accompanies international cooperation, I believe it is necessary, especially in the area of arms control regimes, to have a multilateral approach.

A report by the Rand Corporation to the then-President-elect Bush pointed out:

Without our democratic allies, many emerging global issues

will likely prove to be beyond our ability to manage, but

together with them, the United States will gain unparalleled

ability to respond to tomorrow's demands and shape the

future.

Regrettably, the Bush administration has demonstrated a distrust of international organizations.

Since President Bush took office, the administration has withdrawn from the ABM Treaty and walked away from meaningful negotiations concerning START II.

Indeed, in the preamble and article 2 of the Moscow Treaty, the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty is referred to as START, not START I. START II is evident only in its absence from this treaty.

Assistant Secretary of Defense J. D. Crouch has said:

I think we have sort of moved beyond START II.

Many Russian officials have recognized what appears to be the inevitability of this and indicated they are considering START II dead--meaning that Russia is no longer obligated to eliminate its MIRV'd ICBMs.

We must recognize that in many areas, including arms control, the United States cannot go it alone, and we have to not only encourage but actively work to create an international coalition, particularly with respect to proliferation of these weapons and nuclear materials.

I am also concerned that recent actions by the United States seems to indicate that while we talk about nonproliferation in principle, in practice we seem to be somewhat ambivalent. This is exacerbated when it appears that the U.S. is increasing the importance of nuclear weapons in our defense policy.

While the nonproliferation programs were being held up, the administration was working on a new nuclear posture review that would put more emphasis on nuclear weapons. The December 2001 Nuclear Posture Review laid out a framework which includes maintaining the current size of the nuclear weapons stockpile, not reducing it; blurring the distinction between nuclear offensive strike and conventional offensive strike; introducing the notion that new nuclear weapons might be needed to meet changing security requirements; holding open the possibility of resuming nuclear weapons testing, either to develop nuclear weapons, or to maintain the current stockpile; supporting a robust nuclear weapons complex, not just to implement the stockpile stewardship program, but to manufacture hundreds of new plutonium pits per year, and to be able to design a new weapon if needed; and increase ``test readiness''--the level of readiness to conduct a nuclear weapons test, reducing that time period from 36 months to 18 months, essentially leaning further forward to the possibility of resuming nuclear tests. In addition, the Bush administration sought $15.5 million in its fiscal year 2003 request for a robust nuclear earth penetrator to use against hardened and deeply buried targets. This RNEP would modify an existing nuclear weapon with yields up to a megaton. Despite the fact that the fiscal year 2003 National Defense Authorization Act requires a report of the plan for this weapon before funds are released, there is an additional $15 million requested for this program in the fiscal year 2004 budget, indicating that the administration is still determined to try to develop this new variety of nuclear weapon.

There has also been a renewed interest in the development of small nuclear weapons. Even though there is clearly no military requirement for such a weapon, again in its fiscal year 2004 legislative proposal, the Department of Defense seeks the total repeal of a current ban on research and development that could lead to production of a low-yield nuclear weapon.

DOD states that this law, in their words, ``has negatively affected U.S. Government efforts to support the national strategy to counter weapons of mass destruction and undercuts efforts that could strengthen our ability to deter, or respond to, new or emerging threats.''

Frankly, this adds up to a very disturbing path of legitimizing the use of nuclear weapons in a world in which we are dramatically concerned with the possibility that Iraq is attempting to obtain nuclear weapons, a world in which the North Koreans are beginning to flaunt their ability to produce nuclear weapons, in which India and Pakistan are on the brink of conflict with nuclear weapons. The idea that we are lowering our own threshold to deploy, to use, to consider in our doctrine the use of nuclear weapons is, I think, an unfortunate and very dangerous approach. These continued efforts, both in the posture review, in requests for new weapons, in requests to investigate and do research on new types of nuclear weapons, and this legitimacy for the use of nuclear weapons, will have profound and detrimental consequences throughout the world.

It is extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to urge other nations to forswear the development and use of nuclear weapons if we are so routinely talking about the development and use of nuclear weapons. This is a very disturbing development.

We have to look at nonproliferation as part of our overall defense policy. Advocating new or usable nuclear weapons destroys, inhibits, and damages the credibility of the United States as we seek to restrain the development and deployment of nuclear weapons. I hope that message comes through in not only today's discussions, but in this treaty.

I am also concerned with another aspect of the current situation. We are talking about our approach to Iraq as a need to disarm Saddam before he acquires nuclear weapons. Yet we have moved rather gingerly and pushed over to the United Nations the problem of North Korea which is on the verge of beginning to operate its reprocessing facilities, with the capability of building nuclear devices within months, if not weeks.

I think this leads many people, and not just those who follow these policy debates but most ordinary Americans, to wonder what is the difference. Why is the situation in Iraq so compelling, even though there is little evidence that Saddam is on the verge of producing a nuclear weapon, that we engage in a military conflict, while, on the other hand, when there is glaring evidence of the ability of the North Koreans to produce such a weapon, we have moved this along into the category of not a crisis, something the U.N. can handle? That intellectual dilemma is puzzling many people throughout this country.

I believe there is a crisis in North Korea, and I believe it is a crisis that requires the prompt attention of the President. If one looks at the strategic vision we have to embrace, it can perhaps be divided into several major tasks.

The first is to preempt terrorists and, indeed, we saw this week an effective use of our military and intelligence forces and our allies in Pakistan. Then we have to interdict, contain, and stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The North Koreans, in my mind, pose a much more difficult challenge to us than the Iraqis at the moment. Not only are they on the verge of producing a nuclear weapon because they have the nuclear material, they also have a history of selling anything to anyone because their major cash crop is selling weapons to anyone who will buy them.

We are here today to conclude a very small but a very important step forward with the support of the Moscow Treaty, but we have much more to do when it comes to particularly supporting efforts by our country in an international coalition to preempt, to interdict, to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction, and I think to reexamine carefully and thoroughly the new emphasis we are putting on the development and use of nuclear weapons in our inventory.

I believe we will regret the day we give legitimacy to the potential use of nuclear weapons by any power, including the United States.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to recognize and pay tribute to LTC Edward B. ``Ted'' Pusey, Liaison Officer in the Army's Office of the Chief of Legislative Liaison, who retired February 28. Colonel Pusey's career spans 27 years of Army service during which he has distinguished himself as a soldier, leader and friend of the United States Senate.

