Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my Maryland constituents and millions of Americans in celebrating African-American History Month this February.

Dr. Carter Godwin Woodson founded the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History in 1915. Shortly after its creation, the Association began a campaign to establish Negro History Week to highlight the many accomplishments of African Americans. Dr. Woodson achieved this goal in 1926, and the second week of February was chosen to recognize the contributions of African Americans to American society. In 1976, this week of observance was expanded to a month and became African-American History Month. This month of observance is a time to recognize a crucial part of our diversity: the vast history and legacy that African Americans have contributed to the founding and building of our Nation. While we have much to celebrate in the achievements of many African Americans and the great strides this country has made towards true equality, there is also much work to be done.

Each year, the Association for the Study of African American Life and History, ASALH, designates a theme for the Black History Month observance, and this year it is ``The Souls of Black Folk: Centennial Reflections.'' This year's theme focuses on the past contributions of African Americans and the many significant ways in which African Americans have made our Nation better.

At the beginning of the last century, our Nation was a vastly different place than it is today. The country was divided along racial lines and racism was accepted and institutionalized. African Americans were not allowed to vote, and the opportunities available to African Americans were few. Today, thanks to the visions of a few and the sacrifices of many, that situation has changed.

Much of the last century was filled with hardship for African Americans. Despite this, African Americans made great strides in many areas and participated in every sector of our society. Throughout the past 100 years, African Americans have made remarkable contributions to our society as mathematicians, scientists, novelists, poets, politicians, and members of the armed services.

Regrettably, just this year we lost two Marylanders who contributed much to African-American and American history in the last century, Du Burns and Bea Gaddy. Du Burns was the first African-American mayor of Baltimore. He brought the city together and although he ultimately became mayor, he never forgot his humble beginnings, including a job as a locker room attendant at Dunbar High School. Bea Gaddy was an advocate for the homeless and a Baltimore City Council member who devoted her life to feeding hungry Baltimoreans and making Baltimore a better place to live. We will forever remember the sacrifices and achievements of these two remarkable people.

No discussion of the last century in the lives of African Americans could be complete without a tribute to Martin Luther King, Jr., whose birthday we recently celebrated. His teachings and the example of his life offer much for us to be hopeful about in the coming century. We must look to his words and deeds to remind ourselves of his great vision and must never forget the profound change he helped bring about in this country. His teachings transcend race, and we have much to learn from him about humanity as we confront the challenges of the new century. And the challenges are many. We must continue to work to eliminate racism and inequality, and we must work to combat intolerance, not just in our own country, but throughout the world.

Last year, the theme of African-American History Month posed the question, Is Racism Dead? Unfortunately, the answer is still no. There is much that we in Congress can do to continue to meet the challenges of inequality in our country. We can help the parents of working families by raising the minimum wage. We have already passed the Leave No Child Behind education reform bill that will provide new standards for schools and teachers and will help make quality education available to all Americans. We have passed an election reform bill to ensure that all voters are properly registered and every vote is counted. We must now fully fund these initiatives that have successfully passed Congress. And we need to make health care available and affordable for African Americans and all Americans.

Through the lessons and struggles of the last century and the trying first few years of this century, Americans have shown the world how people of all races, colors, religions and nationalities create the fabric of our Nation, a fabric that is richer because of our differences. This month, we honor the special contribution African Americans have made to that fabric. Through African-American History Month, we celebrate how far this country has come and remind ourselves of how far we have to go.

May I have 30 seconds?

Madam President, I just want to say to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, in this chart about the President breaking his promise to the Nation's children about No Child Left Behind, and the budget, which fails to fund the No Child Left Behind legislation, that is being done in order to have a tax cut that will assure that no millionaire is left behind. That is exactly what has happened.

The President's commitment, with respect to budget priorities, is to give this huge tax break on dividends so that no millionaire will be left behind. Meanwhile, we are leaving behind tens of thousands of schoolchildren all across America.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to redirect funding that was made available in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century for the construction of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge across the Susquehanna between Havre de Grace and Perryville, MD to a related project.

During a tour of Havre de Grace and Perryville in April 1998, the mayors of the two towns and members of the Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway Committee, briefed me on the Heritage Greenway plan and expressed a hope that the two towns would one day be connected by a pedestrian/bicycle bridge. There are three bridges spanning the Susquehanna River at U.S. Route 1, I-95 and U.S. Route 40, but for safety reasons Maryland State Highway Administration policy prohibits pedestrian/bike traffic on these bridges. The Lower Susquehanna Greenway Resource Report dated January, 1994 identified the need to link greenway trails along the river in Harford and Cecil Counties via a river crossing and identified a potential crossing site which would utilize the old Route 40 piers that parallel the existing Amtrak bridge.

In order to help facilitate construction of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge at this site, Senator Mikulski and I succeeded in getting a provision included in TEA-21 which provided $1.25 million for this project. Using a portion of the funds, the State Highway Administration conducted an engineering analysis of the existing piers and determined that the piers could not support such a bridge without significant and costly structural and other improvements. Since that time the Susquehanna Heritage Greenway Committee has been examining other options, including a ferry boat and a pedestrian/bicycle bridge crossing further upstream. My amendment would give the committee additional flexibility to undertake these potential crossing alternatives and related Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway projects. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure the integrity of a shoreline protection system that was constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers in 1985 at Tall Times, MD to mitigate the erosion induced by the Herring Creek entrance jetties.

The Herring Creek Navigation Project, located on the left bank of the Potomac River in St. Mary's County, MD, was constructed in 1960 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to maintain a navigable channel at the inlet. Although the jetties functioned as designed, they blocked the natural drift of sand along the shoreline and caused significant erosion in the area downstream of the project. To correct this erosion problem, in 1985 the Corps of Engineers implemented a mitigation project under the authority of section 111 of the River and Harbors Act of 1968. The modification consisted of construction of 250 feet of beach fill and 2,187 linear feet of stone revetment, and upgrading 350 linear feet of existing revetment along the Tall Timbers waterfront, south of the project inlet. The revetment was constructed essentially on top of an existing wooden bulkhead built by St. Mary's County in 1950. Herein lies the problem: the wooden bulkhead is failing in sections, causing huge sinkholes on private property, and undermining the integrity of the revetment.

