Floor Statements

Mr. President, as many of my colleagues know, I have come to the floor for 6 of the past 7 years to offer the Murray-Snowe amendment to lift the restrictions on privately funded abortions for our military women serving overseas. We have offered this amendment virtually every year since 1996 with the hope that one day women in the military would not be required to sacrifice their constitutional right when they serve overseas.

Since 1996, this amendment has twice passed on the Senate floor only to be killed during conference. This amendment has always been relevant and germane, even in postcloture debate. The amendment simply ensures access to safe and legal reproductive health care for our military personnel. Access to safe and legal health care is certainly relevant when discussing the Department of Defense authorization bill.

I find it extremely hard to understand how after these 7 years this topic is suddenly no longer relevant. It does not make sense. I think it is an outrage and an insult to the women who serve in our military. I would never want to have to tell a woman in our Armed Forces who is risking her life to serve our country overseas that her health care is irrelevant in the Senate.

The intent of the Defense authorization bill is to ensure that our military has the resources and support it needs to protect all of us. The health of our female service members is certainly a key ingredient in a successful military. Today, women are serving side by side in combat situations and in hostile war zones. Women are a critical part of our military. They serve in leadership roles, and they provide outstanding service. Their health care is relevant. I don't know how many of my colleagues could come to the floor and argue any differently.

I thank the cosponsors of the amendment, including Senators Snowe, Boxer, Cantwell, Collins, Schumer, Jeffords, and Corzine.

My amendment would eliminate the restrictions on privately funded abortions only. It doesn't change conscience clauses for military personnel. It doesn't require direct funding, and it would not result in a huge new mission for military health care.

Under current restrictions, women who volunteer to serve their country--and female military dependents--are not allowed to exercise their legally guaranteed right simply because they are serving overseas. These women are committed to protecting our rights as free citizens. Yet they are denied one of the most basic rights accorded all women in this country. Women depend on their base hospital and military care providers to meet all of their health care needs. Singling out abortion-related services could jeopardize a woman's health.

The truth is, women serving overseas have very few options when facing a difficult pregnancy. They can seek care in a host country, but few countries have the standard of health care that we take for granted here at home. These women service members can seek leave--not medical leave--and be transported back to the United States.

These are difficult options which put women's lives in jeopardy. That is why retired GEN Claudia Kennedy, the Army's first woman three-star general, supported my amendment. She has firsthand knowledge of women who face this difficult experience, and she wrote to me about one of those women. She told me:

[T]hat in a very vulnerable time, this American who was

serving her country overseas could not count on the Army to

give her the care she needed.

The impact of this unconstitutional restriction on women's health is supported by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Women's Association, Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, and the National Partnership for Women and Families.

In the past, some have argued that allowing privately funded abortions in military facilities overseas would be a huge burden that the military couldn't meet.

I wish to point out that the previous administration endorsed my amendment and saw no problems implementing this policy.

I also add that under current law the military is required to provide abortion-related services when a woman's life is in jeopardy in the case of rape or incest. To say that the military cannot provide this service calls into question that ability to meet current law.

In the past, we have had concerns raised about objections from host countries. Abortion is illegal in many countries, as is family planning for unmarried women. In some countries, simply allowing them to drive can violate local customs and laws.

I think the military has a long tradition of respecting the laws and customs of host countries without delegating women to second-class citizenship status or sacrificing our own proud history of equal treatment under law. Current restrictions humiliate servicewomen by forcing them to seek the approval of their commanding officer in order to travel back to the United States for abortion services.

We know from a previous GAO report issued in May of 2002 that many commanding officers ``have not been adequately trained about the importance of women's basic health care.'' Department of Defense officials say that lacking this understanding, some commanders may be reluctant to allow active-duty members, both women and men, time away from their duty stations to obtain health care services.

Many women are forced to seek care off the base or wait until leave can be arranged without approval from a commanding officer.

Many women are forced to delay the procedure for several weeks until they can travel to a location where safe and adequate care is available.

I have to tell you, I do not see why lifting this offensive and dangerous restriction now--this year--is not relevant to a Department of Defense authorization bill. Isn't it our goal to provide the resources and support for our military personnel? How can the health and safety of women who serve in the military all of a sudden be called not relevant?

I have been told that if I offer this amendment, the Chair is going to rule it out of in order on the claim it is not relevant, so I have no choice but to withdraw my amendment.

I do not know how we explain to military servicewomen that their health care is not relevant or that supporting their access to safe and legal reproductive health care is somehow now not part of the Defense authorization bill.

This is a sad day for our country when women who are serving their country overseas are told their health care is not relevant by the Senate.

I am happy to yield for a question.

The Senator is absolutely correct.

There is no other piece of legislation that is before us where this is relevant. In fact, I have offered this six times on the Department of Defense authorization bill, even postcloture, and it was considered relevant.

I am shocked and amazed that women are being told today they are not relevant. I am furious that women are being told they are not relevant when it comes to the Department of Defense, when it comes to their health care, and when it comes to the Senate.

I hear the Senator, and I absolutely agree. And I will join with any Senators who object to any bill coming up when the word ``relevant'' is being used.

I have been in public policy for almost two decades now, and ``relevancy'' and ``germaneness'' have meant specific things to all of us, and we have offered relevant amendments, including the amendment I meant to offer tonight, and they have always been relevant. They have been relevant on this bill six times already, even postcloture.

It seems to me now we have a definition for ``relevancy'' that is above the definition of ``germaneness,'' and that is simply unbelievable to me. I concur with the Senator, the only thing we have left is to not agree to any unanimous consent requests that use the word ``relevancy.''

But I say to my colleague, it seems to me the word ``relevancy'' is now putting a lot of people into being irrelevant: veterans, when it comes to concurrent receipt; communities that are trying very hard to keep stable, when it comes to base closures; and now women--we are all irrelevant. I find that extremely upsetting.

I am happy to yield to the Senator from California.

The Senator from California is correct. This is a real slap in the face to the women who serve us overseas in the military, who are asked every single day to protect us, to fight for what we believe in, to fight for our freedoms. They are being told they are second-class citizens and, worse yet, they are irrelevant in the Senate.

I am happy to.

I have not offered it yet. I am about to make a request to do so.

That is correct.

That is correct. We have submitted it to the Parliamentarian, who told us it was not relevant. We came back and worked to try to change the language. We were told it needed to touch four corners. I don't have a clue what that means, but we were told it would be ruled irrelevant.

That is correct.

The rules have definitely changed, I say to the Senator, because I have offered this amendment postcloture and it has been considered relevant before.

That has always been my understanding of the issue of germaneness and relevancy. So I am at odds with the definitions we have been presented with at this time.

I have always understood the definition of ``relevancy'' to be a lower standard than the issue of germaneness.

Mr. President, reclaiming my right to the floor.

I find that simply astounding. Department of Defense bills are essentially language that changes for different military programs, all kinds of things in the bills. But certainly the issue of whether or not a woman has a right to have safe and legal health care overseas when she is serving her country has been ruled as germane in the past. It seems obviously pretty out of order and extraordinary that that would be where we are tonight.

Let me just do this, because I think all of us agree this amendment is one that has been considered on the bill before. It does deal with a woman's ability to have safe health care. It is one that has been ruled germane twice in postcloture times. I would just ask unanimous consent that the rule on relevancy at this time be waived so I can offer the amendment tonight, because I think it is important that we allow a procedure that has been done many times before to continue under this bill.

I ask unanimous consent to do that.

Mr. President, I find that very troubling. I find it troubling the Senate has now decided to change the definition of relevancy we have operated under in the Senate as long as I have been here. It appears very clear to me now that the issue of relevancy is a much higher standard than the issue of germaneness. We have stepped into a realm most of us are going to be very sorry we are in.

I again will say to my colleagues that having objected to waiving this relevancy, having listened to how we have now changed the definition of relevancy, what we are really doing is saying to women in this country they are irrelevant. I find that to be very sad, Mr. President.

Seven years.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

I ask the Senator from Virginia, what I am having trouble understanding is why an amendment that has been considered germane in the past tonight under the ruling is not considered relevant. I would ask the Senator from Virginia if he is not also troubled that we have now set a definition for relevancy that is higher than the standard for germaneness that may indeed trouble us far into the future?

Mr. President, if I could just respond to the Senator, this amendment I am offering tonight in the past has been ruled in postcloture as germane. I am now tonight being told it is not relevant.

I would add this amendment has been offered seven times, virtually every year since 1996, on this exact bill, the Department of Defense authorization.

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

I yield for 30 seconds.

Mr. President, I understand the Senate is waiting for a ruling from the Parliamentarian of the relevancy of the amendment I sent to the desk and I ask if that ruling is ready.

Mr. President, the Senate has just taken a step in the right direction to address the economic crisis that is facing many of our States and communities by adopting the Collins-Rockefeller amendment. But I think all of us know our States are facing a very severe crisis; in fact, the most severe economic crisis since the Second World War. Many of our State legislatures are facing cuts in health care, education, and even law enforcement.

Our States are facing deficits as high as $80 billion total, and we are very concerned because they are threatening to eliminate the health care coverage of more than 1.7 million Americans.

Today when health care is one of the most difficult decisions our State legislatures have to make, we need to take the next step so we do not lose more doctors, more hospitals; that patients do not see continuing increased costs to their health insurance; and we have Medicaid patients who are losing coverage.

My amendment takes the next critical step by providing $40 billion for the relief package. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive that act for the purposes of the pending amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by Senator Kennedy to extend unemployment benefits for millions of Americans. These fellow citizens are out of work through no fault of their own. They need our help, and by extending their benefits, we will also help stimulate our struggling economy.

In my own State of Washington, we have lost over 80,000 jobs since 9/ 11. The Kennedy amendment would help some 102,000 workers in my state who will exhaust their benefits over the next few months. It will help nearly 4 million workers nationwide.

These are people who want to work and who are looking for jobs but can't find them in our slow economy. It is not easy to find a job in this economy. Just listen to these statistics. The average number of jobs for which unemployed adults have applied is 29. The average for those who have been unemployed for 9 months or more is 39, and unemployed adults over 44 years old apply for an average of 42 jobs before they find work.

Despite these efforts, these workers are now being threatened with mortgage foreclosures and repossession of their vehicles. One in four unemployed workers has had to move to other housing or move in with friends or relatives.

They are facing problems in health care. For instance, one-third of the unemployed were once covered by health insurance, but now they have lost these benefits because they have lost their jobs.