Born in Washington, DC in 1953, Lieutenant Colonel Pusey graduated from Wofford College in 1976 and was commissioned as a lieutenant in the Armor Branch of the US Army. During his career, he commanded at many levels and served in staff positions at the highest levels of the Army, always ably leading and training America's soldiers at home and overseas. His duty locations over the years included Fort Riley, KS; Mainz, Germany; Fort Leavenworth, KS, as the Executive officer for the Army's School of Advanced Military Studies; Fort Stewart, GA, with the 24th Mechanized Division as both a Battalion and Brigade Operations Officer, as a Battalion Executive Officer and as a Brigade Adjutant during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm ; and, finally, in the Pentagon and Senate in the Office of Legislative Liaison. Lieutenant Colonel Pusey also served as a Tactics instructor at the Royal Armoured Corps Centre in Bovington Camp, England. He has always been placed in positions of responsibility throughout his Army career.

Since October 1995, Ted Pusey has served with distinction in the Army's Office of Legislative Liaison where he has superbly represented the Army Chief of Staff and Secretary and promoted the interests of soldiers and civilians of the Army. His professionalism, mature judgment and inter-personal skills earned him the respect and confidence of the Members of Congress and Congressional staff with whom he worked. In over 8 years on Capitol Hill, Ted Pusey has been a true friend of not only the Army he loves, but also of the United States Senate and the Congress. Serving as the primary point of contact for all Senators, their staffs, and committees, he helped Congress understand Army policies, actions, operations and requirements in a prompt, coordinated and factual manner. Additionally, he provided invaluable assistance to Members and their staffs while planning, coordinating and accompanying Senate delegations traveling worldwide. His substantive knowledge of the key issues, insight, and ability to effectively advise senior members of the Army leadership directly contributed to the successful representation of the Army's interests before Congress.

Throughout his career, Ted Pusey has demonstrated his profound commitment to our Nation, his selfless service to the Army, and a deep concern for soldiers and their families. Committed to excellence, he has been a consummate professional who, in over 27 years of service, has personified those traits of courage, competency and integrity that our Nation has come to expect from its professional Army officers.

I ask that my colleagues join me in thanking LTC Ted Pusey for his honorable service to the Army of the United States. We wish him and his family all the best in the future.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues and the

country in remembering the seven brave crewmembers of the Space Shuttle Columbia who tragically lost their lives last Saturday morning, February 1, 2003.

Rick Husband, William McCool, Michael Anderson, Kalpana Chawla, David M. Brown, Laurel Blair Salton Clark, and Ilan Ramon gave their lives trying to expand our knowledge of science, advance our technology, and broaden the limits of our universe.

These seven courageous astronauts sacrificed their lives for our future. While this is a time of great sadness, it is also a time to take great pride in their achievements, their dedication, and their service to the Nation and to the world.

They were seven different people with various skills, many talents, and different backgrounds, and they all came to work together as a team. That is what most people believe America should be like: working together as a team to accomplish something greater than themselves. They could have had very comfortable jobs somewhere else, but they chose to risk their lives for the country. They have not only found a place in our hearts, but they have found a place in our imagination also because, for me, they represent what this country is all about. They came together. They came from modest circumstances. They used the power of education to prepare themselves not just for personal success but to contribute to the Nation and to contribute to the world. They exemplify the best of this Nation.

They understood that great accomplishment and great achievement bring great risk. They knew this, yet they valiantly accepted, in the name of science and exploration, all the risks. It is important we pay tribute to them and acknowledge the risks our astronauts take with every mission.

We tend to take these risks for granted and forget the extreme conditions and pressures these brave men and women face and will face in the future. In honor of the crew of Columbia, we must not take these risks for granted any longer.

In their honor, we must pledge to continue the peaceful exploration of space. We have forged international partnerships. We have been able to share the pride of an international space station. We must continue to fund NASA, continue our space programs, and continue in the tradition of American and human accomplishment.

Later this year, we will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Wright brothers' monumental 59-second flight on December 17, 1903. That flight forever changed the world. Fifty-four years later, we were able to put a man in space.

The process of innovation and exploration must go on, and America must play its traditional significant, historic role.

We have in our process from the sands of Kitty Hawk to the stretches of the Moon experienced powerful joy and monumental success, and yet we have faced tremendous setbacks and extreme sorrow. But we have persevered, and we have continued our missions into the heavens.

From our colleague John Glenn and Allan Shepherd to Neil Armstrong to an international space station, and from the crew of Challenger and the crew of Columbia, we must continue to challenge ourselves as they challenged themselves. We must continue to better ourselves as a nation and continue to grow.

President Kennedy challenged America to send a man to the Moon. We have met that challenge and have gone far beyond.

As we continue with future missions, we must never forget these seven brave souls. They gave the ultimate sacrifice for a noble cause. My deepest condolences go out to their families and the Nation that mourns them and the country of Israel that mourns its lost astronaut. This is a time for mourning, but we must shortly move on and continue to run the great risks they took, in their memory, so we can build upon their sacrifice, so we continue to reach for the heavens and beyond.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce that Museum and Library Services Act of 2003. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Kennedy, Cochran, Collins, Snowe, Smith, Daschle, Jeffords, Dodd, Harkin, Clinton, Sarbanes, Levin, Leahy, Corzine, Landrieu, and Baucus in introducing this legislature to strengthen museum and library services.

The Federal Government has a long history of supporting our Nation's libraries and museums, providing direct aid to public libraries since the adoption of the Library Services and Construction Act, LSCA, in 1956 and funding to museums since the enactment of the Museum Services Act in 1976. As a result of this support, our lives and culture have been enriched.

My predecessor, Senator Claiborne Pell, was instrumental in the creation of the Museum Services Act, as well as the development and enactment of the Museum and Library Services Act in 1996. This law reauthorized Federal library and museum programs under a newly created independent Federal agency called the Institute for Museum and Library Services, IMLS.

I am proud to continue Senator Pell's tradition of supporting libraries and museums by introducing this legislation to day to extend the authorization of museum and library services through fiscal year 2009 and to make several important modifications to current law.

The 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 establishes a Museum and Library Services Board to advise the Director of IMLS, and it authorizes IMLS to issue a National Award for Library Service as well as a National Award for Museum Service. The bill also ensures that a portion of administrative funds is used to analyze annually the impact of museum and library services to identify needs and trends of services provided under museum and library programs. Our bill also establishes a reservation of 1.75 percent of funds for museum services for Native Americans, a similar reservation is currently provided for library services under the Library Services and Technology subtitle. Lastly, the bill 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 $350 million and the Museum Services Act from $28.7 million to $65 million.

I want to specifically highlight one other provision in the legislation. The Museum and Library Services Act of 2003 doubles the minimum State allotment under the LSTA to $680,000.