Although the Local Cooperation Agreement specified that the Army Corps of Engineers was responsible for maintaining the revetment, it did not specify who would be responsible for maintaining the bulkhead. St. Mary's County and local residents assert that this is a Corps responsibility. The Corps asserts that it does not have the authority to repair the bulkhead.

The amendment that Senator Mikulski and I are offering would clarify the responsibilities of the Army Corps of Engineers to provide maintenance of the project. It should be pointed out that, should the entire bulkhead fail, the revetment will also fail and the Corps would be responsible for replacing the entire revetment at a cost of well over $1 million. This is an instance where an ounce of prevention now will prevent a pound of federal expenditures later. I urge adoption of the amendment.

amendment no. 59

Mr. President, I rise today in support of an amendment offered by Senator Mikulski regarding the use of quotas in contracting out Government jobs. The administration has put forth proposals requiring that a specified number of jobs usually performed by Federal employees be contracted out to private companies each year. Senator Mikulski's amendment would prevent any of the funding in the omnibus appropriations bill to be used in the enforcement of these quotas.

The administration states that this is an issue of efficiency. I disagree. There is no evidence that contracting out Federal Government jobs saves the Government time or money. In fact, the opposite is often true, the Federal Government is overcharged for less efficient work by private companies, work that could be done more efficiently and more effectively by Federal employees. Too often, jobs are simply contracted out without a proper public-private competition, and without continued monitoring of whether any cost savings actually results. Furthermore, by requiring that a set number of Federal jobs be contracted out each year, the jobs may be contracted out without any regard to cost savings.

In addition, national security is now of vital importance to our Nation. We must take a close look at the implications of contracting out to ensure that our national interests are being protected. We need Federal employees to do these jobs, jobs that are not suited to the private sector. Indeed, Federal employees are now screening baggage at our Nation's airports, one of the most vital roles in this unprecedented time. Requiring that a certain number of Federal jobs be contracted out each year could result in the contracting out of jobs vital to our national security.

I firmly believe that the United States Government should not contract out jobs merely for the sake of ``reducing'' the Federal workforce. Nor should we show a preference to contract employees over our dedicated public servants who have demonstrated such determination and commitment in this difficult time. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Mikulski's amendment and oppose the use of quotas in the contracting out of jobs already ably performed by our Federal employees.

Madam President, I point out that taxes have been paid into the unemployment insurance trust fund for the purpose of paying unemployment insurance in an economic downturn. That fund has close to $25 billion in it. About $7 billion was used in the last legislation we passed. The purpose of paying that money in good times is to be able to pay it out in bad times. I support this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota to address the critical needs of our Nation's family farmers affected by natural disaster.

Over the past 2 years, farmers throughout the Nation have been devastated by periods of prolonged drought and other natural disasters. Last year, in my own State of Maryland, the drought was among the most destructive in our history. Over the summer, as I traveled through the rural areas of my State, I saw firsthand the damage that had been done. The fields were dry and the crops withered. According to the Department of Agriculture, corn production was down 42 percent from 2001 and both the corn crop and yield were the smallest in 14 years. Similarly, soybean production was down 46 percent from the previous year and the crop and yield were the worst in 15 years.

At the urging of the Maryland Congressional Delegation, the Secretary of Agriculture declared 21 of the State's 23 counties primary natural disaster areas. And, as a result, farmers in the disaster areas and the two contiguous counties became eligible for emergency loans. Unfortunately, for many farmers, taking on additional loans is just not possible.

The Daschle amendment will provide meaningful disaster relief to those farmers in Maryland and throughout the Nation. The amendment, similar to one that passed the Senate with my support and that of 78 of my colleagues in the last Congress, provides approximately $6 billion in direct emergency disaster assistance to producers who have been directly impacted by drought or natural disaster. This amendment has the support of more than 40 farm, ranch, and rural organizations, including the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Farmers Union.

In my view, this amendment will provide our farmers with a much needed safety net, one not included in the recently passed farm bill, that will allow them to maintain their livelihoods and their lands. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting its passage.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in strong support of Senator Reed's amendment, which would ensure that the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) is funded at an amount close to the level authorized by the Senate for the current fiscal year.

As he traveled through colder climate areas in the Northeast and Midwest in 2000, President Bush campaigned on a promise to fully fund this vital program, which assists senior citizens and low-income households with their basic home heating costs.

Regrettably, the President decided to retreat from this commitment, proposing $1.4 billion for LIHEAP in his fiscal year 2003 budget--a $300 million cut from the previous year's funding level for the program.

Meanwhile, plunging temperatures and rising heating costs are putting some of the most vulnerable Americans at risk this winter. Indeed, only a fraction of those eligible to receive LIHEAP assistance will actually benefit from the program at current funding levels. Furthermore, heating bills are significantly higher than they were at this point last year. According to the Energy Information Administration, which released its monthly short-term outlook on January 8th, the price of natural gas has risen 34 percent compared to last winter's costs. Heating oil prices have increased a remarkable 43 percent.

Senator Reed's amendment would increase LIHEAP funding for the current fiscal year to a level close to the Senate-authorized amount of $2 billion by transferring the funds already appropriated by Congress in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2001--but not spent by the President--to the omnibus appropriations bill now pending before the Senate. This important amendment will ensure that the administration does not deny these funds to the scores of households who desperately need this assistance to simply keep warm this winter.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Reed amendment.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about the HUD/VA appropriations bill contained in the omnibus package currently under consideration by the Senate. I want to commend Senators Mikulski and Bond for recognizing the importance of providing Americans with the opportunity to live in decent, safe, and affordable housing. However, despite their efforts, housing programs suffer from a lack of adequate funding in this bill.

The Appropriations Committee faced tough choices in revising their fiscal year 2003 bills, due to the decision to cut domestic programs substantially across the board. Senate appropriations were forced to cut almost $10 billion from their earlier spending decisions for fiscal year 2003. More than $1 billion of this cut comes from critical housing programs. While the Senate bill before us today is far superior to the House appropriations bill, it does not provide adequate resources. Now is not the time to cut $1 billion from the social safety net. Over 100,000 people lost their jobs last month, and unemployment continues to be high. Working families deserve our support, and instead of providing it to them, we continue to cut programs that help people provide for their families.