They are spending less on food, medical care and clothing for their children.

I know these workers will help provide a real and immediate stimulus for our economy because they will buy groceries, pay their utility bills, make house payments and pay for other essential needs for their day to day existence. Nearly 80 percent of these workers say that unemployment benefits have been very important in helping their families meet their basic needs.

In fact, a recent study by Economy.com found that the single most effective stimulus measure would be an extension of unemployment compensation benefits. The study also found that each dollar dedicated to extending the program would boost the economy by $1.73, while each dollar connected to reducing the taxation of dividends would boost the economy by just nine cents.

So I urge my colleagues to extend unemployment benefits for these workers. They need and deserve our help, and helping them will directly help our economy.

Amendment No. 557

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 564.

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

Madam President, I rise to offer an amendment that will help address the real needs of families in cities and States all across this country. I thank my cosponsors Senators Daschle, Baucus, Rockefeller, Wyden, Kohl, Schumer, Edwards, and Corzine.

As I look at the current tax proposal, I do not see much that will provide an immediate stimulus to our economy or help working families who are struggling during this recession. In fact, today's Washington Post said that even some Republicans consider this plan ``bizarre and economically suspect.''

This tax bill ignores the real needs that families are facing, and it dramatically increases the deficit, all to give massive tax cuts to a very few. That is an approach that has already failed us. Simply put, this tax bill fails America's families. So tonight I am offering an amendment to put some stimulus and relief into this no-stimulus bill.

The Murray amendment provides direct help where it is so badly needed--in our States and in our local communities. My amendment addresses a crisis in health care that jeopardizes access for all Americans.

Currently, the underlying bill, as we just heard, offers $20 billion in aid to the States. By the way, that funding is only there because Democrats fought for it. That is a major accomplishment considering the President's plan included nothing for our ailing States, and the House also failed our States.

While $20 billion is a victory in our current political environment, we all know it is not enough to help our States recover quickly. So my amendment offers an additional $20 billion for our struggling States and local governments. In total, my amendment provides $40 billion in immediate assistance to our ailing States.

Here is how the money will be divided: $20 billion will go to general revenue sharing. Of that, $16 billion is for State governments, including Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico; $4 billion is for local governments, and each State will receive a minimum of $100 million.

The other $20 billion goes to States for Medicaid relief. This provision would temporarily increase the Federal matching rate for Medicaid. If we are going to help our economy recover, we need to help our States and local governments get through this crisis.

All of my colleagues know the plight of our States. My home State of Washington continues to suffer real economic problems, and it illustrates the importance of adopting the Murray amendment. Washington State has the second highest unemployment rate in the Nation at 7 percent. My colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, who is going to be speaking in just a few minutes, shares the distinguished record of having the highest unemployment in the Nation go back and forth between Oregon and Washington in the last 2 years.

In Washington State, since the spring of 2001, we have lost tens of thousands of jobs. In fact, one in nine Washington residents does not have health care coverage today, and 150,000 people in my State have lost health insurance in the last 2 years. In the last 2 years alone, we have faced in my State an earthquake, an energy crisis, declines in our technology sector, the downturn of Boeing, and the loss of thousands of jobs. And now we face a State budget deficit of $2.7 billion. That translates to dramatic cuts in education, health care, transportation, and social services.

These programs are more important now than ever because times are so tough. Unfortunately, as we all know, many other States are facing very similar challenges. In fact, today our States are experiencing the most severe economic crisis since World War II. Nationwide, States are facing deficits totaling $70 billion to $85 billion.

Experts are warning us that 1.7 million people nationwide risk losing Medicaid coverage as States cut their budgets. In fact, in Washington State, according to our insurance commissioner, 60,000 children will lose access to health care unless we help. That is 60,000 children in Washington State alone. Unlike the Federal Government, States do not have the option of deficit spending. Instead, States are forced to cut existing programs or raise new revenues to balance their budgets.

To add to the State's budget crises, the Federal Government has created costly new mandates in areas such as education and homeland security.

The ``No Child Left Behind'' law required States to implement new accountability measures, but the assistance that was promised has never been delivered.

On homeland security, State and local law enforcement must work overtime whenever the threat level is raised. For many States and localities, homeland security is on the verge of becoming another unfunded mandate. Unfortunately, in response to the crises in our States, the President proposed nothing to help them. It is like the famous newspaper headline: ``Ford to City: Drop Dead.'' The House of Representatives followed the President's lead in leaving States in crisis. It took Democratic efforts in the Senate to build bipartisan support for our States.

I am proud of the work that Democrats have done to add $20 billion to the tax legislation to help our States get through this difficult time. I also commend my colleagues on the other side who are working on this issue. I applaud their work in the face of strong opposition from the President and the Republican party leadership.

My amendment will help States deal with education, as many State universities and community colleges are facing double-digit tuition increases. My amendment will also help States address their Medicaid shortfalls by temporarily raising the Federal share of Medicaid payments.

Given the fiscal crisis in our States, this additional support is critical today. This aid will allow our States to maintain health care coverage for our most vulnerable citizens.

Some of my colleagues may hear the word ``Medicaid'' and think I am just talking about helping low-income families. That is true and it is critical, but it is much more than that.

Yes, Medicaid does provide coverage for more than 42 million low- income, disabled, and elderly Americans, but let's not forget that Medicaid plays a major role in America's health care delivery system.

It pays for about half of all nursing home care. It pays for 17 percent of prescription drug coverage.

Hospitals, doctors and clinics in every State rely on Medicaid as a significant source of revenue.

Cuts in Medicaid could close nursing homes. Cuts could make it harder for middle class families to pay for long-term care for their aging parents or relatives. It could mean lower wages for nurses in long-term care facilities. Finally, let me emphasize, it could have a major impact on women because 70 percent of Medicaid beneficiaries over age 15 are women.

Unless we address the Medicaid shortfall, we will feel the impact everywhere.

When poor kids, families, and moms do not have health care, kids show up at school sick, moms cannot care for families, and parents do not go to work. That affects everyone. It will add to the 41 million Americans who do not have health insurance, and that will add to the costs we all pay for health

care. This affects families and businesses in the form of much higher insurance premiums.

Finally, when Medicaid is underfunded, it puts more pressure on our doctors, hospitals, and clinics that are already struggling. We are losing doctors and seeing hospitals close today.

We cannot afford to let things get worse. We need to improve the underlying tax bill so it addresses the real challenges facing families in our States and local communities. States are facing a fiscal crisis, and my amendment provides $20 billion in aid. States are facing a healthcare crisis, and my amendment provides another $20 billion to make up the Medicaid shortfall.

This amendment is a chance to improve what has been called a ``bizarre and economically suspect'' tax plan.

Before I close, I want to clarify something that we may hear during this debate. I want my colleagues to know that this is not about bailing out States that have overspent. We are talking about individual Americans and their access to services like vision and dental care, asthma medicine, hospice care, and physical therapy. So when my colleagues blame the States for this crisis, they are choosing their words carefully. They do not dare blame the disabled, the elderly, poor children and their parents, but that is who they are really talking about, the people who will lose access to health care unless we pass the Murray amendment.

Let's not forget that our States have had to pick up the bills because the Federal Government has not done its job in certain areas.

For example, because we have not reformed health care at the Federal level, States have had to deal with more and more residents on Medicaid. Because Federal assistance for tuition has been cut, there is more pressure on State-funded universities. To those pressures we can add the Federal Government's failure to fund the education law and new homeland security mandates.

So this is not about bailing out States that have done something wrong. This is about recognizing our responsibility to pay for the things we have required at the Federal level. We know there is an economic crisis in our States, and this is a chance to provide some critical support.

Unless we provide some real aid to our States, Congress and the President will just be passing the tax burden on to the local level. Let's do the responsible thing.

I think that any Senator who votes against the Murray amendment will have a hard time explaining to their Governor, their mayors, and all their citizens why they left their State hanging in order to provide a massive tax cut to the few, which will not result in immediate economic growth.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the Murray amendment, and I thank my co-sponsors.

I yield 15 minutes to my colleague from Oregon, who is a cosponsor of this amendment and who knows in his State how much they are struggling as they try to meet a crisis, as so many other States are.

Madam President, I know there are many other Senators on the floor who wish to speak to their amendments. Let me conclude this amendment debate by saying how important it is for our States that are struggling today with $75 billion or $80 billion in debt, that we do everything we can to get the economy going in a true economic stimulus package to provide funds for those States to assure they do not lose people off health care, that their education systems are intact, and they have the ability to deal with their budget crisis and we don't add to it with fiscally irresponsible tax cuts that preclude them from being able to provide the services that are so critical today.

I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mr. President, I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to the fact that an American activist has been chosen as the recipient of the 2003 United Nations Population Award for only the second time in the history of the honor. This year's beneficiary, Werner Fornos, president of the Washington, DC-based Population Institute, is a well-known figure on Capitol Hill and a long-time advocate for international access to voluntary methods of family planning.

I ask that the following press release honoring Mr. Fornos' receipt of this prestigious award be printed in the Record.

The press release follows.

Werner Fornos Wins 2003 United Nations Population Award

Werner Fornos, a longtime Washington, D.C. resident and

special advisor to former U.S. House of Representatives

Speaker John W. McCormack, has been named the winner of the

2003 United Nations Population Award in the individual

category.

``The selection is in recognition of your outstanding

contribution to the awareness of population growth,'' Thoraya

Ahmed Obaid, secretary of the award committee and executive

director of the U.N. Population Fund, wrote to Fornos

informing him of his selection.

The Family Planning Association of Kenya will receive the

award in the institutional category. Founded in 1962 as a

volunteer-based nongovernmental organization, it has

pioneered the family planning movement in Kenya, promoting

the provision of sexual and reproductive health services

within the

context of reproductive rights and the empowerment of young

people.

Under the chairmanship of Jean-Claude Alexandre, Haiti's

Ambassador to the United Nations, the award committee also

consists of representatives of Burundi, Cape Verde, the

Kyrgyz Republic, Lesotho, the Republic of Moldova, and the

Netherlands, together with a representative of the U.N.

Secretary-General and Mrs. Obaid.

The citation is the only regular United Nations award of

its kind and consists of a medal, a diploma and a monetary

prize of $12,500 to each of the winners. The committee

selected the Family Planning Association of Kenya as the 2003

laureate in the institutional category.

The award ceremony and reception is tentatively scheduled

for June 18 at United Nations Headquarters in New York.