The minimum State allotment has remained flat at $340,000 since 1971, hampering the literacy and cultural efforts of our Nation's smaller States. An analysis prepared by the staff of the Joint Economic Committee shows that it would take approximately $1.5 million for our small States to keep pace with inflation. The library community has instead suggested a modest, but essential doubling of the minimum state allotment to $680,000. This will enable every State to benefit and implement the valuable services and programs that larger states have been able to put in place. We heard about the importance of this change from David Macksam, Director of the Cranston Public Library, during a Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing that I chaired last April.

Last year, efforts to move this legislation were stymied over concerns about certain IMLS grants and how much funding should be authorized for library and museum programs. The President's forthcoming fiscal year 2004 budget will contain a modest, although record, increase in funding for these programs, which I hope will alleviate these concerns. As such, I hope we can move forward early in this session of Congress on a bipartisan basis on a swift reauthorization of the Museum and Library Services act.

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

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

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce that Museum and Library Services Act of 2003. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Kennedy, Cochran, Collins, Snowe, Smith, Daschle, Jeffords, Dodd, Harkin, Clinton, Sarbanes, Levin, Leahy, Corzine, Landrieu, and Baucus in introducing this legislature to strengthen museum and library services.

The Federal Government has a long history of supporting our Nation's libraries and museums, providing direct aid to public libraries since the adoption of the Library Services and Construction Act, LSCA, in 1956 and funding to museums since the enactment of the Museum Services Act in 1976. As a result of this support, our lives and culture have been enriched.

My predecessor, Senator Claiborne Pell, was instrumental in the creation of the Museum Services Act, as well as the development and enactment of the Museum and Library Services Act in 1996. This law reauthorized Federal library and museum programs under a newly created independent Federal agency called the Institute for Museum and Library Services, IMLS.

I am proud to continue Senator Pell's tradition of supporting libraries and museums by introducing this legislation to day to extend the authorization of museum and library services through fiscal year 2009 and to make several important modifications to current law.

The 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 establishes a Museum and Library Services Board to advise the Director of IMLS, and it authorizes IMLS to issue a National Award for Library Service as well as a National Award for Museum Service. The bill also ensures that a portion of administrative funds is used to analyze annually the impact of museum and library services to identify needs and trends of services provided under museum and library programs. Our bill also establishes a reservation of 1.75 percent of funds for museum services for Native Americans, a similar reservation is currently provided for library services under the Library Services and Technology subtitle. Lastly, the bill 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 $350 million and the Museum Services Act from $28.7 million to $65 million.

I want to specifically highlight one other provision in the legislation. The Museum and Library Services Act of 2003 doubles the minimum State allotment under the LSTA to $680,000.

The minimum State allotment has remained flat at $340,000 since 1971, hampering the literacy and cultural efforts of our Nation's smaller States. An analysis prepared by the staff of the Joint Economic Committee shows that it would take approximately $1.5 million for our small States to keep pace with inflation. The library community has instead suggested a modest, but essential doubling of the minimum state allotment to $680,000. This will enable every State to benefit and implement the valuable services and programs that larger states have been able to put in place. We heard about the importance of this change from David Macksam, Director of the Cranston Public Library, during a Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing that I chaired last April.

Last year, efforts to move this legislation were stymied over concerns about certain IMLS grants and how much funding should be authorized for library and museum programs. The President's forthcoming fiscal year 2004 budget will contain a modest, although record, increase in funding for these programs, which I hope will alleviate these concerns. As such, I hope we can move forward early in this session of Congress on a bipartisan basis on a swift reauthorization of the Museum and Library Services act.

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

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

Madam President, I rise to respond and echo the comments of Senator Kennedy. A year ago, with much hope and great fanfare, we all looked at the signing of the No Child Left Behind Act as a positive step forward, a recognition that we could not simply sit back and let education in the United States continue on its then-current course.

We also hoped the great rhetoric would be matched with real resources. Sadly, those resources have not materialized. The President, only a few weeks after signing the bill, released his budget numbers for fiscal year 2003 which significantly reduced funding for the No Child Left Behind Act. In fact, the President's budget contained the smallest increase overall for education funding in years. A small increase, but nothing commensurate with the kind of expectations that were generated by the No Child Left Behind Act.

We fear--I fear--that that same reality will be visited upon us this evening in the State of the Union speech, and next week when the President releases this year's budget. There will be no significant increase overall in education spending.

The President may point to an increase in title I that he has advertised, a $1 billion increase. That would raise title I funding to $12.3 billion. But let me remind all who are listening, that $12.3 billion is about $6 billion less than the authorized figure in the No Child Left Behind Act.

I can remember the discussions, the debate when we were urging a level of title I funding that would be adequate to deal with the challenges we have placed on all the school districts in this country, to be accountable and to perform at a level that is equal to the challenges of this new and very demanding world we face. So the title I money is an increase, but it is insignificant compared to the target we established, agreed on, and fought for in the No Child Left Behind Act.

I am happy to yield.

Indeed, you are correct, I say to the Senator. We were joined by practically every Member of the Senate regardless of party and region. They believed, as we did, in the need for real resources, particularly for the title I program. What the President is proposing is more of a cosmetic increase in title I, rather than the kind of increase we need to do the job.

I was listening to Senator Kennedy, my colleague from Massachusetts. He laid out the current dilemma of local school districts, where they are cutting class days, they are charging for transportation, they are charging for music education. That is in response to the current distressed economy. Don't forget, school districts are now required to do much more, by the Federal Government, by the No Child Left Behind

Act. They are in a situation where they have to cut costs. At the same time, they have to respond to more challenges, more mandates from the Federal Government. It is getting worse.

I am happy to yield.

I think that is absolutely right. I think the Senator from Connecticut might have a comment also, and I yield to him for a comment.

Reclaiming my time, whatever is left, I believe in fact that it is a model for the kind of program that recognizes talent, effort and initiative, but also considers that we want not just a student body at West Point, but also an officer corps in the Army that represents every segment of society. I also serve currently as Chairman of the Board of Visitors at West Point. We have the opportunity to review the admissions process every year.

Frankly, it is a success. The admissions policy at West Point provides an opportunity to broaden, diversify, and make better the institution with some very talented individuals.

Let me put it in perspective. I graduated in 1971. We had two African-Americans in my class. Today, African-Americans make up 8 percent of the student body. Frankly, the military has a larger representation of minorities than that 8 percent, but it represents an officer corps that is both diverse and, let me emphasize, talented. There is no sacrificing standards. There is no sacrificing ability. There is no sacrificing patriotism or anything else. We get wonderful people.