While the administration is asking us to provide a tax cut of $674 billion, primarily for the wealthiest Americans, over $1 billion in funding is being cut from programs that help low-income families afford housing. The problem of affordable housing has become a crisis for many working families all across America. According to a recent study, 14 percent of families pay over half of their income in rent or live in substandard housing. The significant gap between the wages of low- income workers and housing costs makes evident that housing assistance is necessary for many working families. On average, a family in this country needs to earn almost $15 an hour to afford a modest two-bedroom apartment. This is almost three times the minimum wage.

When millions of American families are unable to afford decent and safe housing, the consequences are serious and far-reaching. When children do not have stable home environments, their health suffers as does their educational attainment. In addition, housing assistance can help people transition from welfare to work. Recent studies have found that people leaving welfare who receive housing assistance retain employment for longer and make more than those who do not receive such assistance. Unfortunately, this bill does not do enough to ensure that working and elderly families in this country can afford safe and decent housing.

Just last week, HUD announced that housing authorities around the country will be facing drastic cuts in their operating funding. These cuts are due to HUD's error in estimating public housing needs. Because of HUD's mistake, there was a $250 million shortfall in the operating fund in fiscal year 2002. Upon learning of this shortfall, HUD indicated that it would seek additional funding from Congress. Unfortunately, HUD never asked for these funds. Instead, HUD will use fiscal year 2003 funds; to make up for the shortfall. This means that we are starting out with a $250 million cut in the program this year. This cut will leave housing authorities with no choice but to scale back their programs, lay off staff and put off needed repairs.

HUD should request, and we should provide additional funding to make sure that families in public housing are adequately housed. In addition, HUD must provide as much funding as possible to PHAs under the current budget situation. Housing authorities are currently receiving only 70 percent of their funding. This is an unnecessary and irresponsible cut. Even assuming a loss of $250 million from fiscal year 2003 funds, HUD should be able to provide at least 90 percent of operating costs to public house authorities. If HUD intends to fund public housing at higher levels later in the year, as they have announced, they should do so now, thereby helping PHAs avoid unnecessarily cutting off assistance to needy families.

In addition to under-funding the public housing operating account, the HUD appropriations bill cuts $160 million from the Public Housing Capital Fund, which is used to repair and modernize public housing. Over 1.5 million families reside in public housing, housing that is generally safe and decent. However, this older housing stock is in need of constant maintenance. Capital needs in public housing grow by $2.3 billion every year, and the backlog of needed capital repairs is over $20 billion. If we do not adequately fund the Public Housing Capital Fund, this backlog will continue to grow, threatening the homes of 1.5 million American families and the Federal Government's substantial investment in this housing.

While I strongly oppose the cuts in the public housing program, there are some important provisions contained in this bill that I wholeheartedly support. This bill fixes a serious problem created by the House Committee and ensures that Section 8 housing vouchers, a critical housing resource, are not lost. The House appropriations bill, H.R. 5605, will result in the immediate loss of over 125,000 vouchers and will lead to the continued loss of housing vouchers over time. Though the bill before us today cuts funding from the voucher program, it does so in a way that guarantees that all vouchers in use will be funded, and ensures that housing authorities can serve as many families as possible with the vouchers they are allocated. This is an important provision, and I want to commend Senators Bond and Mikulski for including this in the HUD/VA appropriations bill.

I am also pleased that the Senate retains $100 million in interest reduction payments for housing uses. Unfortunately, the House bill complies with the administration's request to rescind this $100 million which should be used to rehabilitate affordable housing. Given the great need for housing around the country, it is remarkable that we would rescind funding which could be used to increase housing opportunities. The Senate bill rightly requires that HUD use these funds to modernize affordable housing. Unfortunately, HUD has refused to take any action to use these IRP funds for their intended purpose, and I urge HUD to quickly comply with congressional intent and distribute these needed dollars.

Affordable, stable housing is the bedrock of stable, vibrant communities. Unfortunately, too many Americans find themselves in precarious housing situations in neighborhoods of despair. The continued cuts to housing programs supported by the current administration will hurt the millions of Americans who live in public housing or received housing vouchers, and the millions more Americans who are in need of housing assistance. These cuts will be felt all around the country. I hope that the administration will recognize this and the growing housing needs around the country and I urge them to fully fund Federal housing programs in the fiscal year 2004 budget. I am also hopeful that the Senate bill, which ensures the viability of the housing voucher program, prevails at conference with the House.

democracy programs

Madam President, it is appropriate that, on the eve of the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday, I rise today to pay tribute to a great Marylander and civil rights leader in his own right, former Baltimore Mayor Clarence ``Du'' Burns.

From humble beginnings in East Baltimore, Du Burns began a lifetime of public service and great accomplishments, eventually becoming the first African-American mayor of Baltimore. Born on September 13, 1918, in East Baltimore, Du attended Frederick Douglas High School and the Larry London School of Music, where he developed a love of jazz that would stay with him through his lifetime. At the age of 21, he married Edith Phillips, and soon thereafter joined the United States Army Air Corps. Du served in the Air Corps for 3 years before returning to Baltimore and embarking on a long career of service to the city.

For 20 years, Du Burns worked at Paul Laurence Dunbar High School as a recreational and youth hygiene counselor. In 1971, he first entered the political arena, serving as 2nd district councilman from 1971 until 1982, and later became both Vice President and the first African- American President of the city council. Then, on January 26, 1987, Du was sworn in to complete the term of Governor William Donald Schaefer, becoming the 45th mayor of Baltimore and the first African-American mayor in the history of the city.