Born in Leipzig, Germany, in November 1933, Fornos was

separated from his family when the apartment building in

which they were living was destroyed in an allied bombing

raid.

He later became the ``mascot'' of the 29th Infantry

Division of the United States Army, and stowed away four

times on troop ships and airplanes in efforts to emigrate to

the United States before he was adopted by Mr. and Mrs. Jaime

Fornos of Newton, Massachusetts.

A 1965 graduate of the University of Maryland University

College, which recently named him Alumnus of the Year, with a

degree in government and politics, Fornos has served in the

Maryland state legislature and as the state's Assistant

Secretary of Human Resources and Manpower Administrator. He

also served as a special assistant to U.S. Assistant

Secretary of Labor for labor-management relations and Deputy

Assistant Manpower Administrator.

Prior to being named as president of the Population

Institute, Fornos was executive director of the Population

Action Council; executive director of Planned Parenthood of

Washington, D.C.; and assistant professor at George

Washington University, where he headed its Population

Information Program.

Fornos has been a management consultant in family planning

implementation and effectiveness to the U.S. Agency for

International Development, the American Public Health

Association, and Westinghouse Health Services. He has worked

on population and family planning projects for Tunisia,

Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey, Mexico, the Philippines, China,

Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Kenya.

He has addressed plenary sessions of virtually every major

international population meeting since the 1974 World

Population Conference in Bucharest, Romania, including the

1984 International Population Conference in Mexico City, and

the 1994 International Conference on Population and

Development in Cairo, Egypt. Fornos has been named Humanist

of the Year by the American Humanist Association and he is a

recipient of Germany's Order of Merit, the highest

distinction granted by the German government to a non-German

citizen in recognition of humanitarian efforts.

He is an honorary professor of international relations at

Szechuan University in China; a member of the board of

directors of the United Nations Association of the United

States; an elected member of the International Union for the

Scientific Study of Population; and he is the recipient of

several Paul Harris Fellowships from Rotary

International.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to join my colleagues to discuss the nomination of Priscilla Owen to the Fifth Circuit Court.

Mr. President, someone watching this debate on C-SPAN today might wonder why the Senate is spending so much time on a judicial nomination. They may watch all our discussions about circuit courts and wonder, how does this affect me? Well, the truth is that it affects all of us. Our Federal courts impact the opportunities, rights, and lives of every citizen, and that is why the appointments to our courts must be made with great care.

Since the founding of our Nation, our courts have changed our history, helping us to live up to our ideals as a society by protecting our rights and defending our freedoms. Our courts affect us at the broadest level, from interpreting environmental standards of clean air and water, to guarding important safety and consumer protections.

Our courts have changed millions of lives at the individual level by knocking down barriers. The courts have helped end the segregation of our schools, worked to stop discrimination, and protected the voting rights of our citizens.

Mr. President, these decisions don't just happen. They are made by people. According to our Constitution, those people are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Today, we are at an important step in that constitutional process. I care about our judges because I was elected to ensure that the people of my State have opportunities and to protect their rights. That is why I work on issues such as health care, education, economic development, to give Washingtonians opportunities. But those opportunities would mean nothing if the basic rights and freedoms of our citizens were undermined by judicial decisions.

This debate is also about the legacy that we leave. As Senators, our legacy is not just in the bills we pass or the laws we change, it is in the people we approve to interpret those laws. Those judges serve lifetime appointments. The precedents they set or break will impact the opportunities of American citizens long after all of us are gone.

So the debate we are having today is part of a process that impacts the rights and freedoms of every American, and we have a responsibility under the Constitution to carry out our role in this critical process. Now, some in the majority may suggest this filibuster is somehow new or unique. It is neither. Every Senator is familiar with the filibuster process. It is one of the many tools available to every Senator. It has been used for decades. It has been used on judicial nominations, and even on Supreme Court nominees.

In fact, a filibuster has been used on judicial nominees by members of the current majority party. This is nothing

new. At the same time, a filibuster is not a step we take often or lightly, especially on judicial nominations, but I believe in this case it is clearly warranted.

As I look at what Americans expect from our judges, I see that this particular nominee falls far short. Not only that, but this nominee's confirmation poses such a risk that the Senate must send a signal we will not confirm judges who represent an attack on the basic rights and freedoms which the courts themselves must safeguard.

What are those qualities we look for in those who serve on the Federal bench? Qualities such as fairness, trust, experience, temperament, and the ability to represent all Americans, and safeguard their rights. It is our duty in the Senate to defend these principles. We are setting no new precedent with this debate. We are simply exercising our right as Senators to defend the principles we believe we must defend.

Why do we feel so strongly about the nomination of Priscilla Owen? Justice Owen's record clearly illustrates she fails the test of meeting the requirements that she be fair, that she engender trust, that she has the proper experience and temperament, or that she has the ability to represent all Americans, and safeguard their rights. Justice Owen has frequently ignored current Supreme Court precedent and State law in favor of imposing her own personal moral and religious beliefs from the bench.

Do not just take my word for it. Let's examine what others, including White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, have said about some of Justice Owen's decisions. Justice Owen is a vigorous dissenter, and her colleagues, including Justice Gonzales, have had a lot to say about her opinions. In one, her colleagues described her dissent as ``nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric.'' In another instance, Justice Gonzales wrote that Owen's dissenting opinion, if enacted, ``would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism.''

Those are pretty strong statements and they provide a window into what kind of judge Priscilla Owen would be on the Fifth Circuit.

It is the judgment of this Senator that Priscilla Owen cannot render impartial justice to the people who appear before her court, that she will not seek to safeguard individual rights, and that her temperament is incompatible with serving on the Fifth Circuit.

This is not an easy decision for me. Thus far, the Senate has confirmed, if my math is correct, 119 of President Bush's judicial nominees. By any standard, that is a notable record. We have tried hard to work with the administration to fill court vacancies in a fair and thoughtful manner. Unfortunately, by every measure, this nomination fails the test. If I agreed to put this judge on the Fifth Circuit Court, I would not be doing my job of protecting the citizens I am here to represent.

This is a critical debate. It is worth the time it takes because the judges we appoint will affect the lives of millions of Americans. We have a special responsibility. Let us carry out that responsibility well, because our legacy is not just in the laws we pass. It is also in the people we appoint who will interpret those laws over a lifetime. The precedents they will set or break will live on longer than any of us.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to express serious concerns about the budget resolution conference report. This is a 10 year blueprint for disaster that ignores the real priorities of working families. It eliminates all of the gains we made in the Senate that addresses the real fiscal challenges we face, while setting the Nation on a course of fiscal irresponsibility. This budget's contents and consequences will hurt the health of our nation.

The budget agreement before us, which I want to point out was filed late last night, takes us back to the failed economic policies of the 1980's that resulted in a tripling of the national debt. It also builds on the failed economic record of this administration.

Since the President took office in 2001, we have lost 2.6 million private sector jobs. Many of these jobs were in the high tech and manufacturing industries so important to Washington State, which is one of the reasons our State has one of the highest unemployment rates in the Nation. The number of people unemployed for 6 months or longer has tripled. Real business investment has fallen. And finally, the $5.6 trillion 10 year surplus that this administration inherited has been converted to a $2 trillion deficit in a little over 2 years.

America's finances are deep in a hole, but rather than reaching for a ladder, this budget proposes a bigger shovel. Rather than trying to reverse the downward spiral, this budget drags us deeper and deeper into debt.

The agreement is also deceptive and uses parliamentary tricks to achieve a $550 million tax cut for the few. It also calls for hundreds of billions more in tax cuts to make permanent the failed 2001 tax cut. After 2 years, we are still waiting for the ``economic stimulus'' that was promised from that tax cut.

Despite the claims of my Republican colleagues, these new tax cuts will provide little relief to working families and will have little, if any, economic stimulus. We need a real economic stimulus plan now. We need to invest in the American workers and businesses now, not 5 years from now. The only way to get this economy going is to invest in economic development and growth, not in ineffective tax cuts targeted to the most affluent.

This budget agreement not only fails our families, it will leave millions of children behind. When the President signed the No Child Left Behind Act, he made two promises: First, schools would be held accountable for their progress. And, second, schools would be given the resources to meet these new requirements.

These two always went together--otherwise schools can't make real progress. But the Republican leadership in Congress and the President have broken their promise to our children by not providing the necessary resources.

I was proud that the Senate accepted my budget amendment to increase funding for No Child Left Behind by $2 billion. But the House conferees have stripped out even that modest increase in education.

Congress still has an obligation to fund the new requirements that we imposed on local schools. This commitment means we must provide $9 billion to fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act. Unfortunately, this budget agreement will reduce funding for education over the 10 years. It holds domestic spending on education to roughly half the rate of inflation over 10 years. That means that each year our commitment to education will be less than the rate of inflation. This is the wrong direction. In order to strengthen our economy, we need to invest in tomorrow's workforce by investing in education.

This budget agreement also falls short in supporting our transportation infrastructure. We know that transportation problems plague our biggest cities and isolate our rural communities. In my home State of Washington, our inadequate transportation network is hindering our economy, our productivity and our quality of life.

When we make sound investments in our transportation infrastructure, we create good jobs today, and we build the foundation for our future economic growth. Making our transportation systems more efficient, more productive and safer, we will pay real dividends for our economy and our communities.

This agreement provides little hope to seniors for a comprehensive, affordable Medicare prescription drug benefit. This agreement will allow for the block granting of Medicaid and the elimination of the entitlement. It offers no long term increase in the Federal match for Medicaid. In my home State of Washington, Medicaid could be faced with a $2 billion shortfall. This will mean cuts in programs for the uninsured and massive reductions in nursing home reimbursement. I fear this could lead to hospitals and nursing homes being closed, and that more doctors could refuse to see new Medicare and Medicaid patients.

There are many of us in the Senate who have worked hard to strengthen public health and increase our investment in biomedical research. This is a commitment in prevention and long term savings in health care. We have seen the results of doubling NIH and the impact this is having on conquering diseases such as cancer, MS, Parkinson's and diabetes. Yet this agreement leaves little hope that we can maintain this investment.

I would have to echo the comments of the Senator Conrad. This budget is reckless, extreme and backwards. Perhaps the saddest conclusion is that this budget fails to invest in our families and our communities.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous course and work today to strengthen our economy and invest in real economic development.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Supporting Success for High Need Students Act, and I thank Senator Collins and Senator Kennedy for joining me in offering this legislation. In recent years, I have come to this floor many times to talk about special education, often in the context of the need to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Act, or IDEA as it is often known.