To me, affirmative action is not about quotas. It is about looking beyond just the people who want to show up in the front ranks because they have gone to good high schools, they have parents helping them along, and all the other things that lead them to even apply to West Point. It is about looking beyond that. It has been very successful.

I also suggest that it has been represented by the success of those young men and women in our military forces who are now general officers. The Commandant of Cadets of West Point today is an African- American officer, a graduate of West Point. That would have been exceptional 30 years ago.

That is exactly correct.

Frankly, the other argument that is made against affirmative action programs is that they stigmatize the beneficiaries. That could not be further from the truth when it comes to the wonderful officers who have graduated from West Point, Annapolis, and the Air Force Academy. They walk out well qualified, well prepared, well trained. There is no stigma. It is with pride that they serve their country.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the National Center for Healthy Housing as it celebrates its 10th year of protecting children from residential environmental hazards while preserving the supply of affordable housing.

The National Center for Healthy Housing was founded in 1992 as the National Center for Lead-Safe Housing to address the No. 1 environmental health problem facing our Nation's children, childhood lead poisoning, and the threat that lead paint posed to the preservation of our Nation's affordable housing stock. Since its inception, the center has become our country's preeminent source of technical and practical information on reducing the threat of lead paint hazards in housing. The center was responsible for publishing the first comprehensive technical guidelines for evaluating and controlling lead paint hazards in housing, which are still being used today. The center conducted a scientific evaluation of 14 projects funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, (HUD), Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant program. The evaluation yielded important information about the effectiveness of lead hazard control treatments and the results continue to inform national lead poisoning prevention policy. The center also published a groundbreaking scientific study on the relationship between settled lead dust levels and blood lead levels in children. It was this study that highlighted the insidious nature of the hazardous dust generated from lead-based paint.

Despite its many research accomplishments, the center is perhaps best known for its unique ability to translate scientific research and Government regulations into results. When HUD published its final lead- safe housing regulation 2 years ago, communities expressed concern about the lack of trained personnel to carry out the rule's requirements. In response, the center administered training to over 14,000 individuals across the country, enabling them to perform the lead-related services required by the rule. When local housing programs expressed a need to better understand the rule's requirements and how to incorporate them into the Community Development Block Grant and HOME programs, the center provided training to over 2,000 housing program staff in over 40 communities.

Today, as the National Center for Healthy Housing, the center continues its commitment to childhood lead poisoning prevention and is expanding its expertise to other environmental hazards in the home such as mold, allergens, and other irritants.

As we celebrate the center's 10th anniversary, I would also like to pay tribute to its founding director, Nick Farr. Mr. Farr retired last October after a long and distinguished career in both the public and private sectors. Much of his professional experience was in the areas of housing finance, housing and urban development, and housing-based lead poisoning prevention. A graduate of Yale Law School, Mr. Farr spent the 1950s and early 1960s in private practice. In 1962, Mr. Farr joined the Agency for International Development at the U.S. Department of State as Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Near East and South Asia economic assistance programs. Five years later, President Lyndon Johnson appointed him Director of the Model Cities Administration at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. In the 1970s, Mr. Farr was a New York University law professor before joining the U.S. Department of Commerce as General Counsel to the Economic Development Administration in 1977. In 1979, Mr. Farr was appointed General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Then in the 1980s, Mr. Farr was Executive Director of the California Housing Finance Agency, Executive Vice President of the Wells Fargo Mortgage Company in California, and Vice President for Field Services at The Enterprise Foundation. During his tenure with The Enterprise Foundation, Mr. Farr served on the board of directors of a nonprofit housing developer based in Baltimore that focused on creating affordable, lead-safe housing units. As a result of his service on this board and his accumulated professional experience, in 1992, Mr. Farr conceived of, and created, the National Center for Lead-Safe Housing. As the founding director of the center, Mr. Farr helped spearhead a variety of public and private initiatives to protect our Nation's children from residential lead hazard exposures.

I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Nick Farr's legacy and the profound impact that the National Center for Healthy Housing has had and continues to have on the creation and maintenance of safer and healthier affordable housing for low-income families across our Nation.

Madam President, before recognizing my colleague, Senator Durbin, let me say the Reed-Durbin amendment would provide up to 1 million Americans who are long-term unemployed and were not assisted by the January 8 amendment we passed. This would be a positive stimulus for our economy. These benefits would be paid out until the economy came back and then automatically stop. It also recognizes the structural changes. The high-tech meltdown and the exodus of manufacturing have left many people without jobs. They need our help now.

Our economy is in distress. We have to help these hard-working Americans. We cannot wait any longer because as we wait, they invade their 401(k)s, they extend their credit cards, they do anything to make ends meet. We should help them now.

I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Illinois.

I yield 10 seconds to the Senator from Maryland.

Madam President, we might be able to wait here for procedural niceties, but the million Americans who are desperate for jobs and can't find jobs cannot wait. I urge passage.

I request the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment and ask for immediate consideration of amendment No. 27, which is at the desk.

I yield.

Around 10 or 15 minutes. No longer.

Reserving my right to object, Senator Collins of Maine, also a cosponsor, wants to speak on this amendment.

So her rights will be protected.

Mr. President, I am offering an amendment today to increase funding for the LIHEAP program, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, to $2 billion for this fiscal year. I am offering this amendment with my colleague and friend from Maine, Senator Susan Collins. Senator Collins wanted to be here to offer the amendment with me, but she is traveling from Maine in very difficult weather circumstances today, and when she arrives this afternoon she will take the floor to speak on behalf of this amendment.

I also thank my colleagues, Senator Dayton, Senator Snowe, Senator Jeffords, Senator Kennedy, Senator DeWine, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Cantwell, Senator Stabenow, Senator Clinton, Senator Dodd, Senator Kerry, Senator Levin, Senator Corzine, Senator Leahy, and Senator Durbin, who are all cosponsors of this amendment.

At this juncture I ask unanimous consent that Senators Chafee, Schumer, Harkin, Fitzgerald, Murray, Bingaman, and Lautenberg be added as cosponsors of this amendment.

As you can see, this amendment enjoys widespread and bipartisan support. I think it is clear, particularly given the weather today, that support is not unmerited.

Let me begin by offering a weather report, if you will. It is today, in Washington, around 30 degrees. But if you are outside, it feels much colder. The low will be somewhere around 14 degrees.

