[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 34 (Wednesday, March 23, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a vote on or 
in relation to the Dodd amendment occur at 2:15 today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object. I do not think we are 
going to use all of the time in opposition, because I am concerned 
about whether we are going to be able to get this resolution completed 
on time. If every amendment uses 1 hour on each side, I do not think we 
are going to get there on time. Many Senators will be let down, because 
they will not have a chance. We may yield back some time. If we agree 
with the unanimous consent request and do not use all of the time, can 
we begin another amendment in the intervening time, so as to 
accommodate the 2:15 vote?
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I have no objection to that. How much time 
is remaining on the Dodd amendment?
  Mr. DODD. Why do we not move along and see if it comes to that. A 
couple colleagues came by and asked how long this would be, because 
they had to be off the Hill. You might want to check with some people. 
Some of our colleagues are working on an assumption.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I really want him to get the 2:15 time. I will add a 
sentence and see if it meets everybody's approval. If, however, we 
finish debate on the pending amendment prior thereto, that the next 
amendment in order be called up and debate commence on it, and 
nonetheless that debate will cease at 2:15 so we can vote on the 
pending amendment.
  Mr. SASSER. We have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that on 
disposition of the Dodd-Jeffords amendment, Senator Boxer be recognized 
to offer an amendment regarding children's programs, and that upon 
disposition of the Boxer amendment, Senator Lott be recognized to offer 
an amendment regarding defense, nondefense walls, and mandatory 
spending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Were we going to agree on a time on that Boxer 
amendment?
  Mr. SASSER. I am advised that Senator Boxer is willing to do 20 
minutes equally divided.
  I will amend my unanimous-consent request to provide that the time on 
the Boxer amendment not exceed 20 minutes, to be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SASSER. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that no second-
degree amendments be in order on the Boxer amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, could we get two things in addition, 
that there would be no second-degree amendments to the Lott amendment?
  Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, I have not seen it yet.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We will withdraw that.
  Mr. HARKIN. Yesterday, when this Senator tried to offer an amendment, 
we had this little thing. I do not want to preclude the fact that I may 
want to second degree that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Can we add that when the amendments have been disposed 
of--however they are disposed of--the Senator from New Mexico be 
recognized to offer an amendment?
  Mr. SASSER. Let us discuss that. I am advised by staff that there may 
be an amendment that we want to bring up on our side before proceeding 
to the Domenici amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.
  Mr. HARKIN. Can I ask the manager for some time?
  Mr. SASSER. The manager of the amendment, Senator Dodd, is 
controlling the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield my colleague from Iowa 5 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I rise in support of 
the amendment by Senators Dodd and Jeffords.
  The amendment transfers $6 billion in fiscal year 1995 to the IDEA, 
the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, first established in 
1975.
  As chairman of the subcommittee that funds education programs, IDEA 
has always been among my highest priorities, and I am proud of the 
increases we have achieved. However, our ability to appropriate funds 
for IDEA programs is limited by the allotment that is provided to my 
subcommittee.
  This amendment will make it more likely that thousands of children 
with disabilities will receive the education they are entitled to under 
the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and the comparable 
provision included in every State constitution in this Nation.
  I want to do two things with my time. I want to explain why the 
program is a good investment. Second, I also want to make it clear, in 
the strongest possible terms, that IDEA, the Individuals With 
Disabilities Education Act, is not an unfunded mandate. The idea that 
Congress imposed a mandate to educate children with disabilities on 
States and local districts and then refused to pay for it is just plain 
wrong.

  Instead, the right of children with disabilities to a free 
appropriate public education is a constitutional right established in 
the early 1970's by two landmark Court cases: Pennsylvania Association 
for Retarded Children versus Commonwealth in 1971 and Mills versus 
Board of Education of the District of Columbia in 1972. In both of 
those decisions, the Supreme Court made it clear that the 
responsibility for educating individuals with disabilities rests with 
States and local school districts.
  The House and Senate reports that accompanied the 1975 statute show 
that its drafters were largely guided by the principles laid down in 
these Court cases. The enforceable right to a free, appropriate public 
education is a constitutional right, not a mandate from Congress.
  What we have said in those intervening years is that we sympathize 
with the States and local school districts and we will help them in 
meeting their constitutional duties.
  The Supreme Court recognized this in a 1983 decision in which it 
quoted from the Senate report, which said:

       It is the intent of the Committee to establish and protect 
     the right to education for all handicapped children and to 
     provide assistance to the States in carrying out their 
     responsibilities under State law and the Constitution of the 
     United States to provide equal protection under the laws.

  So let us be clear about this. I know special education is expensive. 
No one works harder than I do to increase Federal funding to help the 
States meet their responsibilities. But a free, appropriate public 
education is not an unfunded mandate. It is a basic right guaranteed by 
the Federal and State constitutions of this country.
  So I wanted to make that clear.
  I also want to make it clear that I believe we in the Congress have a 
responsibility to help the States in meeting their constitutional 
requirements, which is what this amendment does and why I am supporting 
this amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to make sure that every 
child receives that education.
  I want to join with my colleague from Minnesota who pointed out a 
little bit ago to my friend and my colleague from Iowa for whom I have 
the greatest respect and friendship, and he knows that. When he said 
that spending is spending, I am sorry spending is not spending in every 
case. I mean we can either spend smart or we can spend stupid. If we do 
not put money into early childhood education for individuals with 
disabilities, then later on we are going to spend a heck of a lot more 
money taking care of them. Let me just give a couple examples.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. Could I have 3 more minutes?
  Mr. DODD. Could I inquire how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator controls 20 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. I yield 3 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 3 additional 
minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I have talked a lot about Danny Piper, a 
young man with Down's syndrome from Ankeny, IA. Some 20 years ago when 
Danny was born, doctors told his parents that Danny should be 
institutionalized because of severe mental retardation. They said his 
condition was hopeless. Fortunately, Danny's parents rejected this 
recommendation. Instead, they helped Danny take advantage of early 
intervention and preschool services, which allowed him to ultimately 
move to the regular classroom, where he not only did very well but also 
became involved in community service activities. I should also mention 
that on July 26, 1990, Danny joined me on the White House lawn for the 
signing of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