Mandatory full funding of IDEA is an important issue that should have been settled many years ago. The Federal Government should be meeting the commitment it made over 25 years ago to fund 40 percent of the excess cost of special education. Two years ago, this body finally recognized that reality and passed an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that would have fulfilled that promise for students, schools, districts and States struggling to make up where we fall short. I was disappointed that the President made it clear that he did not support funding this long-standing mandate, and that the House voted not to accept the Senate amendment. At that time I voiced my commitment to continuing to fight to provide the full funding that is long overdue, and I will continue that fight. Unfortunately though, there is a small minority of

students whose educational needs will not be adequately supported even when IDEA is fully funded.

High-need students, whose disabilities may make education an extremely expensive endeavor, must nonetheless have the services and supports they need to receive a full, appropriate public education. Children who are severely autistic or have severe developmental disabilities, for example, may need special facilities, equipment, educational tools, medical services, professional individualized attention and other resources in order to get the education they need to succeed. These needs often far exceed those of most students with disabilities, and so do their costs. The National Center for Education Statistics estimates that the average per pupil expenditure to educate a child in the United States was $7,156 in the 2000-01 academic year. The cost of educating a high-needs student can far exceed that. Costs occasionally exceed $150,000 per year--more than 20 times the average-- to provide students with disabilities the education they need. However, no price is too high to fulfill the civil rights of America's children.

With so many Americans out of work, and State and local budgets squeezed to the brink of disaster, these costs can be a prohibitive burden for school districts to shoulder. Small, rural school districts or districts near specialized medical facilities--which are often in our major cities, but can be in unexpected locations such as near a major military base--are most heavily impacted by these costs. But in the right combination of circumstances, such as a family with quadruplets who are all severely developmentally delayed, any district can feel the pinch of the costs incurred from educating these high-need children.

I know that educators, administrators and elected officials at every level want to do the right thing. They are trying to give students with disabilities the best education they can. But too often, they simply lack the resources to do so, or they find themselves faced with a no- win situation--choosing between implementing an after school program for the entire district or funding one high-need student's Individualized Education Plan. The losers in this equation are the students--with or without disabilities--their parents, and our society as a whole. The resulting tensions do a grave disservice to our communities.

The bill I am introducing today--the Supporting Success for High Need Students Act of 2003--is a carefully crafted bill that would address this problem. This legislation adds funding to IDEA targeted specifically for high-need students. It authorizes $750 million in fiscal year 2004 for grants to be administered by the States. This funding would be allocated to the States using the same formula that apportions funding for IDEA part B. If a high-need student's education costs more than four times the average per pupil expenditure, the school district would be able to apply for a grant to offset those costs. I believe that we should preserve incentives for school districts to manage those costs, so my bill would allow districts to recover three-quarters of the costs above that 400 percent threshold to educate high-needs students. Districts could not be reimbursed with these funds for any legal costs incurred through due process proceedings, or costs that should be reimbursed by Medicaid. The funds would only cover education and related services included in an appropriately formulated Individualized Education Plan.

To illustrate, let's assume that four times the average per pupil expenditure is $25,000. If a school district were serving a student whose education cost $45,000 a year, that district could recoup about $15,000 from the State grant. If a district were serving a student whose education cost $225,000, that district could recoup about $150,000. This bill would not make up all the additional costs of educating high-need students, but it would give struggling districts a much-needed lifeline by making them a lot more manageable.

It has often been noted that the moral test of a society is how it cares for its weakest members. It is the government's appropriate role and duty to protect the basic human dignity of all its citizens to ensure that even the neediest among us have a fair opportunity to realize their dreams and potential. That is why we passed the special education law over 25 years ago, and that is why we should pass the Supporting Success for High Need Students Act his year.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Supporting Success for High Need Students Act, and I thank Senator Collins and Senator Kennedy for joining me in offering this legislation. In recent years, I have come to this floor many times to talk about special education, often in the context of the need to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Act, or IDEA as it is often known.

Mandatory full funding of IDEA is an important issue that should have been settled many years ago. The Federal Government should be meeting the commitment it made over 25 years ago to fund 40 percent of the excess cost of special education. Two years ago, this body finally recognized that reality and passed an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that would have fulfilled that promise for students, schools, districts and States struggling to make up where we fall short. I was disappointed that the President made it clear that he did not support funding this long-standing mandate, and that the House voted not to accept the Senate amendment. At that time I voiced my commitment to continuing to fight to provide the full funding that is long overdue, and I will continue that fight. Unfortunately though, there is a small minority of

students whose educational needs will not be adequately supported even when IDEA is fully funded.

High-need students, whose disabilities may make education an extremely expensive endeavor, must nonetheless have the services and supports they need to receive a full, appropriate public education. Children who are severely autistic or have severe developmental disabilities, for example, may need special facilities, equipment, educational tools, medical services, professional individualized attention and other resources in order to get the education they need to succeed. These needs often far exceed those of most students with disabilities, and so do their costs. The National Center for Education Statistics estimates that the average per pupil expenditure to educate a child in the United States was $7,156 in the 2000-01 academic year. The cost of educating a high-needs student can far exceed that. Costs occasionally exceed $150,000 per year--more than 20 times the average-- to provide students with disabilities the education they need. However, no price is too high to fulfill the civil rights of America's children.

With so many Americans out of work, and State and local budgets squeezed to the brink of disaster, these costs can be a prohibitive burden for school districts to shoulder. Small, rural school districts or districts near specialized medical facilities--which are often in our major cities, but can be in unexpected locations such as near a major military base--are most heavily impacted by these costs. But in the right combination of circumstances, such as a family with quadruplets who are all severely developmentally delayed, any district can feel the pinch of the costs incurred from educating these high-need children.

I know that educators, administrators and elected officials at every level want to do the right thing. They are trying to give students with disabilities the best education they can. But too often, they simply lack the resources to do so, or they find themselves faced with a no- win situation--choosing between implementing an after school program for the entire district or funding one high-need student's Individualized Education Plan. The losers in this equation are the students--with or without disabilities--their parents, and our society as a whole. The resulting tensions do a grave disservice to our communities.

The bill I am introducing today--the Supporting Success for High Need Students Act of 2003--is a carefully crafted bill that would address this problem. This legislation adds funding to IDEA targeted specifically for high-need students. It authorizes $750 million in fiscal year 2004 for grants to be administered by the States. This funding would be allocated to the States using the same formula that apportions funding for IDEA part B. If a high-need student's education costs more than four times the average per pupil expenditure, the school district would be able to apply for a grant to offset those costs. I believe that we should preserve incentives for school districts to manage those costs, so my bill would allow districts to recover three-quarters of the costs above that 400 percent threshold to educate high-needs students. Districts could not be reimbursed with these funds for any legal costs incurred through due process proceedings, or costs that should be reimbursed by Medicaid. The funds would only cover education and related services included in an appropriately formulated Individualized Education Plan.

To illustrate, let's assume that four times the average per pupil expenditure is $25,000. If a school district were serving a student whose education cost $45,000 a year, that district could recoup about $15,000 from the State grant. If a district were serving a student whose education cost $225,000, that district could recoup about $150,000. This bill would not make up all the additional costs of educating high-need students, but it would give struggling districts a much-needed lifeline by making them a lot more manageable.

It has often been noted that the moral test of a society is how it cares for its weakest members. It is the government's appropriate role and duty to protect the basic human dignity of all its citizens to ensure that even the neediest among us have a fair opportunity to realize their dreams and potential. That is why we passed the special education law over 25 years ago, and that is why we should pass the Supporting Success for High Need Students Act his year.

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

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 421 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The amendment before the Senate stops at the No Child Left Behind Act. It is an issue this Senate supports, the House and Senate supported, and the President signed it into law, putting in new accountability measures for all public schools. There were two promises in that bill: One that would require accountability for our students; second, that we will pay for the resources so they can meet the standards we had set.

The amendment before the Senate puts $2 billion from the tax cut into the No Child Left Behind Act so we can begin to follow up on the promise made by Senators in this body to the children in our country. This is an extremely important amendment as many of our States are suffering from very difficult budget crises. We cannot put on them another unfunded mandate under the guise of No Child Left Behind. This amendment makes sure we provide some of the resources that we required when we passed that bill a year and a half ago. I ask for all of our colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I rise in support to the resolution before the Senate.

The President has now started an operation that we had all hoped to avoid. Now that battle has begun, we must win the war and win the peace.

There has been considerable disagreement leading up to this moment-- in this chamber, in this country, and throughout the world. Many people have very strong feelings about the military operation in Iraq, and they have expressed those feelings.

The debate has been vigorous. But now that American forces are in combat, our soldiers should not doubt our support for them.

We stand firmly behind the men and women of our military. They have volunteered to serve their country. We are proud of their service, and we admire their courage. During this difficult time, our thoughts and prayers are with them and the families who await their return.

My State of Washington is home to thousands of soldiers, sailors and airmen. I have had the privilege of meeting many of them--at Fort Lewis, Fairchild Air Force Base, McChord Air Force base, Whidbey Naval Air Station, Everett Naval Station, Bremerton Naval Station, the Bangor Sub base, and our Coast Guard stations.

Some of Washington State's finest are now serving in the Middle East, and may be seeing combat. I have no doubt they will distinguish themselves in carrying out their missions.

Many of these soldiers have family back in Washington State. Throughout my state and across the nation, families are anxious, knowing that their loved ones are in military action.

We take comfort in knowing that America's soldiers are the best- trained, best-equipped, and most capable fighting force the world has ever known. They will carry out this dangerous mission, and they will prevail. We are proud of their dedication and courage, and we all pray for their safe and swift return.

Mr. President, a few days ago I spoke about the serious concerns I had with the budget resolution that was proposed by the new majority. One of the areas where the resolution before us falls woefully short is transportation funding. We have an opportunity before us to increase funding for Federal highway and transit programs by adopting the Bond/Reid amendment.

As all Senators know, this year the Congress is scheduled to reauthorize the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century also known as the TEA-21. This bill includes resources not just for highways, but for highway safety and mass transit. This will be an enormous task for four separate Senate authorizing committees and will require a great deal of resources if we are to be able to develop a consensus package that will get on and off the Senate floor.

What we do in this budget resolution will set the stage for TEA-21 reauthorization and demonstrate to the American people just how committed we are to investing in our nation's transportation infrastructure; to reducing congestion and improving the environment in our cities; to making our transportation system safer; and to putting people back to work. Simply put, the budget resolution as currently written simply doesn't do enough.