This simple list of Du's career positions does not come close to expressing all he accomplished and all he meant to Baltimore. Du Burns got his nickname because he was always ``doing'' things for others. He made his life's work the improvement of our city, particularly those areas that others had written off as beyond help. Among his many accomplishments were the creation of the new Dunbar High School Complex; the East Baltimore Medical Plan, the first community-based HMO in the Nation; and Ashland Mews, a 372 town home community for first time homeowners. Du was one of the founding members and later a long- time chairman of the board of the East Baltimore Corporation, a nonprofit organization that provides substance abuse services, job training and placement, and numerous other services to people that desperately needed assistance in order to revitalize the community. Du likewise was a founder and chairman of the Eastside Democratic Organization. But most central in his life was his family and his church. Du was an active member of the St. Francis Xavier Roman Catholic Church for 45 years, and devoted to his wife Edith, daughter Cheryl, granddaughter, and extended family.

Like Dr. King, Du Burns serves as an example that one person can move mountains and change the world for the better with selfless service to the community. I was privileged to attend the funeral mass for Du yesterday, which was a touching celebration of his life and legacy. I think the homily given by Father Edward Miller at that service was a wonderful tribute to the spirit that guided his life, and which we should all strive to emulate. In honor of Du Burns, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that homily now be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the amendment proposed by Senator Byrd, which would restore a portion of the devastating cuts to this year's Senate-passed appropriations measures that are contained in the pending Republican omnibus appropriations package.

In my own State of Maryland and across the Nation, State, local, and regional authorities are struggling to make even the most basic of homeland security improvements. In many cases, these communities have taken exhaustive measures to identify their areas of greatest vulnerability, and have made commendable advances in enhancing their own preparedness and response capabilities.

Last year, this body made a series of nearly unanimous legislative commitments to assist these local security efforts in several important areas. Moreover, while the House of Representatives passed only a portion of its spending measures, the Senate completed action on all 13 of its own appropriations bills. After months of hard work on behalf of both my Democratic and Republican colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, difficult decisions were made, and spending levels were agreed to. Contained in these bipartisan commitments was critical Federal support in several key homeland security areas.

The Republican omnibus appropriations proposal slashes an astonishing $9.8 billion in Federal support--funding that was overwhelmingly agreed to in the Senate during the 107th Congress. A disturbingly large portion of these cuts--approximately $1 billion--were made in the area of homeland security. Senator Byrd's amendment would restore this important funding.

Maintaining these funding levels becomes even more critical in light of the regrettable decision made by President Bush this past summer to short-change many of our vital security needs by not spending $2.5 billion in emergency supplemental funding passed by the Congress. Senator Byrd's amendment would also restore much of this important support.

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, we have become increasingly aware of the woefully inadequate safeguards to our Nation's 361 seaports. Last November we took a significant first step in improving this aspect of our homeland security by passing the Maritime Transportation Security Act. I joined 94 of my Senate colleagues in supporting the passage of this measure, and the bill was signed into law by President Bush soon thereafter.

A critical section of this legislation reaffirms the importance of providing funding to the Nation's seaports for security upgrades. The omnibus appropriations package introduced yesterday by my Republican colleagues would cut this program significantly. Senator Byrd's amendment would restore these dangerous cuts, providing $585 million for port security grants to implement the Maritime Transportation Security

Act--which, I again remind my colleagues, we overwhelmingly approved a mere 2 months ago.

In my own state of Maryland, the Port of Baltimore is an important and vulnerable point of entry for the country. Indeed, handling over 30 million tons of cargo each year, it is one of the busiest seaports on the East Coast. Clearly, the volume and traffic associated with this distinction present considerable security challenges for the port. While the port has made important progress in this area, the grants provided are vital for making some of the most basic of security upgrades.

Unfortunatley, the cuts made in the Republican spending package are not confined to our Nation's seaports. As the outgoing chairman of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, I have heard many of the concerns of first responders in Maryland and around the country.

First responders were devastated last summer when they learned last that the President would be withholding $100 million in grant funding. Another $155 million was withheld from State and local law enforcement. Now we learn that the administration and my Republican colleagues are proposing further cuts to the Senate-approved funding for first responders. This time, first responders would lose an additional $132 million. This amendment would merely provide some of the basic promises the Congress has already made to those Americans who we call on to provide our most vital emergency preparedness and response needs.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support Senator Byrd's amendment. If the Congress and the administration are to enact legislation signaling our commitment to securing the homeland, we must provide the resources to provide even the most basic levels of protection. We must demonstrate steely resolve in our efforts to protect our citizens and critical infrastructure, and this will not be achieved if the resources committed to the task are inadequate.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

First, I commend the very able Senator from West Virginia for this amendment. This is an extraordinarily important amendment. If we are going to provide for homeland security, we must provide the resources for homeland security; otherwise, it is all a charade.

I wish to focus on just one thing. I represent a great port, one of the world's great ports. In fact, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia worked in the Port of Baltimore in World War II.

Contributing to the war effort in the construction of Liberty ships.

We passed the Maritime Transportation Security Act last year; 95 to 0 I believe was the vote in this body. But what good does that bill do us if we do not have the resources with which to carry out the promises and the concepts that are contained in the legislation?

What good does it do us if we pass this legislation on homeland security, we beat our chests about it, and then we don't provide the resources? The Senator's amendment will provide the resources to carry out this legislation.

Is that correct?

I very strongly support the amendment.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

It is my understanding in some schools they are cutting back the school week from 5 days to 4 days because they have inadequate resources.

Would the Senator agree with me that you cannot give meaning to the Leave No Child Behind legislation, which not only did the President sign but made a great to-do about signing it? He traveled around the country and said this was his commitment to education, but you cannot make a reality out of what that legislation contains if you do not provide the resources with which to carry it out. Would that not be the case?

What does the distinguished Senator from Washington make of the contrast that the President, while not providing the resources to carry through on the promises contained in the Leave No Child Behind legislation, is pushing very hard in every way he possibly can for a tax cut for very wealthy people, what I have characterized as the ``leave no millionaire behind'' legislation?

So the sense of priorities from the administration is that they are determined to try to get this tax cut to benefit the very wealthy so no millionaire is left behind, at the same time that they are failing to provide the resources in order to deliver on the Leave No Child Behind. These connections must be made.

There is a tendency to look at the tax side as though it is somehow something separate, but the fact is, the President wants to commit scarce resources, given our fiscal position, to the tax cut to benefit the very wealthy at the same time that he is unwilling to commit the resources in order to fund the educational programs.

Absolutely.