  Today, Danny is 23 years old and works 20 hours a week at the Ingram 
Corp., the largest national distributor of videotapes and compact 
discs. Danny duplicates tapes and discs and packages them for 
distribution. He makes $6 an hour, loves his job, and has not missed a 
day of work in years. Danny also works out regularly at the local YMCA, 
and has even hired a personal trainer with his own money.
  Danny is grown up now, and like most 23-year-olds, doesn't want to 
live with his parents anymore. So he is now working to find his own 
apartment. Last week Danny's parents met with an individual who might 
be willing to be Danny's roommate. To try out this new relationship, 
Danny is planning to take a trip to Disney World with his potential 
roommate.
  Remember, this is an individual whom doctors pronounced ``hopeless'' 
23 years ago. And they recommended institutionalizing him before he 
ever got a chance to show what he could do. Danny's achievements go far 
beyond any financial calculation--just ask his parents. But since we 
are here today to talk about money, consider this: Danny's special 
education services have cost about $63,000, and he is now a working, 
contributing, taxpaying member of society--in other words, he will more 
than repay this investment in him and his personal development. On the 
other hand, if Danny's parents had listened to the doctors, the costs 
of institutionalizing Danny would have been almost $5 million over his 
lifetime. That's more than 70 times the cost of his special education.
  This is how our investment in special education pays off. Special 
education works, and it's one investment we truly can't afford not to 
make.
  As chair of the Subcommittee on Disability Policy, I recently held an 
oversight hearing in Iowa regarding the status of special education. I 
will never forget the testimony of Danette Crawford at the hearing. 
Danette, who is now in the 10th grade, has severe cerebral palsy. She 
received early intervention services beginning at the age of 8 months, 
and now attends her neighborhood school and receives all her education 
in a regular classroom with the assistance of an associate.
  I asked her what she was looking forward to in the future, and she 
told us of her desire to attend an Ivy League school. She also told us:

       I'd like to educate people, people with disabilities and 
     other people that are minorities that might be considered 
     ``different'' from regular people. And if I can make a 
     difference, then that's my goal in life.

What Danette's testimony tells us is that people with disabilities 
really aren't different from everyone else. Most kids who work hard in 
school dream of attending Harvard or Yale or Princeton. And most kids 
want a career that will help them make a difference in the world. 
Special education helps make sure that children with disabilities, who 
have the same dreams as you and I, have the same opportunities to reach 
those dreams.
  Danny and Danette have done well through their own efforts and with 
the help of special education services. Though there are thousands of 
success stories like theirs, we also know that too many students with 
disabilities don't fare as well.
  The National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education 
Students documents that we still have a long way to go in meeting the 
needs of children with disabilities. This study showed that:
  Students with disabilities are more likely than not to experience 
difficulties in school, such as failing grades, absenteeism, and being 
held back a grade;
  Students with disabilities are much more likely to drop out of school 
than their nondisabled peers. Of youth aged 15 to 20 years, 43 percent 
of youth with disabilities were dropouts, compared to 24 percent of 
youth in the general population; and
  Young people with disabilities also are much less likely to pursue 
postsecondary education or to achieve competitive employment than their 
nondisabled peers.
  These data show that when we fail to provide children with 
disabilities with the special education and related services to which 
they are entitled, we not only deprive them of their right to maximize 
their potential like their nondisabled peers, we also increase the 
likelihood that we, as a nation, will ultimately pay billions of 
dollars in increased dependency costs in the form of welfare payments.
  So when my colleague from Iowa says spending is spending, I beg to 
differ. We can invest this money in the Danny Pipers of this country 
and give them the support and the early education they need so they can 
be self-sufficient, so they can work, so they can live by themselves, 
whatever it might be, or we can institutionalize them.
  If we take the course offered by my colleague from Iowa and say, no, 
we are not going to invest in early childhood education for kids with 
disabilities, then it is going to cost them a lot more money unless we 
are going to say forget it, and we just throw them out in the street 
and let them die. We are not going to do that. We are a caring Nation. 
So let us do it smarter.
  What Senator Dodd and Senator Jeffords are saying is let us invest 
our money a little bit smarter. Let us put it into these kids early on 
in their lives so we can have the Danny Pipers of the world who will be 
out earning their own way. Their lives will be better. Their families' 
lives will be better and, quite frankly, we are going to save the 
taxpayers a ton of money.
  So I compliment Senator Dodd and Senator Jeffords for their 
amendment, and it ought to be passed by those who want to see us 
actually save money.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator 
Wellstone of Minnesota, Senator Carol Moseley-Braun of Illinois, and 
Senator Harkin of Iowa as cosponsors of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, how much time do we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico controls 30 
minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Nunn is on the floor. I yield 5 minutes to 
Senator Nunn.
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico.
  Madam President, as we all know the budget resolution does not cut 
specific programs and it is going to be up to the Department of Defense 
to take a look at the lower line of the budget if it comes out lower 
and make recommendations about any exchanges that have to be made in 
the Armed Services Committee and the Armed Services Committee and the 
Appropriations Committees will determine which programs are cut.
  So make no mistake about it, and whether you are for or against 
Milstar you are not cutting Milstar on the floor here today. You may be 
indicating that is what you think will be done, but the decision on 
that will be made by the two committees and then by the Senate as a 
whole when we bring up the Authorization Committee and the 
Appropriations Committee bill.
  So what we are doing today is simply another cut in defense and 
shifting it to domestic programs. This can go on and on, and this is 
why we should have firewalls. But, of course, we have every right on 
the budget resolution to make these distinctions, and this is the place 
it ought to be settled. Once it is settled here, then it ought to be 
settled for the year. And I would hope that this debate would indicate 
that and I would hope that later on in this debate we will be able to 
address a firewalls amendment so that cuts in defense would come off 
the deficit and not simply be shifted to other programs.
  Madam President, I am absolutely sure that the Senator from 
Connecticut has a worthy program in mind when he shifts these funds. I 
hope we vote against this amendment. I do think that arguments against 
Milstar, even though we really are not cutting Milstar here, it is just 
a notional kind of way of taking money from defense and putting it in 
domestic programs. But the Milstar arguments I have heard have in many 
areas been totally erroneous and basically attack Milstar as it was 3 
years ago and not as it is now.
  The Armed Services Committee had many of the same objections that I 
have heard on the floor to the Milstar program. We felt it was geared 
too much to the cold war. We felt that the Milstar program was geared 
far too much to surviving a nuclear conflict, an all-out nuclear war, 
on a worldwide basis.
  That is the reason our Armed Services Committee zeroed the program 
out in our bill. We zeroed it out and then we got the Department of 
Defense in the conference to agree to very substantial changes in the 
Milstar program.
  So the attack we have heard today has been against the Milstar 
program as it existed about 3 years ago and has almost nothing to do 
with the Milstar program as it is now.
  What was changed? One thing that was changed according to all the 
records and this is indisputable--this is not a question of fact--our 
committee insisted that the special survivability capabilities of all-
out nuclear war be substantially and virtually completely eliminated 
because we did not think that was necessary. We felt we could save 
money. We also insisted that there be significant reduced 
communications capacity to communicate with strategic nuclear forces.
  We greatly insisted there be a great expansion of Milstar's 
capability to provide rapid and secure communications to our tactical 
commanders in the theater.
  In short, Madam President, we asked that this program be made and 
geared much more to a conventional tactical program and much less to a 
nuclear program, and we felt that that was necessary. In total, the 
restructuring trimmed Milstar's total program cost by $13 billion. So 
this program is a substantially different program than it was 3 years 
ago.
  Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute, 20 seconds.
  Mr. NUNN. I thank the Chair.
  I would just like to read very quickly here General Shalikashvili's 
answer to a question about what Milstar is all about. This is a very 
recent dialog in the committee.
  General Shalikashvili says, quoting him:

       The Milstar system will support theater command and 
     control, tactical combat forces, unscheduled service for 
     submarines and special operation forces, and strategic 
     warning and SIOP execution.
       Milstar will satisfy many key requirements critical to 
     successful military operations by a power-projection force:
       Antijam--Milstar communications are virtually immune to 
     jamming; the message goes through, always.
       Covert--Milstar provides low probability of intercept/
     detection, use will not compromise submarine, special 
     operations forces, and other user locations to enemy 
     listening stations.
       Deployability and Mobility--Milstar terminals--

  These are the receiving units that will be in the forward areas.

       Milstar terminals will deploy using tactical airlift and 
     move with front-line forces.
       Coverage and Connectivity--a complete constellation of four 
     satellites will assure worldwide access anywhere (except the 
     polar regions), anytime warfighters need it.
       Interoperability:

  This has been one of our big problems in tactical communications:

       Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines--Milstar will enable 
     immediate communications between the Services.
       Reachback--Milstar will enable communications out of 
     theater without reliance on foreign-based ground relays 
     vulnerable to destruction, sabotage, or host nation politics. 
     * * *
       It will also enable the Army's Mobile Subscriber Equipment 
     system to provide global communications to commanders on the 
     move.

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this 
question and answer be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Question. The first Milstar was recently launched. The plan 
     is to launch a second Milstar with low data rate, to be 
     followed by four more satellites with medium data rate 
     capabilities. General Shalikashvili, can you comment on what 
     an important asset this will be to our forces?
       Answer. Yes, the Milstar system will support theater 
     command and control, tactical combat forces, unscheduled 
     service for submarines and special operations forces, and 
     strategic warning and SIOP execution.
       Milstar will satisfy many key requirements critical to 
     successful military operations by a power-projection force:
       Antijam--Milstar communications are virtually immune to 
     jamming; the message goes through, always.
       Covert--Milstar provides low probability of intercept/
     detection, use will not compromise submarine, special 
     operations forces, and other user locations to enemy 
     listening stations.
       Deployability and Mobility--Milstar terminals will deploy 
     using tactical airlift and move with front-line forces.
       Coveage and Connectivity--a complete constellation of four 
     satellites will assure worldwide access anywhere (except the 
     polar regions), anytime warfighters need it.
       Interoperability: Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines--
     Milstar will enable immediate communications between the 
     Services.
       Reachback--Milstar will enable communications out of 
     theater without reliance on foreign-based ground relays 
     vulnerable to destruction, sabotage, or host nation politics.
       As the terminal population increases and the medium data 
     rate capability is added, Milstar will provide the above 
     capabilities and more data to combat commanders faster. It 
     will also enable the Army's Mobile Subscriber Equipment (MSE) 
     system to provide global communications to commanders on the 
     move.
       In short, Milstar will enable efficient synchronization of 
     combat power and will not be vulnerable to enemy efforts to 
     deny us this capability. No other satellite system in 
     existence can provide the flexibility and assurance of 
     uninterruptable, communications of Milstar.