The amendment before us would increase the highway program to $255 billion and the transit program to $56.5 billion over the next 6 years. The Federal Highway Administration's own ``Conditions and Performance Report'' states that in order to improve our aging transportation infrastructure we should be investing an additional $42 billion in highways and bridges and $20 billion in mass transit each year.

The benefits of increasing transportation funding are multifaceted. First and most importantly, increased transportation investment will help stimulate our struggling economy since every billion dollars of highway funding generates 47,500 jobs and every dollar in transit investment generates $6 more in economic returns. I don't know about your State, but in my home State of Washington, we can use every bit of economic stimulus that we can get because Washington State was ranked either first or second in the Nation's unemployment rate for much of the last two years and we have lost a staggering 74,000 jobs in the last 18 months.

Second, improving our nation's highways and transit systems will also mean that Americans will spend less time in traffic and more time with their families and loved ones. And the people of Washington State-- particularly in the Everett to Seattle corridor--know something about congestion and the toll it takes on family life and the pocketbook since this area is ranked third in the nation in congestion. Nationwide, the value of travel delay and wasted fuel that occurs in congested traffic is estimated at over $67 billion annually.

And finally, every year over 40,000 Americans die on our Nation's roads and highways--we need to continue to invest in transportation to make sure our infrastructure is safe; that trucks and vehicles meet safety standards; and that Americans drive responsibly by wearing their seatbelts and without the influence of drugs or alcohol.

We have much work ahead of us as we move forward with TEA-21 reauthorization. We have an opportunity to

help our economy by creating good transportation jobs and to improve the quality of life for millions of Americans by ensuring that we have a transportation system that is safe and efficient. I urge my colleagues to support the Bond-Reid amendment.

Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Daschle's amendment to increase funds for the Indian Health Service's clinical services by $2.9 billion. I believe access to good health care services is a basic human right. This is especially true for Native Americans, for whom the Federal Government has the trust responsibility to deliver health care services. But statistics tell us that when it comes to ensuring good health for Native Americans, we are failing.

The Indian Health Care Improvement Act, S. 212, which I cosponsored last year, includes some sobering statistics. The bill reads, ``In death rates for example, Indian people suffer a death rate for diabetes mellitus that is 249 percent higher than the death rate for all races in the United States, a pneumonia and influenza death rate that is 71 percent higher, a tuberculosis death rate that is 533 percent higher, and a death rate from alcoholism that is 627 percent higher.'' This is unacceptable.

When I meet with tribes from Washington State and around the country, improving access to health care for underserved populations--from neo- natal care for pregnant women to care for elders--almost always comes up. I understand that narrowing the health gap that exists between Native Americans and non-natives is a complex challenge. Good health care for Native Americans depends in part on decreasing poverty and unemployment, improving education, strengthening economic development, and overcoming physical and cultural barriers to accessing good health care.

But it also depends on adequate resources, and I believe we must do more in this area. In 2003, medical inflation exceeded 12 percent in the Pacific Northwest. With medical inflation in the double digits and growing Native American populations, we cannot accept cuts to the Indian Health Service. Nor can we accept only minimal increases in funding for IHS programs year after year.

But that is what this Budget Committee has proposed, in keeping with President Bush's 2004 budget request. This Budget Resolution assumes no discretionary increases in funding for IHS. The Bush Administration has asked for an increase of only 2 percent for IHS clinical services. This is woefully inadequate.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to increase funding to ensure good health care for Native Americans. This amendment to the budget resolution will provide an increase of $2.9 billion for IHS clinical services in fiscal year 2004 and a $40 billion increase over the next ten years. The cost of these increases for the Indian Health Service is paid for by a decrease in the proposed tax cut.

The Daschle amendment provides a crucial first step towards securing increased appropriations for Indian health care. Over 90,000 Indian people in the Northwest, and more than 1.5 million Native Americans nationwide, depend on IHS funds and services. We can no longer let down American Indians by continuing to under-fund vital health care services. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment.

Mr. President, at this hour, the men and women of our Armed Forces face great dangers in the Middle East. We are thinking of them and praying for them in the challenges they encounter. As a nation, we have faced many conflicts before, and we have relied upon the bravery, skill, and honor of our military personnel.

Today I am honored to share with my colleagues and with the American people the example of a remarkable man named Fran Agnes, who served his country and his fellow veterans and their families for many decades.

I know his name is familiar to many of my colleagues and to anyone who has worked on veterans issues. I am sad to report that Fran Agnes passed away on February 9 of this year. He was surrounded by his loving family.

I suspect that if Fran were here today at the start of this new war, he would say, ``Make sure we are prepared to take care of the soldiers, sailors, and airmen we send over there. They need to know, and their families need to know, that we will be there for them.''

Today, I want to pay tribute to Fran Agnes and discuss a bill that bears his name. I am especially honored that Fran's family members and friends are here in Washington, DC, today.

I don't recall exactly when or where I met Fran, but it is a sure bet that he walked up to me, shook my hand, smiled, and said: ``You don't know me, but I'm Fran Agnes and I want to help you help veterans.''

Boy, he wasn't kidding. As I look at the things Fran worked on over the years, that is exactly what he did.

For example, 7 or 8 years ago Fran started talking to me about the importance of making honor guards available at the funerals of veterans. We talked about the nearly 30,000 World War II veterans who pass away every month--who take with them an important part of our history. Fran was upset that we as a nation were allowing veterans to be laid to rest without the appropriate honors.

We discovered that the military was relying more and more on volunteers to perform funeral honors. And more often than not, the volunteers themselves were older veterans who struggled to meet the demand. We found case after case of families all across the country who couldn't find an honor guard to present a flag with the words ``On behalf of a grateful nation'' at the funeral service of a veteran. We even had a case at Arlington National Cemetery where a local family could not secure an honor guard for a veteran.

Fran asked me to get involved in the issue. We worked together to come up with legislation to require the Department of Defense to provide honor guards for veterans' funerals. We worked with the American Ex-Prisoners of War. Fran was an enthusiastic member of the organization and served as its national commander. We built a coalition of veterans service organizations in support of the legislation. Senator Paul Sarbanes, Senator Frank Murkowski, and Congressman Lane Evans joined the effort and provided important leadership.

The Department of Defense opposed our legislation. With Fran's encouragement, we set out to address the DoD's concerns. Ultimately, we offered an amendment to the Defense authorization bill, and it was agreed to unanimously. Similar legislation passed the House of Representatives. Together, we succeeded in changing the law and ensuring the Department of Defense would provide honor guards when requested by a veteran's family. Fran Agnes raised this issue and touched a nerve all across our country. And he helped change the law for veterans. That is just one example of Fran's service.

Fran was also the visionary leader behind the campaign to create the Takoma National Cemetery for Washington's veterans. He was its greatest champion, and I worked closely with him to authorize and build it. Fran loved Takoma. Washington State veterans are proud that when Fran was taken from us last month, the Takoma National Cemetery was there to welcome him home with full military honors.

Fran Agnes lived a life of service to his family, to his fellow veterans and to his community. He coached Little League baseball for 20 years. He was responsible for building ballfields for young Washingtonians in both the Spokane and Everett areas. He was involved in both the Elks and the Eagles.

I was fortunate to know and work with Fran Agnes. I was blessed by his support and friendship. Washington State is a stronger community because of Fran Agnes, and veterans in my State had no greater friend or advocate than Fran.

As I mentioned, Fran passed away on February 9, 2003, with his loved ones at his side. At his service a few days later, his family was joined by the veterans community, the State of Washington, and a truly grateful nation to pay tribute to Fran as he was laid to rest in his beloved Takoma National Cemetery.

Secretary of Veterans Affairs Tony Principi sent a moving letter to Fran's wife Marlene Agnes. The letter from Secretary Principi states, ``Fran's service to America is legend in the veterans' community. He and all the men and women of his generation will long be remembered for their monumental struggle and decisive victory. However, Fran's service and sacrifice at Bataan, and later as a prisoner of war, were as great as any American has ever been asked to endure.''

I ask unanimous consent that the full letter appear in the Congressional Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Several years ago, my father passed away. He, too, was a World War II veteran. It wasn't until after my father's death that we discovered his letters and writings from the war. My father was like most veterans of his generation who did not talk about their experiences. Fran was like that, too. I saw Fran many times over the years. He came to Washington with the American Ex-Prisoners of War. I saw him at veterans events all over my State. If I attended a veterans event, you can bet Fran would be there--proudly wearing the maroon coat of the American Ex-Prisoners of War.

In all the time Fran and I spent together, he never asked me to do anything for himself. It was always things for other veterans and their families. He asked me to help the widows of our veterans. He asked me to support the POWs' lawsuit against the Japanese companies that profited from slave labor during World War II. He would ask about helping another veteran who might be having a problem with the VA.

Fran Agnes did not boast of his service. He didn't complain to me about injuries or problems from his time as a prisoner of war. Fran would call my office just to check in. He usually didn't have a request. He would just call and say, ``I know you're working for us. Keep it up.''

Because Fran, like so many veterans, did not boast of his own accomplishments, I want to share them with the Senate today. I cannot let this moment pass without sharing some of the things about Fran that he didn't talk about.

Fran Agnes was born in 1922 in North Dakota. His father was an Irish immigrant who moved the family to Wenatchee, WA, for a WPA job during the Great Depression.

Fran graduated from high school and enlisted to join the war effort. In 1941, he was stationed with the 20th Pursuit Squadron in the Philippines. He was captured early in 1942.

Fran Agnes endured the Bataan Death March--a 100-mile forced march conducted without food or water. During the march, men would drop out of column due to fatigue, dehydration, illness, and injury. This ``disobedience'' would cause the Japanese guards to rush up, shouting commands in Japanese to get back in the group. When that approach failed, shots would ring out, killing those who would not or could not rise.

Many of those failing to obey the order to march were killed instantly by sword-wielding Japanese soldiers who were guarding the men on the march. Seventy thousand Americans were forced on the Bataan Death March. Only 54,000 made it to the Japanese prisoner-of-war camps that awaited the survivors. Fran turned 20 years old on the Bataan Death March. He survived and was detained at Camp O'Donnell, which was used as a holding station.

Most prisoners stayed there for about 50 days. Eventually, it would house 50,000 men. Conditions there were grossly underequipped for the volume of men passing through its gates. For

example, there were only two water spigots available for all the prisoners. The men were fed tiny portions once a day.