That is the top 1 percent of the income and wealth scale; is that correct?

If the Senator would yield, hopefully many of them would be sufficiently enlightened to perceive that by strengthening our society through implementing the Leave No Child--actually, this goes beyond implementing the legislation because it sets out other priorities that we can accomplish to succeed in strengthening our society to the benefit of everyone. It is a clear choice of priorities, what we are going to put first.

I think most of the American people would put education first, recognizing that it not only benefits the students who gain the education but benefits the society generally. We all draw a benefit from having a well-educated society with people who are able to work to the very limits of their capacities.

Absolutely.

Mr. President, as we consider appropriations for fiscal year 2003, I want to express my strong support for Senator Kennedy's amendment to increase funds for education spending by $6 billion. This increase would bring the total funding for Title I programs to $16 billion, the level authorized by the No Child Left Behind Act that was signed into law by the President. It is imperative that Congress sends a strong message supporting education accompanied by strong funding for this important goal. The practice of paying lip service to improving education for our Nation's children without following up with the money that States and local school districts to do so must cease. Only then will children and educators receive the resources they need to meet higher standards and eliminate barriers to higher education.

States are struggling with budget shortfalls, rising student enrollment, and an increasing number student with limited English proficiency. At the same time, States are working to meet the new requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. I supported the No Child Left Behind Act because I agreed with its principles, all public school children should be able to achieve and all schools should be held accountable in seeing that they do so.

I believed the President when he said education would be a priority. But now the Senate is considering a spending bill that encapsulates the President's proposed education funding levels, a bill that does not even provide a 1 percent increase over fiscal year 2002 spending. The No Child Left Behind Act requires a variety of new requirements including annual standardized testing and increased teacher certification. While we can expect our educators to do all within their power to improve our schools, we cannot expect this landmark legislation to be effective if States and school districts are not given the resources to implement these programs.

Congress must also demonstrate its commitment higher education. We all know that pursuing a college degree dramatically increases earning potential. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median income for high school graduates is $28,800 but is $46,300 for those with a bachelor's degree. However, the burden of higher education costs is crushing low-income students and their families. The inability to pay for college makes it more and more likely low-income students will be unable to pursue higher education or do so facing staggering debt upon completion. The economic benefits are clear but the promise of many will not be fulfilled if Congress does not assure that every student eligible for a Federal student aid receives it and if the maximum Pell Grant award is not raised to bridge the gap between higher education costs and the ability of many to pay.

Many States are considering stiff tuition hikes at their public institutions. Between 1991-1992 and 2001-2002, average tuition and fees grew 37 percent in private 4-year institutions and 38 percent in public 4-year institutions, outstripping the 8 percent growth in inflation- adjusted median family income over that same period. Maryland's public university system is notifying its students that it may have to raise tuition by up to five percent for the Spring 2003 semester so these young people have to face the dilemma of addressing increases after already budgeting for a certain amount. The National Center for Education Statistics estimates that annual prices for undergraduate tuition, room, and board were

estimated to be $7,621 at public colleges and $21,423 at private colleges for the 2000-2001 academic year. Yet the maximum Pell Grant award is only $4,000 per year. In addition, more and more student aid is being shifted from grant money to loans. Senator Kennedy's amendment would help over 200,000 students by adding $1.35 billion for the Pell Grant program making it possible to increase the maximum award to $4,500.

While we consider education funding, it is important to note the challenges we face in educating children with disabilities. Congress must increase the Federal contribution for the Individuals with Disabilities Act, IDEA. When Congress enacted IDEA, it committed the Federal Government to pay 40 percent of the average per pupil cost of educating students with disabilities. However, to this day, the Federal Government has provided only 16.7 percent. The Federal Government must make good on its promise and provides the resources disabled students and their families need.

That we can consider a tax cut aimed at the wealthiest Americans while purporting to be unable to adequately fund education programs is absurd. Where are our priorities? Now is the time to move beyond the rhetoric of the No Child Left Behind Act and deliver the resources that teachers and students so desperately need. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of Senator Kennedy's amendment and to support meaningful increased in education spending.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by Senator Murray to restore funding for Amtrak to the full $1.2 billion level needed to ensure the solvency and continued operations of the railroad. I am deeply troubled by this administration's failure to address Amtrak's financial needs.

Since it was first established in 1970, Amtrak has been an essential part of our transportation network. The railroad currently carries nearly 23 million passengers each year including over 1.7 million travelers in Maryland who rely on Amtrak for commuting to work and other transportation needs. Amtrak operates 87 trains daily in Maryland alone. And these figures do not include the MARC trains or the 1.9 million passengers annually who use the MARC/Amtrak lines for service.

In recent years, we have made great strides toward improving our highway, mass transit, and aviation systems. In 1998, we enacted TEA- 21, providing record levels of funding for highway and mass transit improvements throughout the country. In 2000, we enacted AIR-21, substantially increasing funds for needed airport infrastructure. To ensure a transportation system that is truly intermodal, we need to continue to invest in Amtrak, doing for inter-city rail what we have already done for highways, transit, and aviation. The level of government support for passenger rail in Japan and European countries far exceeds the level of government support in the United States. In my view, we cannot afford to be the only industrialized country without a comprehensive national passenger rail system.

Across the Nation, congestion and gridlock are taking their toll in terms of economic loss, environmental impacts, and personal frustration. According to the Texas Transportation Institute's Annual Mobility Report, in 1997, Americans in 68 urban areas spent 4.3 billion hours stuck in traffic, with an estimated cost to the Nation of $72 billion in lost time and wasted fuel. It is clear that highway and airport expansion cannot be our only solution. We need a balanced approach, and passenger rail must be a part of that approach. Without the additional funds provided by Senator Murray's amendment, Amtrak cannot continue to operate.

Will the Senator from Nevada yield for a question?

Since my colleague from Oklahoma is drawing me into this matter.

It is my understanding that what is holding up the organizing resolution is a difference in the course of organizing, how we allocate resources, and that all this side of the aisle is seeking, now that it is in the minority, is that we be treated the same way the other side of the aisle was treated in the last Congress when they went into the minority; is that not correct?