  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, in short, the Milstar Program is the heart 
of our ability to communicate in the field with tactical units and to 
be able to have those units linked not only with each other but back to 
the field commanders. It is the heart of one of our great advantages in 
terms of America's position in the world now, and that is the ability 
to communicate with modern technology.
  So I would argue against this amendment on two grounds. One is that 
the Milstar Program itself is an important part of our military 
capability; and, second, this is just another way of taking money out 
of defense and putting it in a domestic program. As important as that 
program is--and I am sure, knowing the Senator from Connecticut, that 
it is important--I do not believe we should continue to deplete our 
military forces.
  We are bringing them down very rapidly. We have reduced the military 
forces by one-third in the last 10 years. We have reduced its overall 
purchasing power. We still have danger spots in the world. All we have 
to do is read the daily papers to understand that.
  I thank the Chair and I thank my colleagues. I urge the defeat of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. I yield whatever time my colleague from Tennessee desires.
  Mr. SASSER. I thank the distinguished Senator from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. SASSER. Madam President, this amendment, I think, is a splendid 
bipartisan effort on the part of the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. 
Dodd] and the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] to do something about 
the urgent problem of education in this country today.
  The Dodd-Jeffords amendment will add $30.5 billion to function 500 
for education and it cuts $9.5 billion from function 050, the defense 
function of the budget. The amendment also spends some of the money 
from the Exon-Grassley amendment, but what finer way to do it.
  This amendment shifts Federal dollars from the military side to the 
education side. As we have heard earlier, what it does, it cancels what 
is essentially, in my view, a cold war relic--Milstar. It takes a bite 
out of the enormous Intelligence Committee budget.
  It is an amazing thing to me that, even with the cold war over, the 
intelligence budget is still funded at essentially the same level it 
was before the collapse of the Soviet Union; and this in the face of 
statements made by the leaders of the intelligence community in this 
country that at least 60 percent of their budget went to either gather 
intelligence against the old Soviet Union or to counteract intelligence 
efforts of the old Soviet Union. And even though the old Soviet Union 
is no longer there, according to public accounts, we are still spending 
in the neighborhood of $30 billion for intelligence.
  But the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Vermont 
understand where the real problems are and where the real threats are 
to this country. And the real threat is that we are not allocating 
enough of our investments, we are not investing enough resources in the 
most precious resource we have, and that is the children of this 
country.
  If we invest in education of our children, we are going to reap a 
return on that investment that is very, very significant, indeed. If we 
continue to spend this money on a relic of the cold war, if we continue 
to spend it on intelligence or spies or counterspies or whatever they 
do over there at the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, what are 
we going to get out of that? They can make some economies over there in 
that intelligence budget, and we can do without Milstar, but we cannot 
do without educating our children.
  Let me just remind my friend from Vermont and my friend from 
Connecticut, when this country came out of World War II, we passed 
something called the GI Bill of Rights. That was the largest investment 
to date that this country had ever made in allowing our young people 
and veterans coming out of that war to go to a college or university; 
the greatest commitment of resources we had ever made. And some 
criticized it.
  But what was the result? In many, many families, the overwhelming 
number of them, the first person to get a college education in that 
family, ever, got it through the GI Bill of Rights.
  And what about that investment? When those young men and women 
started coming out of those colleges in the late forties and the early 
fifties, they precipitated the greatest economic expansion this country 
had ever seen, with their expertise in engineering, in physics, in all 
of the sciences and in the social sciences. Our country was infinitely 
better off culturally, socially, economically, and stronger in every 
way because of that investment in education.
  Well, this very splendid bipartisan amendment that we have before us 
today, offered by our friend from Connecticut and our friend from 
Vermont, does essentially the same thing and tracks down the same 
course. And what these Senators are saying is: We need to invest more 
in education. We can afford to invest less in exotic military hardware 
and less in the gumshoe business in this time in which we live now.
  I commend them and congratulate them for working together in a 
bipartisan way to bring this very fine amendment to the floor. I 
suspect if the parents and the teachers of this country could come to 
this Senate today and vote, by an overwhelming margin the parents and 
teachers of this country would vote for the Dodd-Jeffords amendment. I 
thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, how much time remains on each side of this 
issue?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut controls 8 
minutes and 18 seconds; the Senator from New Mexico controls 24 
minutes.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I inquire of the Senator from New Mexico, 
if he is within earshot, as to whether or not they intend to yield back 
the remainder of their time? We can wrap-up here very quickly and then 
move to the next amendment. I do not want to yield back all the time 
and then have 24 minutes be used in opposition to the amendment.
  Madam President, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, first of all I commend the chairman of 
the Budget Committee for a very excellent statement which puts things 
in perspective.
  I would like to make my colleagues aware that investment in 1947 to 
meet the education crisis of that time, was about $30 billion in 
constant dollars today. Back in those days, that was a lot of money and 
a big percentage of the budget. It raised the percentage of Federal 
spending in education from about the percentage we are at now to 10 
percent.
  I think it is important to recognize that, because that was the kind 
of commitment which paid off so much for this Nation in its ability to 
reconstruct, not only this country, but also to assist with the 
educational capacity of the rest of the world. It was a big factor in 
bringing down the Berlin Wall and ending the cold war.
  Second, we are in a crisis, and I will speak more about that later if 
we have time. But let me quote from the 1983 At-Risk Report by the 
Reagan administration.

       If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on 
     America the mediocre educational performance that exists 
     today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