As you go along the country: Albany, NY, today, 17 degrees the high; Baltimore, 29 degrees; Chicago, 18 degrees; Cleveland, 15 degrees; Des Moines, IA, 12 degrees; Detroit, MI, 18 degrees; Milwaukee, 14 degrees; Omaha, 12 degrees; and my State, Rhode Island, they list the high as 23, but this morning when I left at 5 a.m. it was 5 degrees, but with the wind chill factor it was below zero.

This amendment is important because there are Americans who are suffering because of the cold. But it is not just about cold weather in certain parts of the country at this time of the year; the LIHEAP program is also important since it covers those hot stretches in the summertime when energy bills in the Southwest and the Southeast are astronomical and impact adversely low-income Americans.

We need this program throughout the year. We particularly need it today to protect people from the cold, but, as I said, those individuals who live in Alabama or Arkansas or Texas or southern California need LIHEAP in the summertime and it should be there for them, as it should be for those people who struggle today with the cold weather in the Northeast and Midwest.

In fact, yesterday the coldest place in America was Embarras, MN, minus 26 degrees. It is one thing to be in Embarras, but it is also something else to be freezing in Embarras. So I think we have to do something to ensure that we can protect low-income Americans from the cold that is affecting them today.

Twenty-five years ago Congress passed the LIHEAP program. They knew that people struggling with all sorts of expenses--raising a family, providing food to put on the table--they needed help in these cold months in the Northeast and those hot spells in the Southeast, to provide for assistance so they could afford the energy they needed.

During his campaign, President Bush promised to fully fund LIHEAP to help these low-income families meet their needs for heat in the winter and cooling in the summer. If he stood by his promise, the President would demand the $2 billion for which we are asking; rather, he has proposed cutting that money. This year, despite rising energy prices, colder weather, and increased unemployment, the President's budget has proposed to cut LIHEAP by $300 million. This cut would deny assistance to literally hundreds of thousands of Americans. The appropriations bill that we are considering today does restore part of this funding. I commend and thank Senators Stevens and Byrd and Specter and Harkin and their staffs for their hard work to maintain this funding, but we want to restore an additional $300 million to bring it up to the $2 billion level that will just be, in terms of purchasing power, equal to last year. We want to do that and I hope we can do that today through this amendment process.

As I said, we could add this $300 million, but we are not requesting new funding. This amendment simply requires the administration to give the States the $300 million the Congress provided in the fiscal year 2001 Supplemental Appropriations Act. Congress provided $300 million in LIHEAP funding 2 years ago to help these families meet their needs when energy costs increase, when there are significant disconnections of utilities because if you can't pay the gas bill or electric bill, eventually you will be disconnected and you will be without any type of energy.

All of these efforts in terms of funding LIHEAP have been urged on the present administration by the Governors. They understand because they are right there in the trenches, if you will, dealing with the issue of people literally freezing today and sweltering in the summertime.

Cutting heating assistance for seniors and low-income Americans is not the way to go, particularly when it is juxtaposed against proposed significant tax cuts. If we can't at least provide people with a warm shelter in the winter and a cool shelter in the summer when thinking about large-scale tax cuts, to me, seems somewhat inappropriate.

LIHEAP, even with our amendment, will be seriously underfunded. Providing this $2 billion in regular funding to the program will just equal the purchasing power of last year. What it does not recognize is that energy prices are soaring. Today, on the front page of the Providence Journal, there is an article about the cold wave that is sweeping our region of the country, but also the fact that in order to keep up with the demand for oil, which is our principal fuel, because the demand is so huge, our Governor had to suspend regulations to allow delivery drivers to work through periods of time when they are normally required to rest. What is also happening is the prices are jumping up because of uncertainty in Venezuela and uncertainty in the gulf.

This combination of increased prices, cold temperatures, and also an economy that sees more and more people unemployed, is the perfect storm, if you will, when it comes to requiring assistance for heating throughout the Northeast in particular.

There is something else that happens when people are challenged for energy, when they do without. They take their own improvisational means to keep warm. They turn the electric stove on and open up the oven. They go out and buy portable heaters. It is more than coincidence that the number of house fires shows a sharp increase in the months of cold weather in the Northeast because people are improvising. So this is another danger that must be recognized.

This amendment simply allows people to stay warm in the winter and to escape scorching heat in the summertime. It is something that is basic. It is something I believe we should support extensively. I am pleased and proud that so many of my colleagues have joined Senator Collins and me on a bipartisan basis. I hope this is one amendment we can quickly adopt and include in this omnibus appropriations bill. I hope, also, we can at least signal to those people who are looking for some modest assistance in these cold days that we have heard their calls, we are responding to our political leaders at the State level, the Governors, and we are giving them the resources to at least keep people from freezing in a very difficult time.

I asked in my initial statement that we call up amendment No. 27. I ask now it be called up.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Rockefeller be added to the amendment as a cosponsor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER Mr. (Ensign) Without objection, it is so ordered.

I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

No.

I have no objection. I think I can assure the Senator that I will be finished before 4 o'clock.

Mr. President, under the unanimous consent, I call up amendment No. 40.

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

Mr. President, today I join with Senator Durbin and several other of my colleagues in calling for an extension of Federal unemployment benefits for the 1 million long-term unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits and were not aided by the legislation that we passed on January 8.

On January 8, we passed a bill that extended benefits to unemployed workers who were cut off from receiving their benefits on December 28. With the December 28th deadline, approximately 800,000 workers were cut off from receiving their benefits. We essentially gave them 13 weeks of extended benefits, but in doing so we neglected to provide additional benefits for a million Americans who lost their unemployment benefits-- first, their State benefits of 26 weeks, and then their extended Federal unemployment benefits.

In recent recessions, Congress always acted to respond to the plight of these unemployed Americans who are searching for work, trying to maintain their households, and trying to maintain their families. In the early 1990s, Congress extended benefits five different times--three of those times during the Presidency of President George Herbert Walker Bush.

In contrast to the 1990s, the situation is even greater today. At the end of December 2002, an estimated 2.2 million workers exhausted their Federal benefits; whereas, in the recession of the 1990s, approximately 1.4 million Americans had exhausted those benefits.

Where is this crisis affecting Americans? It is everywhere. It is estimated that of these 1 million jobless Americans, about 56,800 are from Texas; 44,000 are from Pennsylvania; 43,500 are from Ohio; 37,600 are from North Carolina; 53,000 are from Illinois; 20,000 are from Indiana; 27,000 are from Tennessee; 18,000 are from South Carolina; and 84,000 are from New York. And the list goes on and on.

This is not a rollcall to be proud of because it represents the fact that the economy is not working. These are not small numbers. We overlooked a lot of those Americans when we took partial action on January 8.