Fran spent 6 months at Camp O'Donnell before being moved to Camp Cabanatuan. Fran spent an additional year at that camp. He worked mostly in the hospital--helping other POWs survive their imprisonment.

Finally, Fran was transferred to Japan where he was kept at the Hiro Hata POW camp and forced to work slave labor. He was held 30 miles from Hiroshima. He would later describe the atomic bomb that signaled the end of World War II and the end of his 3\1/2\ years of captivity.

On September 2, 1945, the men at the Hiro Hata prison camp conducted a liberation ceremony. The men gathered together and sang ``The Star Spangled Banner.'' Fran Agnes returned home to the United States weighing approximately 100 pounds.

Most of us can only imagine the horror that men like Fran Agnes endured as prisoners of war at the hands of the Japanese. After a short stint back at home in Wenatchee, Fran re-enlisted with the Army Air Corps before it became the Air Force. He served in the Air Force for two decades and retired at the rank of Captain. Fran worked for Washington State for 25 years.

Fran had a big family as well. In addition to his wife Marlene, he had three daughters: Rose, Sonya, and Kathleen. I spent a few minutes with Fran's daughters yesterday, and in each of them, I was reminded of their father. Fran also had two sons, David and Gregory, as well as 13 grandchildren and 5 great-grandchildren.

Fran was involved in numerous veterans service organizations, particularly the American Ex-Prisoners of War, which is holding its winter meeting here in Washington, DC, this week. Fran served as national commander of the American Ex-POWs in 1990 and 1991. He was also chairman of the Governor's Advisory Action Committee in Washington State. Fran was chairman of the Tahoma National Cemetery Group in Washington.

I think it is appropriate that we memorialize Fran's many sacrifices and his great service to our Nation. Today, I have asked my staff to work with the Tahoma National Cemetery, with the Agnes family, and with the Washington veterans community to discuss naming an appropriate place at Tahoma after Fran Agnes.

In addition, I call upon my Senate colleagues to join me in support of the Francis W. Agnes Prisoner of War Benefits Act of 2003. This legislation clarifies who is eligible for POW benefits through the VA and ensures our POWs can receive care for a number of ailments related to their captivity. The legislation is important to all POWs, and a similar measure has been introduced in the House of Representatives.

Fran wouldn't ask us to single out his fellow Pacific theatre POWs for health care, but I know he would take special pride in the passage of this legislation because it is so important to our prisoners of war who survived such harsh treatment at the hands of the Japanese in World War II. I encourage all of my colleagues in the Senate to support the Francis W. Agnes Prisoner of War Benefits Act of 2003.

Fran Agnes was a great American. I was blessed to know him and work with him. Veterans everywhere were blessed to have him as a fellow soldier and airman. With his passing, it is time we acknowledge his service and commit his memory to our history as an example to us all.

Even though I can't call upon him for his guidance and support, Fran will always be there for me. After all the time we spent together--and all the efforts we worked on together--I feel that I know what he would want me to do. And I pledge to continue to work very closely with veterans from my State and with his family to build on his legacy.

I hope this tribute captures for the Senate the many contributions of a true patriot. Mr. President, Fran Agnes called himself a survivor. We--those who knew him and his life of service to others--call him an inspiration.

I rise this morning to support the amendment of my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, that will stop this backdoor attempt to

drill for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

I spoke several days ago here on the floor of the Senate at great length about what this budget proposal would do, the budget resolution that is before the Senate, and how reckless it is. It ignores the cost of war, it ignores the cost of the aftermath in Iraq, and it underfunds critical priorities here at home such as homeland security, education, and transportation.

But I am appalled that there is something else buried in this massive budget that needs to be removed. The budget now before the Senate actually assumes increased spending that will result from opening ANWR up to exploration and drilling, even though the Senate clearly rejected that last year. Exploration and drilling in ANWR is a controversial issue, and it should be fully debated. But the appropriate place for that debate is on the energy bill which the Senate will consider in the coming months.

Last year, this Senate soundly rejected efforts to open ANWR to exploration and to drilling. This year, proponents of drilling are using a backdoor approach to try to get support for ANWR in this budget reconciliation. The amendment that has been offered by my colleague from California will strike that language and leave the ANWR debate where it belongs, as part of the upcoming debate on an energy bill.

The budget reconciliation process was enacted actually to help us reduce our deficit. That is even more important now that our country is back in red ink. Instead of supporting a process that helps reduce our deficit, proponents of drilling are using it to pass something the Senate rejected last year.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is an important and unique national treasure. It is the only conservation system in North America that protects a complete spectrum of arctic ecosystems. It is the most biologically productive part of the Arctic Refuge. Energy exploration in ANWR would have a significant impact on this unique ecosystem.

I have heard the proponents of this measure argue over the years that energy exploration has become what they call more environmentally friendly. That may be true. But there are significant environmental impacts for this sensitive region. The oil reserves in ANWR, in fact the oil reserves in the entire United States, are not enough to significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

There are ways to reduce our need for foreign oil. My colleague, the Senator from Illinois, spoke about that a moment ago. We can increase the fuel economy of our automobiles and lightweight trucks. We can reduce our need for foreign oil by expanding the use of domestically produced renewable and alternative fuels. We can invest in emerging technologies such as fuel cells and solar electric cars, and we can increase the energy efficiency of our office buildings and homes. Those kinds of strategies will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and protect one of our Nation's most precious resources. That is what we should be focusing on.

I think we should also remember the amount of oil in ANWR is too small to significantly improve our current energy problems. The oil exploration in ANWR will not actually start producing oil for as many as 10 years.

Exploring and drilling for oil and gas in ANWR is not forward thinking. It is a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem. The Senate should soundly reject this backdoor attempt to use the budget process to embrace drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge when so many in the Senate oppose it. We should debate drilling in ANWR when the Senate energy bill comes up, but we should not make a decision on drilling in this budget resolution.

I urge my colleagues to support this very important amendment by the Senator from California.

I yield my remaining time to the Senator from California.

Mr. President, I will later be offering a very important amendment on the budget resolution. It will fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act, and I will be offering that amendment with Senators Kennedy, Bingaman, Kerry, Mikulski, and Johnson.

Given the bipartisan support for the No Child Left Behind Act a year ago, I am disappointed that there are still no Republicans who have asked to cosponsor the funding that bill promised to all of our constituents.

A budget is a statement of our priorities. In an environment where we cannot fund everything, we have to make choices based on our values. Even when times are challenging, certainly as they are today, it is important that we continue to fund our children's education and to invest in their future.

This budget that is before the Senate has a meager investment in funding for the No Child Left Behind Act, and it fails our children and fails their future. It actually fails the very promise that Congress and this President made to students just a few years ago.

Leaving no child behind was a very important, noble goal, and it passed with bipartisan support. It was an education reform bill that was set out to say we will leave no child behind. But the Republican budget that is now before this Senate does not even come close to meeting the needs of our students or keeping the important promises of that legislation.

When we passed the No Child Left Behind Act, we passed it based on two commitments. The first was that we would hold schools accountable for their progress--an important promise. But we also had a second commitment that we would provide those schools with the resources to meet those new requirements. We are certainly keeping the first part of that bargain, but this budget suggests that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not intend to keep the second part of that promise.

We have to ask why this administration is willing to keep a commitment to come down very hard on low-performing schools, but it is unwilling to keep a commitment to provide the resources that our students need to succeed. Tougher accountability without adequate funding is not reform. Mr. President, that is politics.

I want to talk a few minutes about the ways this budget shortchanges America's students. The budget before us could cut funds for afterschool programs for more than 500,000 latchkey children in this country. That is on top, by the way, of the more than 6 million latchkey children we already are not serving.

This budget leaves 6 million of our most disadvantaged students behind by not providing the title I funding they need.

It also falls short on funding for teacher quality, class-size reduction, English language acquisition, safe and drug-free schools, and rural education.

At a time when we are demanding more than ever from our students, our teachers, and our schools, this budget does not invest in them. Some of my colleagues may argue that this budget increases funding for education, but let's be pretty clear. This budget before us robs Peter to pay Paul to provide that meager increase. Even that increase falls short.

Title I in this budget is underfunded by almost $6 million. This budget assumes the elimination of 46 education programs, including, by the way, rural education, support for small schools, and dropout provisions.

This budget also assumes a $400 million cut in afterschool programs despite the strong evidence that keeping children safe after school reduces juvenile violent crime and prevents children from engaging in risky behaviors.

This budget also freezes most of the other major No Child Left Behind programs, including funding for teacher quality, class-size reduction, bilingual education, and State test development. The Federal Government is not only requiring that States put assessments in place, we are requiring those students pass those assessments. That is where our obligation to provide the funding promised in No Child Left Behind comes in. Students need more tests, they need afterschool programs, tutoring, quality teachers, and small classes to pass those tests.

Given the budget crisis that is occurring in many of our States--my State has a $2.5 billion shortfall with which they are dealing--I think it is unrealistic to expect the States are going to suddenly pick up increased education funding to meet the new Federal mandates that this body passed on to them just a few short years ago.

Setting a high bar is obviously important. We all agree with that. But setting a high bar and failing to give our kids the resources to succeed is simply setting them up for failure. We know what the needs are out there. We know what works to help our children succeed, and I am really dismayed that the level of education funding in this budget is going to leave many of our children behind.

That is why later this afternoon I will be offering my amendment to fully fund the commitments we made, all of us made, in the No Child Left Behind Act. It will provide the resources that parents, teachers, and students are asking for. It will fully fund title I at the level that was agreed upon in the No Child Left Behind Act. It will continue to fund the effort to hire 100,000 fully qualified teachers so we can reduce the size of classes in early grades where our children are struggling to learn the basics, and when they are in a class of 35 or 40 students, they simply cannot get the attention they need to assure that when they move on in to the later grades they have the basic skills they need to be successful.

My amendment will also put a high-quality teacher in every classroom. Every parent knows the most important question you ask when your child comes home from school on the first day is, Who is your teacher? Why is that? Because they want to make sure their child has the best teacher. We promised in the No Child Left Behind Act that we would put a high- quality teacher in every classroom.

This budget fails to fulfill that promise. My amendment will also allow communities to offer more afterschool programs to keep our children safe and in a place where they can learn those high standards that we, at the Federal level, are now requiring. It will give children with limited English proficiency more support to succeed, and it will fund initiatives such as rural education and dropout prevention that this President's budget zeroes out.