  I cannot overemphasize in my opinion, and the opinion of businessmen 
and educators across the country, that is an accurate description of 
where our educational system is today.
  When I first came to the Senate and was on the Education Committee, a 
group of CEO's, the Business Roundtable, came to me and asked me to 
meet with them. I expected they would talk to me about the problems of 
taxation and the problems of resources and all those sort of things in 
the industrial world. What they asked me, was to do what I could to 
fully fund the Head Start Program. They recognized, as we must 
recognize, that unless we start at that early age--whether it is for 
those with disadvantages or not--we will not end the problems of 
education that threaten this Nation economically and socially.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, if my colleague would like an additional 2 
minutes I will be glad to yield it to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes, I would like to emphasize another aspect.
  My colleague from Connecticut outlined the impact we have had on 
special education and the impact we have had on property taxes that 
relate to it. My town meetings just finished in March of this year. In 
my own school district, only 2 of 10 towns were able to pass the school 
budget. The whole crisis revolved around the increased costs of special 
education.
  Whether it will mean a reduction in property taxes or not, I assure 
my colleagues what we do today will reduce the burden on property taxes 
and at least not make them any more burdensome than they are.
  We used to have balanced programs in our school. Senator Javits, who 
many Members here remember well, established years ago a program for 
the gifted and talented. That was a good program and it balanced things 
out. It said we have gifted and talented young people in this country 
who need to be brought to their fullest performance levels. We 
dedicated resources to that.
  But since the burden has been placed on special education in these 
older communities, and in the States, that money being spent for our 
gifted and talented has shrunk so far that out of the $247 billion we 
spend on the K through 12 programs now, only $9 million of Federal 
funds are provided to the gifted and talented. That has created a 
crisis for us as we look to the future, recognizing that only if we 
bring our talented students forward can we maintain the kind of 
educational capacity that we need to provide the brains to the Nation's 
corporations that will make the country what we want it to be in the 
next century.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DODD. The Senator from New Mexico is here on the floor. I would 
say to my colleague from New Mexico, if he cares to wrap-up and then we 
can move onto the next amendment?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, could we have a minute quorum call? I wanted 
to engage in a conversation.
  Mr. DODD. I do not mind, counting it against the Senator's time, 
because we are almost out of time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Oh, yes. Counting it as my time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, so Senators will know, we are going to 
be through in about 6 minutes. Then Senator Boxer is going to lay down 
her amendment pursuant to the previous request.
  There are not very many Senators in this body that I have more 
respect for and work more closely with on a number of issues than 
Senator Dodd. But, frankly, I think the arguments have been made as to 
why we should not adopt this amendment-- let me just repeat them in my 
own language, as I understand things. I say to my good friend from 
Connecticut, if in fact his amendment was adopted, I regret to tell him 
that there is very little probability that education program that he so 
much is working for, he and Senator Jeffords from Vermont--that part of 
education that has that mandate on it that requires the States and 
localities to put so much resource in it--there is little probability 
that discretionary money, having been put back, will go to those 
accounts.
  I know that is my view. The Senator is very welcome when he stands up 
to say what his view is. But, frankly, I think it is time to play 
square with everybody about moving this discretionary money around as 
if it was meaningful. It may come as a shock for Senators to know, but 
in my quest for information I found since the Budget Act was adopted, 
two times in the history of 20 years have the appropriators adopted the 
functional totals that appear in budget resolutions.
  That is big language. What does it mean? It means the priorities set 
in the budget resolution or amended on the floor and put in the budget 
resolution, are an expression of desire, nothing more. Because only 
twice have the appropriators, when they took the dollars and doled them 
out to the subcommittees, which is their prerogative under current law, 
have they looked at the function ``education,'' which my good friend is 
amending--and if he were to win, there would be a dollar number in that 
function which, if the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from 
Vermont have their way in appropriations--they would say put all this 
new money in this program. The truth of the matter is only twice in 20 
years has that function been transferred right over and funded exactly 
at the levels suggested by the budget resolution.
  So I do not think--as much as the two Senators on the floor espousing 
this speak of the desperate and dire need--I do not think everybody 
need construe it as an amendment that indeed dramatically increases the 
Federal share of aid for special education.
  It will add to the discretionary accounts and be made available for 
the appropriators to spend in discretionary or defense accounts so long 
as they meet the cap.
  The Senators can say nonetheless it is a very important vote; it does 
put back half of the deficit savings of the Exon amendment. That is 
undisputed. So we will save that much less in terms of the next 5 years 
as we apply this budget resolution. Now that will happen because that 
is part of the caps which must be enforced in their totality. So it 
will happen.
  Second, I just want to say, it is fairly easy to take an amendment 
and say I want something that is very important, that everybody is 
going to think is very important, and I want to take some money out of 
defense to do it. I fault nobody for that, other than to say, again, it 
does not always happen that way, even if you vote for it in this 
manner. But I am going to assume that the sponsors are serious about 
that and, therefore, I just say the President of the United States 
happens to be right; he does not think we ought to cut defense anymore. 
He made an eloquent plea for it in his State of the Union Address. In 
fact, I think he said it three different ways, that we had cut defense 
enough, do not cut it anymore.
  My suggestion is that the Senators who want more funding in this 
special education ought to start fighting very quickly for more funds 
in the appropriations process. And they might be surprised. They might 
get more funds even if this amendment is not adopted, because it is 
strictly up to the appropriators as to whether they do it or not.
  I yield the floor and yield back any time I might have.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes 22 seconds.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, let me wrap up here. I ask for the yeas 
and nays on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, let me respond to my colleague from New 
Mexico. With the adoption of the Exon-Grassley amendment, defense is 
going to be adversely affected regardless of whether or not this 
amendment is approved.
  Let me say to my colleague from New Mexico, the Senator from Iowa, 
who chairs the Labor-HHS Appropriations subcommittee and who doles out 
the money for special education, is a cosponsor of this amendment. I 
agree that unless Members decide to back what we are doing in the 
appropriations process, he is right, we are in trouble. I know of no 
other way to further that cause than to establish our priorities 
collectively in the budget process. By doing so we, as a body, may 
speak and say this is important. The fact that the chairman of the 
committee who will make the decision on the final funding issues is a 
cosponsor of the amendment, I think enhances our chances.
  But more important is the substance of what we are talking about: 
Property taxes, the American dream of owning a home. Here we have a tax 
at the local level which is growing in leaps and bounds. The pressure 
on the local communities is staggering. This amendment says that 
additional Federal resources should go to try to reduce the local and 
State commitment that is presently taxing them so much, and have the 
Federal Government live up to its commitments. We are not even close to 
meeting our commitment.
  If we speak with one voice here, if the Senator from New Mexico, my 
good friend, would support me on this amendment--he sits on the 
Appropriations Committee--with his backing and the backing of the 
Senator from Iowa, we might do something for local property taxpayers.
  He is right; we cannot guarantee it. But if my colleagues say this is 
important today, I am willing to bet we will get it done in the 
appropriations process. But if we walk away from it, he is right, we 
will go off and spend the money someplace else and the local property 
taxpayer, once again, will be hit between the teeth. Here is an 
opportunity to provide relief.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment.