In other words, all we are seeking is that the majority now accord us as a minority the same treatment that we accorded to them when they were in the minority and we were the majority. That seems to me an eminently reasonable and fair thing to be seeking. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why we cannot quickly reach an understanding on that basis and move the organizing resolution.

I say to the Senator, my understanding is that we have treated the organizing resolution as encompassing the allocation of resources in the past.

We certainly did so in the 107th Congress. In the 107th Congress, when it came to that question and we became the majority, we accorded, I think, a very fair and eminently reasonable treatment to the minority, and that is all we are seeking in the current circumstance. I don't understand what the problem is or the difficulty in accepting that arrangement. That is what I don't understand.

Will the Senator yield for a further question?

It is my understanding that there was, in a sense, a delay on the Republican side in terms of choosing their leader and then being in a position to discuss these issues with our leader, Senator Daschle. I have not raised the issue about that being a factor in the delay, but obviously it is part of the matter. But now that that has been resolved, it seems to me we ought to be able to reach a fairly quick agreement here if we simply abide by the concept of reciprocal treatment.

It seems to me that we tried very hard in the last Congress to be fair about this. I think we were fair and eminently reasonable. It seems to me a fair and eminently reasonable request now that the same treatment be accorded to us in the minority that we accorded to the minority in the last Congress. If we could accept what I think is an almost elementary principle, this matter could be settled, and could it not be settled in very short order?

Will the Senator yield?

Just for a question.

Mr. President, I listened with great care to my colleague from Oklahoma, and I certainly agree with his point about seeking to sustain, maintain, and enhance the institution of the Senate. But I say to my colleague from Oklahoma, I am going to be the ranking member now of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. That is a consequence of the elections that took place in November, and I recognize that. But our ability to do our job in the committee is closely related to receiving adequate resources and staff resources with which to carry out our responsibilities.

Unfortunately, that issue has been put in some question. I do not quite know why this has happened, although I understand there are some on the other side who want to really do a very radical shift from the allocations in the previous Congress when the margins were so close. Of course, that has created a lot of concern and apprehension about the ability then of the minority to meet and carry out its responsibilities.

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why we cannot in short order reach an agreement that would be encompassed in this organizing resolution that the allocation of resources to what is now the minority would parallel the allocation that was made by this side of the aisle when it was a majority to the Republican minority in the last Congress.

I do not understand what the difficulty is with that position. Of course, the fact that there seems to be some difficulty only increases the degree of concern in terms of what lies in wait.

And only reaffirms what is perceived as a need to work this matter out in the course of organizing for the 108th Congress.

I yield for a question without losing my right to the floor.

Let me say to my colleague, as a consequence of what occurred in the 107th Congress and the very close divisions that took place, and indeed the assertion by what was then the Republican minority of the necessity of protecting their staff positions, we developed a new understanding with respect to the allocation of resources, something that many Members have been arguing for over a number of years. So the position that is being advocated by this side is simply reciprocity on the basis of what was done in the 107th Congress.

In fact, I ask my distinguished assistant leader, am I correct that what is now being sought by the minority is reciprocity in terms of being treated in the 108th Congress as we treated the minority in the 107th Congress? Is that correct?

I yield for a question.

That is what the resolution is, and that is the basis of the complaint. It is our assertion that the organizing resolution ought to at least encompass the allocation of staff resources and that the minority now should receive a treatment on that issue comparable to and paralleling what the other side of the aisle received when they were in the minority in the 107th Congress.

Certainly.

It is not consistent with the resolutions brought forward in the 107th Congress when we first encountered this very close division between the two sides of the aisle.

Second of all, even if it is inconsistent, it seems to me, given what we are hearing in terms of what at least some Members on the other side--not all of its Members, as I understand it, but what some of its Members intend to do in terms of staff allocation, it seems to me perfectly reasonable, since our ability to carry out our responsibilities as a minority is closely related to that question, for us to seek an understanding and an agreement right at the outset on that very important issue.

Certainly.

Under our constitutional system, we recognize the rule of the majority but we protect the rights of the minority. That is a fundamental principle of the U.S. Constitution, and indeed it has been a fundamental principle in the operations of our various institutions under the Constitution.

No one is arguing the proposition of who will become chairman of the committees, I recognize that, but we are asserting that in the course of making that decision, we need to make also the decision with respect to the allocation of resources for staff, which is an important dimension of both the majority and the minority being able to discharge their responsibilities in the operations of this institution.

I yield for a question.

In fact, when the Senator from Oklahoma was speaking, he was making the point how people would come from other countries, particularly fledgling democracies, to see the Congress of the United States, particularly the Senate, and how we wanted them to draw the right lessons from seeing the Senate. One of the most important lessons they need to draw in the fledgling democracies is the necessity of respecting the rights of the minority. In instance after instance, they have been prepared to exercise the majority rule but they are unwilling in these emerging democracies to accord proper respect to the minorities within them which, of course, are also an essential part of making a democracy work. That essentially is all we are seeking to do in this instance.

I repeat what I said before. For the life of me, I cannot understand why we cannot reach agreement in short order since what this side of the aisle is seeking is simply reciprocity, seeking to be treated now as the minority the way we were willing to treat the other side when they were in the minority in the last Congress.

I will yield for a further question.

It is very simple. We think the compass within the organizing resolution would be an assurance of what is now the minority in terms of the allocation of resources so we will be able to meet our responsibilities. We are not asserting the majority will not assume the chairmanships of the committees. Obviously they will do so. In fact, I stood out here a little while ago and said I recognize now I was on my way to being the ranking member instead of the chairman of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee.

We are simply saying, and it goes right to the point the Senator raised about the workings of the institution, part and parcel workings of the institution is to include within the organizing resolution an understanding with respect to the allocations, particularly since Members of the majority--not all Members, but some Members of the majority--have been very outspoken in asserting a position that would significantly deny to the minority adequate resources to meet its responsibility and which is directly counter and in marked conflict with the way the majority was treated in the last Congress when they were a minority.

At the moment I am still the chairman because we have not passed the organizing resolution. I am quite happy to pass an organizing resolution which will make me the ranking member, but I want that organizing resolution to contain in it an understanding with respect to the allocation of resources so I can be certain we will be able to meet our responsibilities; furthermore, an allocation of resources comparable to what is now the majority received in the previous Congress when they were a minority.