This is not just about numbers. This is about people.

I think there is an erroneous perception that somehow these people are not looking hard enough for work; that they are really the hard- core unemployed, transient workers; that somehow they just don't deserve our help. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I will share some stories that have appeared in the press about people who are struggling with this dilemma of unemployment. I think you will find these people are very similar to people in your neighborhoods, in your families. They are Americans who want to work but in this economy cannot find work.

And there is something else that is going on here, too. This economic dilemma has some characteristics of a cyclical unemployment cycle, but many economists believe there are structural issues at work. You see, this is the situation where, for the first time in recent memory, many of these unemployed Americans are highly skilled, highly educated, and highly motivated. Yet they cannot find work.

For example, Laura Carson of Easton, MA, lost her job in July of 2001. She was a human resources executive. She worked for approximately 17 years,

since she graduated from Suffolk University. She has applied for unemployment insurance. She exhausted her State benefits, and then she exhausted her extended benefits. She is still looking. She tried to get a job this holiday season in a retail shop, but she could not find work. She is still looking. Just to survive, she has gone ahead and refinanced her house and taken out a home equity loan. But that is only putting off the inevitable, as bills keep crashing in upon her.

These are the types of people we are trying to help: Susan Brown of Chappaqua, NY, lost her job as a consultant 18 months ago. She used to be a principal in a firm that specialized in Web design. She is one of the victims of this technological bubble that burst. Her company went belly-up in 2001.

This is a woman who has worked for 18 years since she got out of college. She worked through high school and put herself through college. This is exactly what we like to reward in America: hard work, discipline, and dedication. She got remarried over the summer and, ironically--but in this market, not surprisingly--her husband lost his job, also. She has had to dip into her 401(k) plan to make ends meet. She is still looking but still very frustrated about finding work. She said:

There are just no jobs. I can't even tell you how hard it

is.

And prior to her loss of employment, she was making $200,000 a year. This is an example of this new phenomenon where highly skilled, highly motivated, highly educated people just can't find comparable employment in this recession.

Jules Berman of Queens was laid off from his job. He worked for almost 30 years for a New York candy company. He filed for unemployment insurance in December 2001, and he has seen his benefits exhausted. He has never been out of work before in his entire work life.

What you are seeing, again, if you do the math: after 30 years, seeing middle-aged men and women, who are losing their jobs for the first time in their work history, who thought--as we all did, our contemporaries--if you worked hard, got a good education, got in with a good company and strived and struggled each day, you certainly could work until you retired on your pension and your Social Security. That is not the case. And now, at the age of 50, with mortgages, with children who are going to college, with health care bills and health care concerns, they are looking for a job.

That is the reality, and it is not just in the Northeast. Eric Strubble lives in Newcastle, CA. He was laid off from Hewlett-Packard-- another example of the huge downturn in technology companies that has taken place in the last few years. He has filled the gap with these unemployment benefits, but, as he said:

Obviously, if we had to live off it, there would be no way,

but it helps stretch things out a bit.

People don't get unemployment insurance because they don't want to work. It is a fraction of what you make in your salary check each week. The average unemployment benefit is about $256. It does not make up for your lost wages. It allows you, as Mr. Strubble says, to ``stretch things out a bit'' until you get on your feet.

Joyce Smith, 52, of Ardmore, TN, exhausted her $190-a-week benefit in August. She was a factory worker. As she said:

There's not much out there. They don't want people my age.

It's been a panic and a struggle, and you just go into a

depression.

Gary Hineman of Morgantown, PA, an unemployed steelworker who is 48 years old, has worked his whole life. In fact, he fibbed about his age at 16 just to get in the Steelworkers Union. He worked all his life, worked hard, and yet he is looking desperately for work. He said:

If I could speak to Members of Congress, I would tell them

to see how we live and how we feel. They want the economy to

pick up, but there are no jobs to pick it up with.

That is Mr. Hineman. His wife Michelle works as a grocery clerk. They are getting by on her $15-an-hour job.

Mr. Hineman said: ``That is the only thing I've got going for me.'' These are examples. These are the realities. These are the people we are trying to help and we should help: hard-working Americans. Yet we neglected 1 million of them.

Now, as the comments of these individuals suggest, this is a reflection of an economy that is not working. For the first time in 8 years, family incomes have fallen; poverty is increasing; families at all income levels are losing their health insurance; gross domestic product is growing, but it is not growing fast enough to make up the jobs that are necessary so these people can get back to work.

Indeed, the reality for most Americans today is, they live on their paychecks not their portfolios. When the paycheck stops, they are in very difficult circumstances. Our proposal is very simple: Let's give these individuals some more extended unemployment benefits so they can stretch it out a bit longer, find that job, make decisions that are going to get them back in the workforce.

Let me point out that our economy has lost over 2.2 million private payroll jobs since President Bush took office. The unemployment rate is currently 6 percent--nearly 2 percentage points higher than when President Bush took office. Long-term unemployment is very high, and that is the issue we are dealing with in this amendment: giving some support to these long-term unemployed.

By the way, I cannot think of a more efficient stimulus program than giving people looking for work unemployment benefits to tide them over until they find work. The money goes directly to them and directly into the economy. So from the standpoint of economic policy, that makes sense. Certainly from the standpoint of helping citizens of this country, it makes a great deal of sense.

The unemployment insurance trust fund has a $24 billion surplus. The funds are there. We should access them and allow these individuals additional benefits. We have to do more to help working Americans to make sure they make it through a very difficult, very challenging economic situation.

We have done it before, and I hope we can do it again. I hope we will do it again in this bill. This is an issue of great concern for our economy, but, as I have tried to illustrate with these individual stories, this is about our neighbors, people we live with back in our home States, the people we represent, the people who have worked all their lives; and all they want is a chance to keep their heads above water until they can find that job, as they look for that job day in and day out.

I think it is the least we can do for them. I hope we will do it. I am pleased and proud to be joined by Senator Durbin as a cosponsor. I know he will return a bit later to make his comments.

I hope we can, in fact, take up this amendment, adopt it on a strong bipartisan basis, and make sure that all long-term unemployed, not just those who were satisfied in the last legislation--but all the long-term unemployed--get a chance for extended benefits.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 1 minute for myself and Senator Collins to explain the amendment.

Madam President, this amendment would direct the President to release $300 billion for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. It will be offset by using unexpended emergency LIHEAP funds which were already appropriated in the 2001 Supplemental Appropriations Act. Today, as the temperatures freeze, people throughout the country-- people in the Northeast, the Midwest, many parts of the country--are freezing. This includes low-income seniors. With rising oil prices, a declining economy, and cold temperatures, it is the ``perfect storm'' for those people. We can help them with this amendment.