      increased funding for special education in budget resolution

  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, we had a vote today to increase special 
education funding, and I voted against it. I was not happy about that. 
Since coming to the Senate 25 years ago, I have been a vigorous 
advocate on behalf of people with disabilities.
  Indeed, in 1975 I voted for the original Education For All 
Handicapped Children Act, which sought for the first time to ensure 
that students with a disability had equal opportunity for an education. 
In that legislation, Congress made a promise to help our Nation's 
schools with the high cost of educating children with disabilities. We 
said we would pick up 40 percent of the extra costs. But our 
followthrough has been dismal. This year we came through with a 
whopping 8 percent. That's right, 8 percent. The net result is that 
today we are shortchanging our Nation's schools by almost $8 billion a 
year.
  Madam President, I would have voted for this measure if the offsets 
were acceptable. I regret that no one approached me or my staff as this 
amendment was being developed, because together we might have arrived 
at some agreement. Next time I hope we can work together.
  Madam President, I also want to make another point. We could have 
fully funded our special education promise a long time ago if we would 
focus on our proper responsibilities. But instead of paying for what is 
due before starting something new, the Senate has gone on an education 
spending spree. Over just the last 9 months, we passed National 
Service, Goals 2000, Safe Schools Act, and School to Work. In total, 
the Senate has voted to authorize over $4 billion in new spending.
  In fact, if we paid for special education as promised, schools would 
have far more money themselves to pay for reforms and new programs they 
need.
  Madam President, it is past time we got our education house in order. 
Next time when we are tempted to vote in favor of some new and maybe 
even worthwhile program, let us remember what our priorities should be. 
And in my view, special education funding should be one of our top 
education priorities.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to oppose the Dodd 
amendment and in support of the Milstar Program.
  I do not oppose increasing Federal funding for special education 
programs. In fact, in the past I have voted in favor of resolutions 
calling on Congress to increase the Federal contribution to educating 
children with disabilities. However, I do not think that this increase 
in funding should come at the expense of the Milstar Program and U.S. 
national security.
  And, Defense Secretary Perry and the Joint Chiefs of Staff also agree 
that Milstar is important to U.S. national security and strongly 
support the program.
  Let me read a quote from Secretary Perry.

        Some people consider Milstar a cold war relic. We have 
     totally, beginning already with the Bush Administration and 
     continuing under this Administration, completely reconfigured 
     that system so that many of the factors which made it so 
     expensive--which is the ability to withstand nuclear blasts 
     and so on--those features no longer exist in Milstar. What 
     does exist in Milstar is the ability to connect our tactical 
     units worldwide with high quality, high resolution, digital 
     data, so they can pass demands back and forth, they can pass 
     targeting data, they can pass intelligence information, and 
     it does it in such a way which is highly resistant to 
     interference, such as jamming.

  So, Milstar is no longer a cold war relic that was designed to meet 
strategic threats, such as a nuclear war. In fact, Milstar will be used 
in many tactical environments. The whole point of producing the 1,200 
remote Milstar terminals is so our troops in the field can communicate 
directly with other forces and commanders anywhere in the world.
  Under a conventional war scenario that the Department of Defense ran 
in the Middle East--a scenario similar to the Persian Gulf war--more 
than 70 percent of all military communications would use Milstar 
satellites. So, this is not a relic of the cold war.
  As the Joint Chiefs of Staff have said, there is a definite military 
requirement for the Milstar Program. In fact, the bottom-up review 
states that ``the military requirement for a jam-resistant advanced EHF 
communications system providing capability equivalent to Milstar II was 
reaffirmed early in the process.''

  But, costs were also considered in the bottom-up review. The report 
goes on to state that ``another important objective was to identify 
options that offered substantial cost savings relative to the current 
Milstar Program.''
  In fact, since the original Milstar Program was established, $20 
billion has been trimmed off the cost of the program--that is almost 
half the costs. This includes reductions as a result of the bottom-up 
review that analyzed four different options for savings.
  Would canceling the Milstar Program save some money? Yes, but at what 
cost to national security. According to Secretary Perry and the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff--who have already reviewed the program and made 
substantial cost reductions--the threat to national security by 
terminating the Milstar Program would be extremely high.
  In addition, cancellation of this program would result in the loss of 
8,000 direct jobs nationwide. More than half of these job losses would 
come from California--a State that has already been adversely affected 
by defense downsizing with the loss of 250,000 defense-related jobs in 
just the last few years.
  I support cutting Government spending and favor efforts to reduce the 
deficit. In fact, the budget resolution, as reported out of committee, 
already cuts an additional $43.2 billion in discretionary spending over 
5 years.
  I also plan to continue supporting funding for special education 
programs. But, I can not support this particular amendment.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in reluctant opposition to this 
amendment. The Dodd amendment seeks to do something very good. I simply 
cannot support the way it does that good.
  The Dodd amendment would transfer $6 billion to special education in 
fiscal year 1995 and $30.5 billion over the next 5 years. I support 
that transfer. It is imperative that children with special needs get an 
appropriate and full education. However, meeting the unique needs of 
all special education students is a costly goal. State and local 
governments--who provide the lion's share of education expenses--are 
stretched thin just providing basic education services. They 
desperately need Federal help to also meet our obligations to special 
needs children.
  I also support transferring money from defense spending to special 
education funding--which the Dodd amendment proposes. We can spend all 
the money in the world on defense, but our Nation will not be strong 
unless our children are strong. And our children will not be strong 
unless they receive education that is appropriate to their special 
needs.
  What I do not support in the Dodd amendment--and what will cause me 
to vote against it--is that it cuts in half the so-called Exon-Grassley 
discretionary spending decrease. As you all know, in the Budget 
Committee, an amendment was agreed to that cut an extra $26 billion 
over 5 years. These new spending cuts are substantially more than 
recommended by the President and substantially more than a freeze would 
require. Last year, we appropriated $550 billion in nonentitlement 
funds. If this resolution passes, we will appropriate $540 billion--and 
stick at that level for the next 5 years.
  I support these new cuts. They are enforceable. They are reasonable. 
And they respond to the desire of the American people to see 
congressional spending go down. I cannot support an amendment that goes 
back on these cuts.
  And I must say, I do not believe that going back on these cuts is 
necessary. We could, as Senator Dodd suggests, cut Milstar. We could 
cut intelligence funding. We could cut other military programs and put 
the money into special education. We do not need to go back on our 
commitment to scale back total appropriated spending in order to fund 
the very important priorities supported by this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the pending 
amendment, No. 1561, is set aside until 2:15 p.m. and the Senator from 
California [Mrs. Boxer] is recognized to offer an amendment. There will 
be 20 minutes equally divided for debate on the Boxer amendment. The 
Senator from California.