I don't understand why the other side of the aisle will not accord to us now the same treatment, the same fairness, and the same equity which they received in the previous Congress. Why won't you do that? I ask that question. Why won't they do that? If they were to do that, we could conclude an organizing resolution in very short order.

In fact, I ask our assistant leader, is it not the case if we were able to receive the same treatment on this allocation of resources issue we extended in the last Congress when we were the majority, that we would be able to wrap up the organizing resolution in short order?

If the Senator will yield, I didn't declare myself; it is still the operating premise since we have not passed a new organizing resolution.

I am no longer in the majority party, but the organizing resolution to reflect that fact has not yet been passed.

I have been careful in the committee not to exercise authorities as chairman.

But I repeat my question that goes to fairness and equity. I cannot for the life of me understand why what is now the majority in this body will not extend to the minority the same treatment we were prepared to extend when we were the majority and the other side was in the minority in the 107th Congress. That is all we are seeking--reciprocity. If we could obtain that, we could conclude this organizing resolution in short order.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Shelby

and others of my colleagues in introducing the National Flood Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2003. This legislation is similar to legislation I introduced last year S. 13, which would have reauthorized the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), for one year, preventing a lapse in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's authority to administer this important program. The Senate passed this bill on November 20, 2002, but unfortunately, the House of Representatives did not consider it before adjourning for the year. FEMA's authority to manage the NFIP expired on December 31, 2002.

FEMA has estimated that even a brief lapse in its authority to run the NFIP could affect approximately 500,000 households seeking to obtain or maintain flood insurance, which in many cases is a precondition for settlement of a mortgage or home loan. The NFIP was created by Congress in 1968 in response to the lack of such insurance being offered by the private sector. This program made flood insurance available in communities that adopted flood plain management regulations designed to reduce future damages from flooding, and it is now available in almost 20,000 participating communities nationwide. As of September 30, 2002, the NFIP had almost 4.4 million policies in force, representing more than 90 percent of the flood insurance in the United States. The availability of flood insurance helps Americans prepare for floods, while reducing the need for federal disaster assistance after a flood.

The unfortunate lapse in FEMA's authority has caused confusion and uncertainty in the real estate industry for both lenders and borrowers. The Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration within FEMA has made efforts to work with the banking regulators, the lending community, and other stakeholders to address their concerns about the lapse in FEMA's authority. While these efforts have been helpful, the only effective solution is a rapid reauthorization of this program by the Congress.

The legislation we are introducing today makes reauthorization of the NFIP retroactive to December 31, 2002, to minimize any disruption that would be caused by a lapse in FEMA's authority. We have worked closely with FEMA in developing this language, and it is supported by a coalition of industry representatives, including America's Community Bankers, the American Bankers Association, the American Insurance Association, the American Society of Appraisers, the Appraisal Institute, Fannie Mae. Farmers Insurance Group, Freddie Mac, Independent Insurance Agent & Brokers of America, the Mortgage Bankers Association, the National Association of Homebuilders, the National Association of Mortgage Brokers, the National Association of Professional Insurance Agents, and the National Association of Realtors.

Property owners and mortgage lenders throughout the country rely on the NFIP to insure their properties against flood damage. Unless the NFIP is reauthorized, that protection will disappear. I urge my colleagues to support swift passage of this urgently needed legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Shelby

and others of my colleagues in introducing the National Flood Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2003. This legislation is similar to legislation I introduced last year S. 13, which would have reauthorized the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), for one year, preventing a lapse in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's authority to administer this important program. The Senate passed this bill on November 20, 2002, but unfortunately, the House of Representatives did not consider it before adjourning for the year. FEMA's authority to manage the NFIP expired on December 31, 2002.

FEMA has estimated that even a brief lapse in its authority to run the NFIP could affect approximately 500,000 households seeking to obtain or maintain flood insurance, which in many cases is a precondition for settlement of a mortgage or home loan. The NFIP was created by Congress in 1968 in response to the lack of such insurance being offered by the private sector. This program made flood insurance available in communities that adopted flood plain management regulations designed to reduce future damages from flooding, and it is now available in almost 20,000 participating communities nationwide. As of September 30, 2002, the NFIP had almost 4.4 million policies in force, representing more than 90 percent of the flood insurance in the United States. The availability of flood insurance helps Americans prepare for floods, while reducing the need for federal disaster assistance after a flood.

The unfortunate lapse in FEMA's authority has caused confusion and uncertainty in the real estate industry for both lenders and borrowers. The Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration within FEMA has made efforts to work with the banking regulators, the lending community, and other stakeholders to address their concerns about the lapse in FEMA's authority. While these efforts have been helpful, the only effective solution is a rapid reauthorization of this program by the Congress.

The legislation we are introducing today makes reauthorization of the NFIP retroactive to December 31, 2002, to minimize any disruption that would be caused by a lapse in FEMA's authority. We have worked closely with FEMA in developing this language, and it is supported by a coalition of industry representatives, including America's Community Bankers, the American Bankers Association, the American Insurance Association, the American Society of Appraisers, the Appraisal Institute, Fannie Mae. Farmers Insurance Group, Freddie Mac, Independent Insurance Agent & Brokers of America, the Mortgage Bankers Association, the National Association of Homebuilders, the National Association of Mortgage Brokers, the National Association of Professional Insurance Agents, and the National Association of Realtors.

Property owners and mortgage lenders throughout the country rely on the NFIP to insure their properties against flood damage. Unless the NFIP is reauthorized, that protection will disappear. I urge my colleagues to support swift passage of this urgently needed legislation.

Mr. President, I am called to join with Senators Akaka, Bingaman, Cantwell, Clinton, Durbin, Kennedy, Levin, Lieberman, Mikulski, Murray, Nelson, E. Benjamin, and Warner in introducing a resolution that would express the sense of the Congress that parity in the pay increases granted to Federal civilian and military employees should be maintained. A comparison of military and civilian pay increases by the Congressional Research Service finds that in 14 of the last 17 years military and civilian pay increases have been identical. Disparate treatment of civilian and military pay goes against the longstanding policy of parity for all those who have chosen to serve our Nation, whether that service be in the civilian workforce or in the armed services.