The amendment will also provide assistance to address the scorching heats of summer in other parts of the country. I urge passing.

I yield the remaining time to my colleague Senator Collins.

Mr. President, I rise to support the Kennedy amendment which would allow us to live up to the commitment we made just over a year ago in the No Child Left Behind Act, that we would fully fund educational programs contained in that law and other educational initiatives that are so important to all of our citizens. Today we are facing a budget that does not do that.

I was listening to my colleague who talked about President Bush's efforts of the last two years with title I, which is very important. These increases are commendable. I was listening to comparisons with President Clinton. I think President Clinton did extremely well in terms of funding education, and he focused not just on title I but also efforts to reduce class sizes, increase professional development, and increase and improve the quality of the educational efforts throughout this country.

It is particularly noteworthy that President Clinton exceeded all of his recent predecessors in terms of Title I increases. President Reagan proposed a 2.99-percent cut; President George Herbert Walker Bush, a 2.31-percent increase; and President Clinton, a 4.01-percent per year increase.

When I arrived in 1990 in the other body and served on the Education Committee there, it was recognized that education was important, but by 1995 a Republican Congress was making its first priority the elimination of the Department of Education. Yet in that environment we were still able to increase funding for title I and other educational programs.

The issue is not about comparing President George W. Bush to President Clinton. We are simply asking President Bush to do what he said he would do when he signed the No Child Left Behind Act, when he embraced all of the reforms within this act, when he touted these reforms as a path-breaking development in Federal education policy.

He understood, I think, and certainly in the deliberations we all came to the understanding, that education is not just about one segment, not just about students. It is about teachers. It is about facilities. It is about giving local school districts incentives to improve and ensuring they do improve by setting up accountability measures. We cannot do that without providing the resources.

There have been discussions in the Chamber about unfunded mandates, and my colleague from New Hampshire pointed out that in his view the testing is not an unfunded mandate because we will fund the testing. The reality is that we are telling school districts to not only test, but then to take those results and improve schools.

I already have schools in Rhode Island that have been required by the Department of Education to be certified as not making sufficient progress. Under our legislation, that triggers steps the State and school districts must take. Those steps are not without costs. Yet we are not providing sufficient resources to meet all of those costs.

That is the unfunded mandate. That is what is objectionable. That is what we hear in every State capital in every community. You asked us to go out and test our children, you asked us to start reforming, you asked us to have better teachers, better facilities, better libraries. You give us money to test, but where are the other resources? That is the heart of this whole discussion and whole debate.

I recall, they were so eloquent and so passionate, the words of our late colleague, Paul Wellstone, who said repeatedly:

We cannot realize the goal of leaving no child behind on a

tin cup budget.

There were loads of us who, a year ago, applauded the approach but feared the authorization would be what it seems to be on the floor this evening, just a hortatory, nice thing to do, rather than a goal we are bound and committed to achieve.

Last year, no one was talking about this as just merely suggestions, these authorization levels. They talked about it as a real commitment. That is why we are here. That is why Senator Kennedy has this amendment. Let's make a real commitment, not just a rhetorical one. Let's put our money where our mouth was last year and should be this year. We have to do that because we recognize unless we invest in education we are not going to be able to prepare young people to assume roles, not just in our economy, but also in our civic life.

The tasks before schools today are so much more complicated. The new Americans who arrive daily with different languages and different cultural viewpoints have to be, we hope, seamlessly brought into our system, and public education has been the great institution to do that. We have to support that.

So we are here today to be very serious about education, not just to pass a bill that we can go out and tout in our states and then come back here and say that was just rhetoric. We are here for the resources. We are here for the second part of the equation.

The goals are there. The structure is there. Now we really have to put the resources to those goals and to that structure. Senator Kennedy has identified two of the key components: title I, which serves practically every community in this country, and also Pell grants.

In distinction to the approach of Senator Kennedy, my colleague from New Hampshire would suggest an across-the-board cut. So many people have already pointed out this overall omnibus is deficient in so many different ways, to take from the Department of Veterans Affairs, to take from the other departments, is not a way to solve this issue. We have to stand up and fund these programs in education without denying other worthwhile programs. I think we can. I think we should.

Of course, all of this is in the context of what follows this appropriations process. It is already the announced goal, the objective of the President, to propose a huge tax cut. We should ask ourselves why can't we, today, simply reserve from that proposed tax cut sufficient moneys this year and in the years to come to fully fund education? I would suspect, and I would even wager that, if you asked most Americans whether they would prefer to fund this bipartisan education act--which has been touted, supported, embraced by all sides, President Bush, Republican congressional leaders, and Democratic congressional leaders--by taking money from that tax cut and putting it into this sound program, and they agree it is sound, they would agree overwhelmingly.

In a way, we are not doing that directly, but that is the overarching context of our efforts this afternoon. We want to put the resources where they should be, in title I and in Pell grants. We want to keep our promises. We want to make sure all the provisions of this No Child Left Behind Act have a fair chance to operate and succeed.

Let me just conclude by saying one of the major points that persuaded me with some--I wouldn't say reluctance, but with some hesitancy, because I feared this day where we, a year after our press releases, would be coming here and finding the money is not there to do the job-- but what persuaded me is that this bill essentially recognized that education is not just one thing, it is many things. That is why this No Child Left Behind Act has funding for professional development, parental involvement, school libraries, and a host of other programs.

Let me tell you, those programs are going to be drastically underfunded in the President's budget, as I see it, even if we put more money into the title I program.

But the point is, if we do not commit ourselves to the full change of educational reform we are going to, I think, sadly misspend even the money we commit to the program.

I hope we can support the Kennedy amendment. I hope we can support additional resources for education. In doing so, let's fulfill our commitment, not just our commitment to the act that was passed last year, but a greater commitment, to give every citizen in this country the opportunity to succeed, and the best instrument to do that is good education. We all believe that. Let's translate our beliefs into votes this evening and put the money where it should be.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Yes, I yield.

Mr. President, the American economy is in serious distress and thousands of families across America are suffering. When President Bush took office in January 2001, the unemployment rate was 4.2 percent. In November of 2002, the unemployment rate was 6.0 percent; 2.2 million more Americans were out of work than when President Bush took office in January of 2001.