We know the needs are there. We know what works to help our children succeed. We need the will of the Members of this Senate to make it happen.

I am out in my State, like every other Senator, and everywhere I go students, teachers, parents, principals, and community leaders come up to me and say: We want the No Child Left Behind Act to succeed. We want our students to be held to high standards. We want our principals, our teachers, and all of our administrators to be held to high standards. But we cannot do it when you rob us of the seriously needed funds to do it. Do not put a Federal mandate on us that is not followed through with the resources.

The amendment I am offering will fulfill the second half of that bill that so many Senators spoke so eloquently to a short time ago.

Two years ago, we started down a road of promising all children in this country a quality education. We did the first part by calling for schools to be more accountable for their progress, but now we are seriously stumbling on the second part, providing the funding so local schools can reach those goals that we set at the national level. I hope we are going to do the right thing, I hope we follow through on the promises that every single Senator in this body made to students several years ago, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment and doing the right thing for our children and our future.

We are at a very critical time in this country. We are facing a possible war in Iraq within hours. I think every American is feeling the anxiety and the angst that all of my constituents are as we move forward. Even at this time, we cannot ignore the anxiety that is happening in our children's classrooms. We need those children to succeed so we can have a strong country in the future. My amendment will assure that we keep that part of the commitment that was such an important part of No Child Left Behind.

I look forward to being able to offer this amendment at some time later this afternoon, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senators Kennedy, Harkin, Bingaman, Kerry, Mikulski, Johnson, Sarbanes, Edwards, and Clinton.

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

Mr. President, the amendment I offer is the one I spoke about earlier today. Clearly, we are in a very important day in the history of this country, and really of this world, as we wait to find out what is going to happen in Iraq. All of our thoughts and prayers are with the young men and women who wait, as we do, to see what is going to happen. Certainly our country is anxious and on edge, and we all hope they are successful. We all hope this endeavor leaves us where this country needs to be. But certainly a lot else is going on as well.

Here we are on the floor of the Senate debating a budget resolution that has been put forward by the majority party.

I am one of those who come to the Chamber to express my serious concern that the budget before us does not include any funds to pay for the war in Iraq, nor does it pay for the peace we hope will ensue afterwards. We do not know what the cost is going to be. Yet hidden inside this budget is a major tax cut that will make it impossible for us to be able to provide what is important for the country, whether it is a war in Iraq or, as my constituents are worried about, a conflict in North Korea, if one occurs there as well.

Also, in this budget we are looking at tremendous cuts to the education of our young children. It is especially important today, as we face the uncertain future of where we go from here, that we give some certainty to the children in our classrooms, because now more than ever we need to make sure they have a solid education, that they are capable of making it through school with the skills they need so they can help get our economy back on track and make us strong for whatever future conflict the country may find itself in, but also so they can be productive adults.

Not very long ago this body passed a bill called No Child Left Behind. It was a promise from the President and all of us who worked on it that we would put in place for the first time strong accountability rules for the public education system. We would hold schools, teachers, and principals accountable to make sure our students met the high standards we were setting. But that was not all the legislation promised. It also promised that we would fund what was necessary to help our children reach those goals.

It promised that every classroom would have a high-quality teacher. That is a problem in our country today where many teachers are in classrooms where they don't have the skills they need to teach the subjects they are required to teach. It requires in this bill that we have a highly qualified teacher in every classroom. That doesn't just happen. It happens because we make sure the resources are there to do it. Without the money to make that happen, we have passed on an unfunded mandate to the States.

We said in No Child Left Behind that children will be in an environment where they can learn. Far too many children are in classrooms that have 35 or 40 children in first, second, and third grade classrooms. There is no way those children who come to class, many of them in very difficult situations, have the ability to learn basic math, science, English, writing skills because they don't have the time of a teacher when there are too many kids in the classroom. We need to make sure we help provide the resources so we don't set kids up to test but that we actually provide the resources so they are in a small enough classroom with a highly qualified teacher.

The budget before us does not provide funds for this. It only comes through with half of the promise we gave to our children several years ago that we would leave no child behind. It leaves the promise of testing, but it does not fulfill the promise of funding.

The amendment I have sent to the desk will fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act. It says it is a priority of our country that we will not just pass an unfunded mandate on to States but that we will assure that children have afterschool programs so they can get the extra skills they need to catch up and pass the tests we are requiring them to take. It means we will fully fund title I funding so that 6 million of our most disadvantaged students will not be left behind. It provides funds for English language acquisition and safe and drug free schools and, importantly, rural education.

The Presiding Officer knows, as I do, that in many of our rural school districts we have a difficult time attracting qualified teachers. They often leave to go to urban or suburban schools where it is easier to teach. We want to make sure that even if there are only 40 kids in a school building, that they get the same help and instruction and qualified teachers so they can learn the skills they need to pass the tests we have required of them. My amendment will make sure that we fund the rural education programs.

If we don't do this, we are passing an unfunded mandate on to States at a time that they cannot afford to take it. My State legislature is facing a $2.5 billion budget deficit right now. They are struggling to come to some difficult decisions. It is extremely unfair of us at the Federal level to tell them, while they are struggling through these budget decisions, that they now have a new unfunded mandate of making sure children pass tests; otherwise, their schools are failing and not providing the funds to make sure that happens.

Our State legislators do not have the funds to fund a Federal mandate. If we will not follow through with the funding, we cannot keep the first half of No Child Left Behind that says that schools have to be held accountable. I don't want to lower the standards. I don't want to take that accountability away. But I also do not want to pass on an unfunded mandate to schools today when they are struggling with fewer resources because our own State legislatures are having difficulty in these tough economic times giving them the tools they need. I hope we don't fail at No Child Left Behind by not providing funding but providing the mandates.

It will be imperative for this Congress to come back and revisit this if we don't provide the funds because I assure you every school board member--and I was a school board member at one time--will be back here screaming about unfunded mandates. We will end up having to take steps backward in accountability in order to accommodate them. I don't think that is where any Member here wants to go.

The amendment I sent to the desk will help us reach that goal by fully funding the No Child Left Behind Act so we can keep both sides of the promise that we made to the children and to the parents and to the school employees and to the districts across the country that when we said No Child Left Behind, we said accountability, but we also said resources.

I stand here terribly conscious that Senator Wellstone no longer sits behind me because of the tragedy that occurred right before the election of last year. I know if Senator Wellstone were here, he would be walking up and down this aisle yelling about the fact that we can't educate kids on a tin cup budget.

I will tell you, the Republican budget that is before us today is a tin cup budget. It is a budget that does not provide the resources that our young people need in order to be able to learn, in order for teachers to educate our children, and for them to be a success.

It would be a tremendous setback for this country in terms of education if we don't pass this amendment and assure that our schools are funded.

It is a difficult day for all of us to be in the Senate debating these critical issues. We all know that hanging over us is a war that could possibly begin at any time. Our hearts are heavy with what could occur in the next few weeks and months. But it is also a time that we cannot abandon our young children. They are counting on us as the adults to make the right decisions for them and not to forget them in this time of crisis. If we don't pass this amendment and fully fund No Child Left Behind, it will send a message to every child that we have forgotten them. I will not do that. I will work hard every day to make sure we fund the important education structure and give our kids the

opportunity to learn and succeed. That is a commitment every one of us should take as a tremendous responsibility.

I know there are other Senators who wish to speak on the amendment. I will yield the floor in a few minutes.

I want to make a few more comments before I do that. I see Senator Gregg is here as well. I know we have to debate what is full funding and what should be our responsibility. But I think the outlines of No Child Left Behind are fairly clear in what our commitment is to young people. If we don't fully fund title I to give disadvantaged students the opportunity to learn, we are requiring them to take a test and not giving them the resources they need, coming from a disadvantaged background, to be able to pass those tests. I think that is a pretty sorry statement in the Senate.

The amendment I am offering has $8.9 billion in funding for Function 500, so it will fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act. As I stated earlier, the programs that it will fully fund are title I, teacher quality, class size, English language acquisition, afterschool centers, and rural education. It also includes sufficient funding to restore the President's cuts that are in the Republican budget before us for programs such as smaller learning communities and dropout prevention programs.

The amendment also includes $8.9 billion for deficit reduction. I think both the education and deficit reduction funding are extremely important right now. This is all taken from the dividend tax cut.

I know we are going to have a tax debate later on, but I have talked to many of my constituents across the State of Washington, and when they are given the choice of whether or not to have a tax cut that actually doesn't benefit many of the residents of the State of Washington or this country or the opportunity to provide a good education for young children who are in school today, they all choose that their money be spent on young children so they can have an opportunity.

Bill Gates is a constituent of mine. He is a wonderful success story. He will benefit tremendously from the tax cut in the Republican budget. But I think he and most of my constituents agree that they would benefit much more from a citizenry that is left behind that is educated and capable of producing and capable of producing another Bill Gates in the future.

If we rob our children of an education, we are also robbing ourselves of future entrepreneurs who can be successful businessmen, businesswomen, and be in walks of life that help create new jobs for the future. It is very shortsighted to not fully fund No Child Left Behind for the future of the country.

We will have other amendments, I know, during this budget debate, to fully fund IDEA. That is an issue this Senate has taken up and talked about many times. We actually had hoped to fully fund IDEA not that long ago, but we were told we had to wait for reauthorization. We are still waiting for the reauthorization bill to come over, and we still have not fully funded IDEA.

I know Senator Kennedy is on the floor as well. He has been a staunch proponent of fully funding education for our young children and is even concerned about the Pell grants and their funding in this budget. We have many students in college who are struggling to pay their tuition and are finding themselves taking out loans of tremendous size just to get through school, and they are graduating with thousands of dollars in loans. It is really important that we don't leave a generation with huge debt, trying to pay them off, if we want our economy to get back on track.

Senator Kennedy will talk later on the importance of increasing the Pell grant funding so that we leave fewer students with tremendous loans in the future. I know Senator Dodd will be out here also to talk about Head Start and day care and other issues affecting young people.

Let me conclude by saying that there are thousands of young children in this country who are waiting anxiously to see if the U.S. Senate can live up to the obligations of the No Child Left Behind Act that was passed not long ago. Today, we will have an opportunity with the amendments that I have to let the young kids know that we in this country are ready to stand by them.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

The Senator is correct.

This just sets the appropriations level for this year and 2004.

The amount in the amendment reduces the tax cut by $17.8 billion.

It is approximately an 8-percent increase.