During this unpredented time in our Nation's history, both members of the armed services and civilian Federal employees are fighting the war on terrorism and making remarkable contributions to the safety of this country and our citizens. Both the armed forces and civilian employees are on the front lines in the fight against terrorism, and civilian employees are playing a significant role in that fight.

For example, civilian employees of the new Department of Homeland Security are working to ensure the safety of our Nation. Air marshals and members of the Transportation Security Agency are making America's skies safer. Civilian employees of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are investigating the events of September 11th and working to prevent further terrorist attacks. And Federal employees at the State Department are working with other countries in an international coalition against terrorism.

In addition, there are numerous Federal employees who participated in disaster response teams on September 11th and during the anthrax attacks. And every day, thousands of civilian Federal employees continue to go to work and carry out their responsibilities in this unpredictable time.

This Senate Concurrent Resolution expresses the sense of the Congress that parity between the adjustments in Federal civilian pay and military pay should be maintained. For Fiscal Year 2003, President Bush gave a 4.1 percent pay raise to members of the armed services, but only a 3.1 percent pay raise to our dedicated public servants. This discrepancy violates the traditional principle of pay parity, and does not recognize the crucial work of the civilian Federal workforce. Furthermore, this discrepancy ignores the express wish of Congress that the principle of pay parity be followed. Past budget resolutions and Treasury-Postal appropriations bills approved by the Senate and the House of Representatives have included language expressing the ``sense of Congress that rates of compensation for civilian employees of the United States should be adjusted at the same time, and in the same proportion, as are rates of compensation for member of the uniformed services.''

In this difficult time, the dedication and commitment of both the armed services and our civilian employees demonstrate the greatness of our Nation. The contribution of both should be recognized.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues today as cosponsor of the measure that will extend unemployment insurance benefits. We have a long bipartisan tradition of extending unemployment benefits during periods of prolonged joblessness. We have this policy because it is the right thing to do for people and for the economy. Before I present the case for why extended unemployment benefits are needed--a case which by now almost everyone agrees with--I want to remind my colleagues why we are at this point today.

Led by the late Senator Wellstone, several of my colleagues and I, began this discussion last September. At that point it appeared clear that this economy was still in a weak, `jobless recovery.' Yet, the administration failed to understand the basic economic reality, and consequently refused to support an extension of benefits. During the next 2 months the economy remained weak and more jobs were lost. My colleagues and I returned to the Senate floor repeatedly, attempting to pass a reasonable extension of unemployment insurance benefits. We asked for unanimous consent eight times, each time pointing out the weak economy, the lack of job creation, the growing number of Americans who had exhausted their benefits, and the upcoming cliff that more Americans were facing, should Congress fail to act. All this while the President remained silent.

Finally, at the eleventh hour of the last Congress, on November 14, we came to an agreement within the Senate. And I would like to thank Senators Clinton, Cantwell and Nickles for their leadership in reaching that compromise. That compromise was needed in order to prevent almost 1 million Americans who should have received benefits from having their benefits terminated. But even that compromise, which passed the Senate by unanimous consent, failed to elicit the support of the President. And without his urging the House failed to act.

Now finally, today we are passing this compromise again. Actually we are passing a slightly improved version which will last for five months, providing individuals with the opportunity to begin receiving extended benefits until June 1st, and allowing all of those who begin to receive their benefits to receive the full 13 weeks, in the event that they are unable to find a job. And it is my understanding that if the House acts on this tomorrow, and the President signs this measure by Thursday, that everyone who should receive a benefit will continue to do so.

However, even with passage of this measure, there is still significant work that needs to be done. This legislation, despite the valiant efforts of some of my colleagues, fails to provide benefits to those who have already exhausted their benefits and are still unable to find a job. There are an estimated 1 million Americans who are in such a position. They are in such a position because the economy has continued to remain weak and is failing to create jobs.

The latest unemployment report showed unemployment at an 8 year high of six percent. We have 2.17 million fewer private sector jobs today than when President Bush took office. We lost 48,000 private sector jobs last month alone.

As a result of the lack of jobs, there are over 1.7 million Americans who have been unemployed and looking for work for more than 26 weeks. There are 150,000 more long-term unemployed than in September and over 1 million more than when President Bush took office. Over 20 percent of those who are unemployed have been so for more than 26 weeks, a greater percentage than at any point in the past eight years.

The premise of the unemployment insurance system is that you give people some short-term support, the labor market picks up, and they can go back and find a job. Today, they cannot find jobs. In fact, not only can they not find them, more people are losing their jobs. So the labor market is contracting, not expanding. Extending benefits in this situation is the proper economic policy. Fed Chairman Greenspan, before the Joint Economic Committee this past November stated: ``I have always argued that in periods like that the economic restraints on the unemployment insurance system almost surely ought to the eased.''

This easing ought to include extending benefits to those who have already exhausted all of their benefits. I can not understand why anyone is objecting to extending benefits to these individuals. It is not because we lack the resources to extend benefits. Extending benefits to these individuals is projected to cost around $7.5 billion. Our unemployment insurance trust funds, specifically designed to meet this kind of situation, are in strong financial condition with approximately $24 billion. Those moneys have been paid into the trust fund over a period of time. The whole system was structured to have these trust funds build up in good times, and then to utilize them in bad times.

We will spend much time debating the wisdom of various economic stimulus plans over the coming months, but one thing that everyone should be able to agree on is the stimulative effects of extending unemployment insurance benefits. As the Baltimore Sun wrote in an editorial on January 3, 2003, ``Few dispute the clear returns from directing short-term relief to those who lose their jobs as a result of the fiscal turbulence. Giving money to people who need it to pay their bills ensures that it will be spent and multiply as it ripples through the economy.''

In closing, I would like to thank all of those who have worked so hard to pass the measure that we passed today. As a result many Americans will receive the benefits that they deserve and our economy will receive some of the stimulus that it needs. And I will continue to work to extend benefits to the 1 million Americans who have exhausted their unemployment insurance coverage.