The economy is not growing fast enough to generate the jobs that continue to employ millions of Americans. Labor market conditions are not improving. In fact, tomorrow the Bureau of Labor Statistics will report on employment statistics in December, and they are likely to be unchanged from November, roughly 6 percent unemployment in the United States.

This is an extremely disappointing economic record, and the Bush administration is refusing to take prompt and responsible action to put Americans back to work.

Increasingly, we hear the Republicans trying to deflect this situation by claiming this is the Clinton recession, but the National Bureau of Economic Research, which is recognized as

the authority on these matters, indicated that the recession began in March 2001, months after President Clinton left office, several months after President Bush assumed responsibility for economic policy.

Indeed, in the last full month of the Clinton administration, the unemployment rate was 4.0 percent. In the last full quarter of the Clinton administration, the economy was still growing. More to the point, rather than assessing responsibility, a President of the United States, regardless of responsibility, has to act on behalf of the American people, and we are still waiting for prompt and effective action from President Bush to remedy the ills of this economy.

What has the President proposed to get us moving again? He is proposing, as the centerpiece of his plan, a massive elimination of taxation on dividends, which has several problems.

First, it would have no immediate stimulative effect on the economy.

Second, it is grossly unfair. It will accrue to taxpayers with very high incomes and provide little or no benefit to the majority of taxpayers, including most seniors, and it significantly erodes long- term budget discipline, which has been the foundation of economic growth in this country since the Clinton administration.

When we began debating a stimulus package over a year ago--because even then we recognized the economy was foundering--the four leaders of the House and Senate Budget Committees on a bipartisan basis established principles for any effective stimulus package. The Congressional Budget Office used similar principles in a report in January of 2002 evaluating proposed changes in tax policy aimed at providing stimulus.

The President's dividend proposal, when measured by these bipartisan principles, fails dramatically.

First, a tax cut is most effective as stimulus when it puts money into the hands of the people who will spend that money almost immediately, but based on the administration's own theories, only $20 billion of the projected direct cost of $364 billion over 10 years will be spent in the first year. A small fraction of the ultimate cost of this tax plan will be available to be spent in the near term. That is when we need stimulus. That is what a stimulus package is all about.

Second, the dividend proposal is particularly poorly targeted as stimulus. Most families have little or no direct ownership in stock. They have pension plans, they have Keogh plans, they have retirement accounts, but the majority of direct ownership of stock is concentrated in the hands of very wealthy individuals, higher income households that are more likely to save the money than to immediately engage in consumption, to increase demand, to get the economy moving.

As I mentioned before, a stimulus by its very nature should provide immediate effects, but even the $20 billion in projected stimulus for 2003 is not really stimulus because taxpayers will have to wait until they file their returns next year until they actually see this money in their hands.

Stimulus should not undermine long-term economic discipline. We found out through the policies of the Clinton administration that sound fiscal policy in Washington, leading ultimately to a surplus, was the foundation for economic expansion, the longest running economic expansion in the history of this country. We are in grave danger of losing that economic discipline, of seeing interest rates begin to climb and choke off growth.

For all these reasons, the President's proposal, particularly his centerpiece, the dividend proposal, is bad economic policy.

Some have said these criticisms are just an exercise in class warfare. Let me tell my colleagues the facts. Under the President's proposal, the 226,000 tax filers with more than $1 million of income-- about .2 percent of tax filers--will receive an average tax cut of almost $90,000. A third to a half of that will come simply from this dividend proposal.

In contrast, the 109 million taxpayers with incomes under $75,000-- the middle and working class Americans, 82 percent of taxpayers--will receive an average tax cut of $273. Let me once again suggest the dimensions here: 226,000 upper-income tax filers versus 109 million middle-class and working-class tax filers. The 226,000 receive $90,000 on average; the 109 million--the rest of us--receive about $273. Now, nearly a quarter of elderly taxpayers will be left out of this bounty. Nearly half the heads of households with children will be left out of the benefit.

I have concentrated on the bad economic policy associated with this proposal. But it is also terrible budgetary policy. Even without the President's new proposal, we have seen a stunning decline in our fiscal situation. In January of 2001, we were looking at a projected surplus over 10 years of $5.6 trillion. In fact, we were shopping around--not really ``we,'' the Republicans--were shopping around for tax cuts because they said we will have too much surplus and we will not be able to conduct debt operations of the United States. We will have too much surplus, and we will not be able to find investments for all this money. In a little over 2 years, we have seen those surpluses disappear.

Still, we have educational issues we have to fund and health care issues. Ask the average American what they are most concerned about, the first concern is health care. Can I get it? If I am a business man or woman, can I afford to give it to my employees. Second issue, can we maintain education? That is not just an issue for families but for States and localities. They are suffering under tremendous budget pressure. Their two biggest items of expense are health care and education.

And we have the challenges of international affairs and of homeland defense. All of these proposals require expenditures that cannot be ignored or deferred. And the President proposes further to weaken our fiscal balance, our fiscal foundation.

And there is another issue. We are within a decade of the baby boom generation reaching retirement age, a huge demographic tidal wave. Will we be prepared for it? Will we have the resources to take care of Medicare and Social Security? Not if we cut taxes as dramatically and as inefficiently and inappropriately as the President has asked.

Now, there is an alternative to the President's proposal. That is a proposal that Democrats in both the Senate and House have advocated. The plans differ but they are consistent in many respects. They want to give tax benefits to middle and working class Americans. They want to make sure these benefits are immediate. They can be spent now to stimulate the economy and get them going forward. And they are crafted in such a way we do not jeopardize any further our fiscal discipline here in the United States. These are the proposals we should enact. I hope we do.

Let me conclude by summarizing a major concern I have. We will, in the weeks ahead, debate this issue of stimulus and growth. We will take votes on stimulus and growth. We will try to adopt economic policy. But for me, the real issue is not whether we reduce taxes, the real issue for me is whether we are going to have a Social Security system for Americans of this generation, of my generation, and of future generations.

This chart is illustrative. Where is all the money coming from in the President's proposal, $933 billion? That is not just a direct tax benefit, that is all the interest over 10 years that we will have to pay because of this deficit. Where does it come from? It comes from the Social Security system. I fear that if we enact the President's proposal, within months the President will simply say we can no longer afford Social Security. We have such a large deficit now we have to abandon the system.

I hope all my colleagues and the American people pay attention to the votes in the next several weeks. They are not about growth and stimulus but about whether we will have a Social Security system, whether we will have an adequate Medicare system, whether we will keep our promise over 60 more years to the people of America.

These are daunting times. We need policies that will work, that will be fair, and that will leave us stronger rather than weaker. I hope we adopt these policies.

I yield the floor.