Well, I am happy to doublecheck to answer the Senator, but I would be astounded--I believe it is an 8-percent increase over the funding level.

Yes, absolutely.

It ensures that we fully fund No Child Left Behind for fiscal year 2004 and the programs within the No Child Left Behind.

You are talking about the overall education funding. I am talking about the No Child Left Behind Act.

I am happy to yield to my colleague from Massachusetts. I want to clarify that the vote that will occur at 5 o'clock will be on the amendment that I have offered; is that correct?

No amendments will be in order prior to the vote.

I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dodd be listed as a cosponsor on my amendment.

I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts and then 4 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Reed of Rhode Island as a cosponsor, and I yield him 2 minutes of my time.

Mr. President, we are about to vote on a very important amendment. Not very long ago, the Members of this body voted to pass a bill called No Child Left Behind. The budget that is put forward to us today will leave thousands of children behind if we do not fulfill the commitment we have made.

I have listened to the arguments on the other side. I have seen the charts and graphs. If there is one thing I have learned here in the Senate, it is that you can have a chart or graph to show whatever you want it to show. But what I do know is Senator Kennedy showed on the chart behind us, 3 million more children in this country, 3 million more children need more funding if they want to meet the obligations of No Child Left Behind; 50,000 fully qualified teachers need to be hired; we need to provide training for 200,000 teachers. The numbers are really clear.

If you look at the Republican budget itself, their document shows 46 programs that have been eliminated in their budget: Adult education, community technology, dropout prevention, elementary and secondary school counseling, foreign language, physical education, rural education, vocational education. These are programs listed in their budget that they cut.

We can put up charts and graphs, but I can tell you one thing: The children in our schools, the parents who take their children there, the teachers who teach there, the community members who work in our schools all know when we pass a bill and say we are going to test our kids at the Federal level and we do not provide the resources to make sure those children can learn, we pass on an unfunded mandate that is irresponsible to our States that are struggling today.

The amendment we are about to vote on fully funds title I. It continues the effort to hire 100,000 qualified teachers. It helps to put high-quality teachers in the classrooms and continues to make sure we fulfill our obligations.

Tougher accountability without adequate reform is not reform, it is politics. We know our children need books, they need teachers, they need the programs, and they need the Federal Government to live up to its responsibility. That is what this amendment does.

I do. I would like 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Alabama and my colleague from North Dakota. I also thank the Senator from North Dakota for his tremendous work on this budget.

Mr. President, I can really think of only one word to describe the budget now before the Senate. In the middle of a war on terrorism--and on the eve of a war in Iraq--this budget offers a huge tax cut to the few, projects massive deficits for decades, and ignores the cost of war in Iraq.

There is only one word for that approach: reckless.

Lacking in caution--reckless.

Deliberately courting danger--reckless again.

It is time for a reality check. Hundreds of thousands of our soldiers are poised on the knife's edge, ready to perform their duty at any moment. On this critical day, we hope and pray for their safety, security, and speedy return. There is no doubt that Congress will provide for our soldiers, both on and off the field of battle.

We know it will cost a lot of money. We know the money is well spent in keeping our Nation's best and brightest as secure and safe as possible.

But the cost of winning this war and winning the peace afterward is not reflected anywhere in this budget. That is irresponsible. That is burying our heads in the sand as the danger approaches. I cannot imagine any American family going out and running up their credit cards when they know they are going to have a major expense in the next months.

Ignoring the financial costs of war will not make those costs go away. Driving our country further into debt will certainly make it harder for us to pay those bills when they come due.

Mr. President, the only word for that approach is ``reckless.'' This budget would pile on record deficits, give a tax cut to the few, and ignore the costs of war and peace. But even worse, this budget doesn't even adequately fund the basics, such as homeland security, education, and transportation.

A budget is a statement of priorities. In an environment where we cannot fund everything, we have to make choices based on our values. I think we have to get our priorities straight.

Today, we are fighting a war on terrorism, we are on the brink of a war in the Middle East, and we have many other international challenges, including North Korea and Iran. Historically, when our Nation is facing war and so many challenges, we sacrifice, we make every dollar count, but not in this budget.

I cannot recall another time in our history when we have faced so many challenges, yet have been so reckless with our budget. This budget would provide a massive giveaway to the few, while our sons and daughters fight a war overseas. That is not sacrifice, that is not responsible and I think it is wrong.

The President's budget, with its freewheeling tax cuts and lack of sacrifice in the face of war, is more appropriate for the roaring twenties than for the challenges we face today, in 2003.

I am very skeptical of a budget that says we can have it all, even as we stare down massive financial commitment for years in places such as Iraq. Ignoring the cost of war and its aftermath is reckless. Running up huge deficits to fund a misguided tax plan is reckless. Failing our needs at home, such as homeland security, border security, education, and transportation, is reckless.

Just look at homeland security, which will become, by the way, even more important if our country is at war. September 11 showed us, in a most horrific way, that we are vulnerable at home. Our intelligence officials have told us that another attack at home is not a question of ``if'' but ``when.''

We know our first responders--our firefighters, EMTs, and police will be on the front lines if, Heaven forbid, there is another attack. I recently got a letter from Kelly Fox, president of the Washington State Council of Firefighters. They represent 6,500 firefighters in my State. These are the people who are in the trenches of the homeland security front. They told me they don't have the training, the equipment, or staffing to respond to various attacks.

I want to share with my colleagues a letter that Kelly Fox, president of the Washington State Council of Firefighters, wrote to me:

Let me assure you, we are prepared to do whatever is

necessary to protect the citizens of this State--even if it

means putting ourselves in harm's way. Although the job we

need to perform in this war on terrorism is familiar, the

magnitude of the challenges before us is unprecedented--as

the enemy now comes to our cities and towns.

He goes on to write:

Last August, Congress (led by a Democratic majority in the

Senate) provided President Bush $2.5 billion in emergency

homeland security funding, for him to release to local police

and fire departments if he thought it was needed.

Regrettably, he rejected that funding and vowed, ``we'll

spend none of it.''

President Bush held back hundreds of millions of dollars for equipment, training, and other needs for our first responders.

Fifteen months ago, we were told that $3.5 billion was being earmarked for first responders in the Bush administration's fiscal year 2003 budget. But to date that money is nowhere to be found. Firefighters in Washington and across our Nation have received plenty of praise and accolades since 9/11. We have been invited to many photo ops.

But our cities and towns, our counties, our fire districts,

and their fire departments are still waiting for that

funding. In fact, our State has yet to see a dime of money

that was promised by the Bush administration to help our

firefighters and paramedics.

Kelly Fox speaks for 6,500 firefighters in my State. We need to heed his call.

Last year, Congress passed funding for homeland security. The President rejected it. The President then actually blamed Congress for not funding homeland security.

The bottom line is we must fund the security needs in our communities--from our fire departments and police departments to State public health labs. With States facing budget deficits, first responders need our help to protect our citizens. We can do better than this budget. I will support an amendment to adequately fund homeland security, and I will likely even offer my own amendment.

I am also concerned that this budget does not provide enough funding for education. When we passed the No Child Left Behind Act, we passed it based on two commitments. First, we would hold schools accountable for their progress. And second, we would provide schools with the resources to meet those new requirements. Those two always went together--otherwise schools cannot make real progress. But now it seems that Congress and the President have forgotten about the funding part. We still have an obligation to fund the new requirements that Congress imposed on local schools. We cannot leave local schools holding the bag, so I intend to offer an amendment to fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act.

I also think this budget falls short in supporting our transportation infrastructure. We know that transportation problems plague our biggest cities and isolate our rural communities. In my home State of Washington, our inadequate transportation network is hindering our economy, our productivity and our quality of life.

When we make sound investments in our transportation infrastructure, we create good jobs today, and we build the foundation for our future economic growth. When we make our transportation systems more efficient, more productive, and safer, that will pay real dividends for our economy and our communities. Throughout this process, I am going to support efforts to adequately fund our transportation infrastructure.

Another area where this budget is severely flawed is in its treatment of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is an important and unique national treasure. It is the only conservation system in North America that protects a complete spectrum of arctic ecosystems. It is the most biologically productive part of the Arctic Refuge. And it is a critical calving ground for a large herd of caribou, which are vital to many Native Americans in the Arctic. Energy exploration in ANWR would have a significant impact on this unique ecosystem.

The proponents of this measure argue that over the years, energy exploration has become more ``environmentally friendly.'' While that may be true, there are still significant environmental impacts for this sensitive region. Exploration means a footprint for drilling, permanent roads, gravel pits, water wells, and airstrips.

The oil reserves in ANWR--in fact, the oil reserves in the entire United States--are not enough to significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil. There are four ways to really reduce our need for foreign oil.

First, we can increase the fuel economy of our automobiles and light trucks. That will reduce air pollution and carbon dioxide emissions, save consumers significant fuel costs, and reduce our national trade deficit.

A second way to reduce our need for foreign oil is to expand the use of domestically produced renewable and alternative fuels. That will reduce emissions of toxic pollutants, create jobs in the United States, and reduce our trade deficit.

Third, we can invest in emerging technologies like fuel cells and solar electric cars.

Fourth, we can increase the energy efficiency of our office buildings and homes.

These four strategies will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and protect one of our Nation's most precious treasures.

Let us all remember that the amount of oil in ANWR is too small to significantly improve our current energy problems. The oil exploration in ANWR will not actually start producing oil for as many as 10 years. Exploring and drilling for oil and gas at ANWR is not forward thinking. It is a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem.

Mr. President, these are just some of the flaws that make this budget reckless.

As I close, let me put this into context because I have served on the Budget Committee since 1993. During that time, I have seen our country's economy turn around twice now. In 1993, we started with huge budget deficits. On the Budget Committee, we made tough decisions, and throughout America families worked hard and got our economy moving again. Employment rose; the stock market soared; and Americans benefited from low interest rates and declining poverty.

But today it seems as if we are back where we started: the surplus is gone; we are facing looming deficits; Americans are out of work, and they need help.

If the President and the majority in this Congress have their way, their plan will grow our Nation's debt from $5 trillion to over $12 trillion as their plan reaches full maturity--$12 trillion. And for what? So millionaires can get an average tax break of $90,000, according to the Tax Policy Center, and the rest of us get a $12 trillion debt. That debt and our annual deficits will make it harder for us to fund urgent national priorities. It will hit every American when they buy a house or finance a car.

I hope we can find a way to produce a bipartisan budget that addresses these issues for the benefit of the American people. Doing anything less would be reckless.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.