                           Amendment No. 1562

         (Purpose: To increase funding for children's programs)

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am indeed honored to offer this 
amendment. I send it to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for herself, Mr. 
     Leahy, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Dorgan, and Ms. Moseley-Braun, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1562.

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 17, line 22, increase the amount by $180,000,000.
       On page 17, line 23, increase the amount by $180,000,000.
       On page 24, line 17, increase the amount by $320,000,000.
       On page 24, line 18, increase the amount by $48,000,000.
       On page 25, line 1, increase the amount by $171,000,000.
       On page 25, line 9, increase the amount by $99,000,000.
       On page 25, line 17, increase the amount by $2,000,000.
       On page 26, line 8, increase the amount by $400,000,000.
       On page 26, line 9, increase the amount by $180,000,000.
       On page 26, line 16, increase the amount by $178,000,000.
       On page 26, line 23, increase the amount by $42,000,000.
       On page 30, line 20, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 30, line 21, increase the amount by $91,000,000.
       On page 31, line 3, increase the amount by $9,000,000.
       On page 41, line 11, decrease the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 41, line 12, decrease the amount by $499,000,000.
       On page 41, line 19, decrease the amount by $358,000,000.
       On page 42, line 1, decrease the amount by $141,000,000.
       On page 42, line 8, decrease the amount by $2,000,000.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. BOXER. I understand under the unanimous-consent agreement that I 
have 10 minutes; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. May I proceed?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California may proceed.
  Mrs. BOXER. At this time, I ask for the yeas and nays on my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, the amendment that I have sent to the 
desk is a pay-as-you-go amendment. Under my amendment, we cut $1 
billion from nonessential travel across the Federal Government. We then 
take those savings and use them for five crucial programs for children.
  These children's programs work. I know that you know that from your 
experience in Illinois, Madam President, and I certainly know that from 
my experience in California.
  I ask unanimous consent to add the following cosponsors to my 
amendment: Senator Leahy, Senator Feinstein, Senator Dorgan, and 
Senator Moseley-Braun.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, it is an honor for me to serve on the 
Budget Committee. In the House of Representatives I served on the 
Budget Committee for 6 years. I like the assignment because on the 
Budget Committee, you have a chance to step back and really look at the 
spending priorities for our country. It is the larger picture, and it 
is a time when we can decide what our priorities should be in the long 
run. In other words, it is not the line items we consider, but who we 
are as a Nation, and where we are making our investments, and what is 
important to us.
  People often ask me when I am home in California, and I am sure they 
ask you, Madam President: ``Senator, what is your long-range plan to 
get this country on the right track?'' For example, they will say, 
``What is your long-range plan for fighting crime? We know that you are 
tough on crime, we have seen that, we appreciate that, but that doesn't 
really speak to the future.''
  And then they will say: ``What is your long-range plan for fighting 
the drug problem?''
  I will answer it in this way: I will say in the short term, we have a 
serious problem, we have to get tough, crack down and send no mixed 
messages. But if we are really talking about the future, and we are 
talking about finding solutions for the problems that we have, and 
building a new society, one that is less violent, one that really has 
as its hallmark the inclusion of everyone, we need to honor our 
children. We need to invest in our children. We need to understand how 
important they are to society. We need our children to be healthy 
mentally and physically if they are to have a stake in this country and 
not be alienated from it.
  The amendment that I offer, which is a pay-as-you-go amendment, is a 
step in that direction. We are talking about investing in the following 
five programs: $120 million for Head Start, which will provide Head 
Start slots for approximately 24,000 children, Madam President. You and 
I know Head Start works. We know it works. We know that the children 
who go through Head Start have a much better chance of success than 
those who do not.
  This amendment will add $200 million for childhood immunization. I 
have to say this: It makes no sense to let our infants and children go 
without immunizations because for a small cost up front they will not 
get the measles, they will not get sick, they will not have brain 
damage, and we save a lot more in the long run. This amendment, Madam 
President, that you have so graciously offered to cosponsor is clearly 
an important investment. We will immunize approximately 2,150,000 more 
children than before with the Boxer amendment. We will also add $200 
million to the maternal and child health block grant which provides 
funding to States for health care for children and pregnant women.
  It is crucial in our fight against infant mortality and low 
birthweight babies. We add $200 million to the child care development 
block grant; 44,000 children will get the child care they need so they 
will not be latchkey children; and we add $100 million for the WIC 
program, which provides nutrition to low-income, pregnant women, 
infants, and children. We know it works. We have to have healthy 
babies. If we do not have healthy babies, we are making a terrible 
mistake for the future. My amendment will increase the level of 
participation and provide services to 200,000 pregnant women, infants 
and children.
  Finally, Madam President, we give a $180 million increase to TEFAP, 
The Emergency Food Assistance Program which feeds the hungry and the 
homeless in our communities. Unfortunately, many of the hungry and 
homeless are increasingly children and families.
  Madam President, around here you throw around a billion dollars like 
it does not mean much, but when it comes to programs for children, it 
means a lot.
  We must do this. Yes, it is true that we are cutting back on the 
travel accounts across the Federal Government. But I do not think it is 
so bad if some of our Federal agencies stay put for a while so our 
children can move forward. I think that this amendment will have broad 
bipartisan support. I am certainly hopeful of that. I am proud to offer 
it.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Wofford be added as a cosponsor 
of the Boxer amendment at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, do I have any time remaining in the 10 
minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mrs. BOXER. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. BOXER. Or I would offer it to my chairman if he would like to 
enter into the debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. SASSER. I thank the Senator from California. I simply wish to 
commend her for offering this splendid amendment. I think her 
suggestion that perhaps some of our Federal officials could stay put so 
our children could move ahead is a suggestion well made, indeed.
  These programs which the Boxer amendment would boost have been 
heralded many times on the Senate floor--the Head Start program, the 
Women, Infants and Children Feeding Program, and childhood 
immunizations. The common denominator of these programs is the high 
rate of return they offer for a relatively small investment.
  I congratulate the Senator from California for offering this 
amendment. It just makes sense to vaccinate a child rather than having 
to care for a polio victim. It just makes economic sense. And of 
course, there is much, much more to it than that.
  I share my colleague's enthusiasm for the WIC Program. It is a 
program that is exceedingly cost efficient. It has been proven over the 
years that we can save literally millions of dollars by treating babies 
that might be the result of undernourished mothers or children that are 
undernourished through the WIC Program. I think it is a fine amendment 
that the Senator from California offers, and I commend her for it.
  One in five children in this country now lives in poverty. We have 
made enormous progress over the past 30 or 40 years in dealing with the 
problems of our older citizens; 50 years ago it was our older citizens 
who were living in poverty. Now we have reversed that to some extent 
with Social Security, Medicare, and a whole host of programs for our 
older citizens. But it is our children now who live in poverty. It is 
shocking that 25 percent of the children in this country live in a 
family below the poverty level.
  What the Senator from California seeks to do in her usual 
compassionate and perceptive way is to throw out a longer lifeline to 
these children who are in very dire need. I thank her for offering this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent to add the Senator from New 
Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my chairman. He leads the Budget Committee in a 
way which all America can be proud, and I believe his priorities 
certainly reflect the priorities of the Nation. Invest in our children. 
It is the right thing to do. In the long run it will help to solve our 
problems and save money.
  I understand my time has expired, and I look forward to a bipartisan 
vote on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. SASSER. Madam President, is there no time remaining on the Boxer 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 10 minutes for the opposition.
  Mr. SASSER. But no time for the proponents?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No time remaining for the proponents.
  Mr. SASSER. Madam President, I see no opponents of the amendment 
present.
  Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania has 
arrived. He wishes to speak in support of the Boxer amendment. I ask 
unanimous consent that I be allowed to yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania to speak in support of the 
Boxer amendment and the Dodd-Jeffords amendment, as I understand it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator for the allocation of time and the 
unanimous consent request.
  I do support the Dodd-Jeffords amendment which would add $6 billion 
for education grants. This is an amendment which I had discussed with 
both the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Vermont in terms 
of increasing education funding.
  In my capacity as ranking Republican on the Subcommittee on Labor, 
Health, Human Services, and Education, where I work with Senator 
Harkin, the funding for education is grossly insufficient and the 
allocation for that subcommittee, where we have to make the division 
among items like industrial safety, mine safety, the National 
Institutes of Health, and education programs, is extraordinarily 
difficult. When the budget allocations are finally made and they come 
into the appropriations process, this money will give us some 
substantial additional discretion. I have long believed that the 
allocation for that subcommittee ought to be substantially larger.
  On the amendment offered by the Senator from California, which would 
increase funding in Head Start, child immunization, maternal and child 
health care block grants, WIC, and child care, those again are items 
which are funded out of the subcommittee where I serve as ranking 
Republican, and there is a great shortage of funding in that 
subcommittee.
  One of the items which has been cut very materially by the 
administration is the program for so-called LIHEAP, financial 
assistance for energy for low-income families. And while some of those 
funds have been reinstated by the Budget Committee, I intend to offer 
an amendment later today which would add additional funding for LIHEAP.
  Pennsylvania is a very cold State, and every year there are many of 
my constituents who write, travel, or call about that allocation. There 
are some States which are even colder than Pennsylvania where LIHEAP 
funds are necessary.
  So that an amendment in the budget allocation, or item such as that 
proposed by Senator Dodd, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Boxer, will be 
enormously helpful in meeting urgent needs in the Subcommittee on 
Labor, Health, and Human Services, and Education. And on their face, 
these are excellent amendments. When the Senator from California takes 
a deduction of 20 percent in travel expenses, that kind of an item is 
an attractive line for a budget cut. But I think there can be savings 
on items like travel cuts.
  The matter of allocation is always difficult. But in the face of the 
important programs which are identified here, I think these are 
worthwhile amendments.
  I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. SASSER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on 
the Boxer amendment occur immediately upon the disposition of the Dodd 
amendment. I am advised this has been cleared with the Republican 
leadership. There is no objection to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Correction in Committee Report

  Mr. SASSER. Madam President, I wish to announce that there was an 
error in the committee report regarding the votes on the Lautenberg 
amendment to terminate the space station in order to fund law 
enforcement. In the committee report on page 227, the distinguished 
Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] is incorrectly recorded in the 
affirmative. In reality, the Senator from Mississippi voted against the 
Lautenberg amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the Record show 
that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SASSER. For the information of Senators, let me note that under 
the previous order, the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] is next or 
was next to be recognized to offer an amendment. Under the previous 
order, we will have two back-to-back votes beginning at 2:15. The first 
will be on the amendment of the Senators from Connecticut and Vermont. 
The second will be on the amendment of the distinguished Senator from 
California.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I ask unanimous 
consent that the time be charged equally against both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SASSER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SASSER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from South Dakota be allowed to speak for 3 minutes as in morning 
business and that the time be charged against the resolution equally on 
both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________